Wow, this sounds serious.
... insist on trying to make “Christian” mean spineless. Yes, to be Christian one must love one’s neighbour. The problem is that “love” is never defined correctly.
A definition for love?
While it remains in the realm of “fuzzy, warm inner feeling”, you will never be really talking about love, but simply sentiment, and such “love” is not what the Christian is supposed to practice.
So, the notion of “fuzzy, warm inner feeling” is a completely novel one in the context of this subject area.
Not only is it novel, it's your assessment. Is this the beginning of a Straw Man argument?
Love, correctly defined, means the willing of good towards the other, and the willing of good does not include countenancing what is harmful to the soul of the other.
Who says this is 'correct'?
Specifically in regard to this case ...
Good ... back on track.
if the teacher had not sought to “out” himself, all might have been well, but by proclaiming himself to be homosexual, he was stating that in his view, homosexuality was not immoral, and indicating his willingness to be a source of scandal to the rest of the school population.
Homosexuality is not immoral. That simply is not 'correct'.
Pope Francis made that clear earlier in the year, here. Now he says things about this and other issues that I don't agree with, but on this fundamental point, I think he reflects the current 'correct' thinking particularly this part of the Catechism:2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Fake “Christianity” would ignore it; true Christianity demanded that the scandal be averted.
You haven't mentioned 'free speech' at all in this explanation.
If Folau, breaks his contract and loses his job as a result, because he wants to exercise his free speech, then the same logic should apply to Campbell.
Folau simply can't claim that his acts are based on his religious beliefs. His actions are a measure of his particular take on Christianity, it is not essential to his faith. Even Assemblies of God adherents may choose this course of action or not and still be considered part of that community.
But, breaking a freely signed contract -- essentially a promise -- is immoral. Why isn't that a 'scandal' needing to be called out by 'non fake' Christians?
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »