The Wussification of America

[The Sir]

I suspect I'll be mocked here for expressing my views about sin and abortion. That doesn't really bother me, but I'd like to make something clear about sin. And who knows, maybe if people can think reasonably about it, interesting discussion will ensue.

 

I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things.

 

The reaction, not surprisingly, was that I was a bigot.

 

So, here's the part where I disagree with a lot of Christians. I don't judge them, I don't think they're awful bigots, I just think they got this one incorrect. Homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. I don't get the focus here. I don't understand why some people in my own faith focus on this one sin to the exclusion of so many others.

 

Homosexuality is a sin. Fornication, which I once took part in to my everlasting shame, is a sin. Anger, which I still take part in and must still confess for, is a sin. We ALL sin in one way or another. A homosexual is no more damned for that than I am for yelling at poor drivers on the highway.

 

As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit.

 

I did that once. In college, I turned my back on God. I was adamantly anti-religious. I don't know if I was an atheist, per se. That would be too generous to my state of mind. I was confused. I was angry at judgmentalism, and instead of finding a denomination that I liked, I took it out on God.

 

I found my way back and was baptized into the Anglican Communion last year. I have confessed my sins and my blasphemy, and I am confident that God has forgiven me. He truly does forgive all sins. The only one that cannot be forgiven is unrepentant blasphemy. If you are a blasphemer, as I was, and you repent, as I did, He casts no aspersions upon you.

 

And this is possible all because He gave His only Son to die on the Cross.

 

So if you go around, and pull a Fred Phelps (yes, Fred's REALLY loony but I wanted a high profile name to make this point), and exclaim with great glee, that the gays are burning in Hell and worse...not only are you committing a sin with your judgments, but you cheapening the sacrifice of God's Son, the focal point of our entire faith, by claiming that there is something that His death could not redeem.

 

We all sin, without exception, and we are all capable of being forgiven. Homosexuality is forgiveable, fornication is forgivable, getting an abortion is forgivable and being an abortionist is forgivable.

 

Hans Frank was a Nazi politician and one of Hitler's cabinet members. Obviously, he was in a position where he had great infuence on the execution of the Holocaust. As such, he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to death. Before he was hanged on 16 Oct 1946, he became a devout Catholic. Now, I don't know if he was sincere; that is between him and God. But if he was, I know he was forgiven and is living in Heaven.

 

Maybe that disturbs some of you. Oh well. It is what it is. I'm just bothered that some Christians infuse the message with unnecessary hate and scare off newcomers who are interested but don't want to believe in something they see as hateful. It's especially personal to me because that's what happened to me once.

 

I just wanted to share my own thoughts on that particular topic. I'm not trying to save or convert anyone. I just want this thing cleared up so that people are able to see the loving message of Christianity and not any other. It's not a hate group.

Edited February 6, 2013 by God Loves The Infantry

[Jake]

I suspect I'll be mocked here for expressing my views about sin and abortion. That doesn't really bother me, but I'd like to make something clear about sin. And who knows, maybe if people can think reasonably about it, interesting discussion will ensue.

 

I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things.

 

The reaction, not surprisingly, was that I was a bigot.

 

It's a delicate question. I have no problem with someone being gay. I'm not religious, so I don't find it to be on any different ground morally than other sexual behavior. If my son was gay, I'd love him. That said, if he was, he'd be born into the world with a big set of challenges ahead of him that others like myself did not have to deal with. In that sense, I might say I don't want my son to be gay. Not because I don't want my son to date men, but because I don't want people to hate him, hurt him, or have his experience as a free person be less free than mine. Same with daughter, of course, just using the same gender to be consistent.

 

I hope he'd play baseball, though!

[StrangeSox]

I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things.

 

I remember the context of the conversation very differently. If you honestly only mean that you wouldn't actively want a gay son, that's different. I wouldn't actively want a gay son any more than I'd want a straight son--I would not care one way or the other. I believe you brought up "shame" and the idea that any 'real red-blooded American' would be devastated. That's quite a bit different from saying that you wouldn't desire or prefer a gay son.

 

[The Sir]

If my son was gay, I'd love him. That said, if he was, he'd be born into the world with a big set of challenges ahead of him that others like myself did not have to deal with.

 

I absolutely agree.

[StrangeSox]

protip: those challenges exist because of bigotry.

[The Sir]

I remember the context of the conversation very differently. If you honestly only mean that you wouldn't actively want a gay son, that's different. I wouldn't actively want a gay son any more than I'd want a straight son--I would not care one way or the other. I believe you brought up "shame" and the idea that any 'real red-blooded American' would be devastated. That's quite a bit different from saying that you wouldn't desire or prefer a gay son.

