Papist Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310495658' post='2266417'] Nah, but I'd expect a more conciliatory and loving stance than the Ayatollah! [/quote] I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1310495853' post='2266421'] I see. [/quote] Twas a joke. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310495976' post='2266422'] Twas a joke. Sorry. [/quote] Accepted. That's hard to do, eh? Joke here that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1310496388' post='2266430'] Accepted. That's hard to do, eh? Joke here that is. [/quote] Yeah. Unless, of course, the joke features a slight towards some left-wing person or belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310496498' post='2266432'] Yeah. Unless, of course, the joke features a slight towards some left-wing person or belief. [/quote] That's not funny.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sad2.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1310496664' post='2266434'] That's not funny