 

I don't remember the conversation down to exact word choices, but I will be honest about how I feel right now. I want a straight son. I want a straight son because like I said and like Jake said, I don't want there to be so many more challenges for him to face than the rest of us already do. And I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm a traditionalist. I want my son to call me and his mother and tell us that he's met the one, and when they come over it's Jane and not John.

 

I think there are things all of us want our kids to be. I'd like my son to be a clean-cut, politically and culturally conservative Christian who believes in military service and acts on that belief. Would I love him if he weren't all of those things? Of course I would. Even to include being gay. Nothing could break that love.

 

Would you want your son to have the traits of my ideal son? Would you still love him if he did?

 

Either way, there's a lot more in that post that I find more interesting than this part. I hope it gets some attention. And yeah, this is a shameless plug, but that took like 30 minutes to write. Put it to use!

[iamshack]

I suspect I'll be mocked here for expressing my views about sin and abortion. That doesn't really bother me, but I'd like to make something clear about sin. And who knows, maybe if people can think reasonably about it, interesting discussion will ensue.

 

I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things.

 

The reaction, not surprisingly, was that I was a bigot.

 

So, here's the part where I disagree with a lot of Christians. I don't judge them, I don't think they're awful bigots, I just think they got this one incorrect. Homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. I don't get the focus here. I don't understand why some people in my own faith focus on this one sin to the exclusion of so many others.

 

Homosexuality is a sin. Fornication, which I once took part in to my everlasting shame, is a sin. Anger, which I still take part in and must still confess for, is a sin. We ALL sin in one way or another. A homosexual is no more damned for that than I am for yelling at poor drivers on the highway.

 

As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit.

 

I did that once. In college, I turned my back on God. I was adamantly anti-religious. I don't know if I was an atheist, per se. That would be too generous to my state of mind. I was confused. I was angry at judgmentalism, and instead of finding a denomination that I liked, I took it out on God.

 

I found my way back and was baptized into the Anglican Communion last year. I have confessed my sins and my blasphemy, and I am confident that God has forgiven me. He truly does forgive all sins. The only one that cannot be forgiven is unrepentant blasphemy. If you are a blasphemer, as I was, and you repent, as I did, He casts no aspersions upon you.

 

And this is possible all because He gave His only Son to die on the Cross.

 

So if you go around, and pull a Fred Phelps (yes, Fred's REALLY loony but I wanted a high profile name to make this point), and exclaim with great glee, that the gays are burning in Hell and worse...not only are you committing a sin with your judgments, but you cheapening the sacrifice of God's Son, the focal point of our entire faith, by claiming that there is something that His death could not redeem.

 

We all sin, without exception, and we are all capable of being forgiven. Homosexuality is forgiveable, fornication is forgivable, getting an abortion is forgivable and being an abortionist is forgivable.

 

Hans Frank was a Nazi politician and one of Hitler's cabinet members. Obviously, he was in a position where he had great infuence on the execution of the Holocaust. As such, he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to death. Before he was hanged on 16 Oct 1946, he became a devout Catholic. Now, I don't know if he was sincere; that is between him and God. But if he was, I know he was forgiven and is living in Heaven.

 

Maybe that disturbs some of you. Oh well. It is what it is. I'm just bothered that some Christians infuse the message with unnecessary hate and scare off newcomers who are interested but don't want to believe in something they see as hateful. It's especially personal to me because that's what happened to me once.

 

I just wanted to share my own thoughts on that particular topic. I'm not trying to save or convert anyone. I just want this thing cleared up so that people are able to see the loving message of Christianity and not any other. It's not a hate group.

Well this is all a belief system. In a belief system that is entirely based on faith, it's somewhat difficult to establish hard-line rules because none of these things can be traced back to facts...which allows for huge ranges in interpretation of how that belief system should work. What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe, and I don't really understand how you can force that on another person or expect them to agree with you.

[The Sir]

Well this is all a belief system. In a belief system that is entirely based on faith, it's somewhat difficult to establish hard-line rules because none of these things can be traced back to facts...which allows for huge ranges in interpretation of how that belief system should work. What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe, and I don't really understand how you can force that on another person or expect them to agree with you.

 

What did I force on you? What did I expect you to agree with? Did I not say that my comments could lead to interesting discussion?

 

What hard line rules am I making? I was making a point about what I believe to be the nature of sin. Did I not repeatedly inject my statement with "I think" and "I believe" and "I was taught"?

 

Geez. No wonder we are where we are today. If a Christian even talks about what he thinks, people claim he's forcing things on them. Kind of hints back at the title of this thread, doesn't it?

[iamshack]

What did I force on you? What did I expect you to agree with? Did I not say that my comments could lead to interesting discussion?

 

What hard line rules am I making? I was making a point about what I believe to be the nature of sin. Did I not repeatedly inject my statement with "I think" and "I believe" and "I was taught"?

 

Geez. No wonder we are where we are today. If a Christian even talks about what he thinks, people claim he's forcing things on them. Kind of hints back at the title of this thread, doesn't it?

Whoa. Why are you so incredibly defensive? It's almost as though you tee-up these debates and then the moment someone chimes in, you come in, guns-blazing, looking for a repository for your anger or something.

 

I wasn't speaking personally. I was speaking, in general.

 

You made several assertions in your post as though they were factual, when they clearly are not. You also mentioned how you don't understand how others within your belief system could think certain things.

 

I was merely pointing out that when you're discussing a belief system in which so much is based on faith, you're going to have many different interpretations and nuances of those beliefs, because there really are no clear-cut answers one can point to.

 

So, here's the part where I disagree with a lot of Christians. I don't judge them, I don't think they're awful bigots, I just think they got this one incorrect. Homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. I don't get the focus here. I don't understand why some people in my own faith focus on this one sin to the exclusion of so many others.

 

Homosexuality is a sin. Fornication, which I once took part in to my everlasting shame, is a sin. Anger, which I still take part in and must still confess for, is a sin. We ALL sin in one way or another. A homosexual is no more damned for that than I am for yelling at poor drivers on the highway.

 

As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit.

 

These are the hard-line rules I mentioned...you know none of these things to be true. These are merely your beliefs.

Edited February 6, 2013 by iamshack

[Jake]

Whoa. Why are you so incredibly defensive? It's almost as though you tee-up these debates and then the moment someone chimes in, you come in, guns-blazing, looking for a repository for your anger or something.

 

I wasn't speaking personally. I was speaking, in general.

 

You made several assertions in your post as though they were factual, when they clearly are not. You also mentioned how you don't understand how others within your belief system could think certain things.

 

I was merely pointing out that when you're discussing a belief system in which so much is based on faith, you're going to have many different interpretations and nuances of those beliefs, because there really are no clear-cut answers one can point to.

 

 

 

These are the hard-line rules I mentioned...you know none of these things to be true. These are merely your beliefs.

 

I haven't read everything here, but that choice of words made me laugh out loud.

[StrangeSox]

Well, there's also plenty of examples we can point to of Christians actually trying to implement those beliefs into laws. Abortion restrictions have been through the roof since 2011. Several states are still trying to pass bills that are antagonistic towards LGBT, and there still isn't marriage equality in most states. There's still significant efforts to restrict sexual education and access to contraceptives.

[The Sir]

Whoa. Why are you so incredibly defensive? It's almost as though you tee-up these debates and then the moment someone chimes in, you come in, guns-blazing, looking for a repository for your anger or something.

 

I wasn't speaking personally. I was speaking, in general.

 

You made several assertions in your post as though they were factual, when they clearly are not. You also mentioned how you don't understand how others within your belief system could think certain things.

 

I was merely pointing out that when you're discussing a belief system in which so much is based on faith, you're going to have many different interpretations and nuances of those beliefs, because there really are no clear-cut answers one can point to.

 

 

 

These are the hard-line rules I mentioned...you know none of these things to be true. These are merely your beliefs.

 

To me, God is fact. It's why the "War on Christianity" isn't a big concern for me; the "warriors" can't change the truth. You want to disagree with that, fine. But to me, sin is as I described it. I didn't feel the need to quantify that statement with "I believe...". Sorry.

 

Why were you speaking generally? I'm not trying to take credit for it, but is that a viewpoint you've honestly heard before? From all the Christians I've ever talked to, I've never heard that particular point. Shouldn't it then be something that sets me apart? I'm not saying its better, but from what I've experienced, it is different. Why would your first reaction be to clump me in with the theocratic types (which I am not at all) and wonder why I want to force things on people and make them agree with me? I didn't mean to be defensive, but I don't get why you'd respond to what I think is a somewhat unique perspective with a general statement on the actions of Christians.

 

I don't agree with what you said about hard rules. Until we meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, there are no consequences to my "rules". I offer no punishments. Yes, I do believe God offers consequences. But those are not to be delivered by me. So all I offer is postulation, based on the Bible, on what I think Christ meant.

[iamshack]

To me, God is fact. It's why the "War on Christianity" isn't a big concern for me; the "warriors" can't change the truth. You want to disagree with that, fine. But to me, sin is as I described it. I didn't feel the need to quantify that statement with "I believe...". Sorry.

 

Why were you speaking generally? I'm not trying to take credit for it, but is that a viewpoint you've honestly heard before? From all the Christians I've ever talked to, I've never heard that particular point. Shouldn't it then be something that sets me apart? I'm not saying its better, but from what I've experienced, it is different. Why would your first reaction be to clump me in with the theocratic types (which I am not at all) and wonder why I want to force things on people and make them agree with me? I didn't mean to be defensive, but I don't get why you'd respond to what I think is a somewhat unique perspective with a general statement on the actions of Christians.

 

I don't agree with what you said about hard rules. Until we meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, there are no consequences to my "rules". I offer no punishments. Yes, I do believe God offers consequences. But those are not to be delivered by me. So all I offer is postulation, based on the Bible, on what I think Christ meant.

I was just commenting on your sense of perspective.

 

I always find it ironic when someone who follows a religious belief system fervently questions another person's beliefs within that or another belief system.

Edited February 6, 2013 by iamshack

[The Sir]

Well, there's also plenty of examples we can point to of Christians actually trying to implement those beliefs into laws. Abortion restrictions have been through the roof since 2011. Several states are still trying to pass bills that are antagonistic towards LGBT, and there still isn't marriage equality in most states. There's still significant efforts to restrict sexual education and access to contraceptives.

 

There's a lot of examples we can point to of Democrats trying to implement socialist beliefs into laws, too. Are you gonna be OK with me judging you to be a socialist simply because you identify as a Democrat? That'd be a simplistic generalization that you would abhor, wouldn't it?

 

If I say something on the nature of Christianity and sin as I interpret it that is generally different and unique, what is the point of coming along with your biased beliefs on certain Christians? You could discuss my points on a level deeper than "well that's what you believe..." or you could simply talk about what so many other Christians do. But that doesn't really move the discussion along, does it?

 

I have a question for you. If a gay couple went down to the local Catholic parish to be wed, do you think it should be against the law for those Catholics to refuse to marry them?

 

Because, with the exception of protecting religious institutions which do not wish to honor it, I couldn't care less about gay marriage. Justice of the peace? Go for it. Liberal churches? Go for it. But think the Catholic cathedral in town is pretty? Sorry, their religious freedom takes precedence.

[The Sir]

I always find it ironic when someone who follows a religious belief system fervently questions another person's beliefs within that or another belief system.

 

So all Christians are supposed to agree on everything?

 

The underlying message there, which is that since I believe in "made up" things I can't dissent with other "made up" things, is not a very tolerant one.

[iamshack]

So all Christians are supposed to agree on everything?

 

The underlying message there, which is that since I believe in "made up" things I can't dissent with other "made up" things, is not a very tolerant one.

Absolutely not. But the basis upon which you challenge the beliefs of others cannot really be based on belief itself...because that basis cannot be supported by fact.

 

One cannot say "I believe that such and such is the only unforgivable sin, and you should believe this too, because I believe it to be true."

 

If you want to talk about tolerance...it seems to me that one whose beliefs are based upon faith should have more tolerance than those who base their beliefs on science.

[StrangeSox]

I don't identify as a Democrat but would as a socialist.

 

You've expressed a "live and let live" attitude wrt to your beliefs in the past and I respect that. But I think you're an outlier in that regard, so when most people start expressing strong conservative religious beliefs, it's not a bad assumption to believe that they'd like to see those beliefs put into law.

 

No, I don't think a church should be forced to hold the ceremonies if they don't want to.

Edited February 6, 2013 by StrangeSox

[The Sir]

Absolutely not. But the basis upon which you challenge the beliefs of others cannot really be based on belief itself...because that basis cannot be supported by fact.

 

One cannot say "I believe that such and such is the only unforgivable sin, and you should believe this too, because I believe it to be true."

 

If you want to talk about tolerance...it seems to me that one whose beliefs are based upon faith should have more tolerance than those who base their beliefs on science.

 

Why can't I say that? The Bible is fact when it comes to Christian philosophy. I can discuss what I've read in it and what I've read and heard from theology experts about it. And who knows? Maybe I'm getting it wrong. Maybe someone would point to a passage I missed and tell me that homosexuality is indeed much worse than other sins and that Hans Frank is burning in Hell whether he sincerely converted or not. So I'll talk about what I believe.

 

If you don't have any interest or faith in Christianity, then it's probably moot to discuss it with you. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. I can absolutely state what I believe and explain why I think I'm right. You don't have to agree nor would I force you to agree. And since these are my beliefs, I wouldn't force them on anyone through government either. God gave men free will; why should men take it from other men on His behalf?

 

 

[Steve9347]

As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit.

I would think someone wouldn't consider themselves a Catholic if they didn't believe in God, so I guess that one's easy to achieve for you.

[Steve9347]

I don't remember the conversation down to exact word choices, but I will be honest about how I feel right now. I want a straight son. I want a straight son because like I said and like Jake said, I don't want there to be so many more challenges for him to face than the rest of us already do. And I'll make no attempt to hide the fact that I'm a traditionalist. I want my son to call me and his mother and tell us that he's met the one, and when they come over it's Jane and not John.

 

I think there are things all of us want our kids to be. I'd like my son to be a clean-cut, politically and culturally conservative Christian who believes in military service and acts on that belief. Would I love him if he weren't all of those things? Of course I would. Even to include being gay. Nothing could break that love.

 

Would you want your son to have the traits of my ideal son? Would you still love him if he did?

 

Either way, there's a lot more in that post that I find more interesting than this part. I hope it gets some attention. And yeah, this is a shameless plug, but that took like 30 minutes to write. Put it to use!

I want my future kid to not be mentally or physically handicapped, 10 fingers and toes will be nice, too. Anything else is a cherry on top.

[iamshack]

Why can't I say that? The Bible is fact when it comes to Christian philosophy. I can discuss what I've read in it and what I've read and heard from theology experts about it. And who knows? Maybe I'm getting it wrong. Maybe someone would point to a passage I missed and tell me that homosexuality is indeed much worse than other sins and that Hans Frank is burning in Hell whether he sincerely converted or not. So I'll talk about what I believe.

 

If you don't have any interest or faith in Christianity, then it's probably moot to discuss it with you. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. I can absolutely state what I believe and explain why I think I'm right. You don't have to agree nor would I force you to agree. And since these are my beliefs, I wouldn't force them on anyone through government either. God gave men free will; why should men take it from other men on His behalf?

You can do whatever the heck you want...I don't particularly care, to be honest with you.

 

Just noting that it seems ironic that someone would criticize someone else of their faith-based beliefs while simultaneously being so defensive when their own faith-based beliefs are questioned.

 

 

[Steve9347]

You can do whatever the heck you want...I don't particularly care, to be honest with you.

 

Just noting that it seems ironic that someone would criticize someone else of their faith-based beliefs while simultaneously being so defensive when their own faith-based beliefs are questioned.

This is why religion historically causes so much pain and conflict across the world. Everyone believes their own system of made-up spirits and ghouls and hands coming down from the clouds is the correct one, even though these ideas were all generated in an era where there were no explanations for a vast majority phenomena later realized by science.

 

If a belief system makes people feel good about themselves, fantastic, or if it makes them (as one-time poster greg pointed out) not want to go out and kill a bunch of people, all the better for us.

 

Personally, I have no use for religion, but more power to anyone out there who loves that stuff as long as they don't start wars because of it.

[The Sir]

I don't identify as a Democrat but would as a socialist.

 

You've expressed a "live and let live" attitude wrt to your beliefs in the past and I respect that. But I think you're an outlier in that regard, so when most people start expressing strong conservative religious beliefs, it's not a bad assumption to believe that they'd like to see those beliefs put into law.

 

But you see my point, right?

 

If I am going to have a serious conversation with you, I should know things about you, like the fact that you don't identify with the Democratic Party but you do with socialism. Instead of just saying, well, he's obviously liberal so he must be cool with abortion and love Obama. That's not necessarily true. And yes, I do assume things sometimes and I should work on it. But sometimes I make guesses about a person's beliefs to further a conversation (ex. the abortion vs high cap mags things) and learn more about that particular person.

 

The same goes for me. What is the point of lamenting tyrannical Christians to me? I'm not one. So if you do that you're talking about a bunch of people I'm not affiliated with. Learn what I believe, and it should be easy because I state it, and we can have a serious conversation about the matters actually at hand.

 

Anyways, I'm going to bed. Good night.

[The Sir]

This is why religion historically causes so much pain and conflict across the world. Everyone believes their own system of made-up spirits and ghouls and hands coming down from the clouds is the correct one, even though these ideas were all generated in an era where there were no explanations for a vast majority phenomena later realized by science.

 

If a belief system makes people feel good about themselves, fantastic, or if it makes them (as one-time poster greg pointed out) not want to go out and kill a bunch of people, all the better for us.

 

Personally, I have no use for religion, but more power to anyone out there who loves that stuff as long as they don't start wars because of it.

 

You could stand to read my last post.

[Steve9347]

You could stand to read my last post.

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to someone else. I don't find your posts on religion any more based in reality than a Harry Potter book (which I also avoid). It's all good, though, you're welcome to your opinions.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Steve9347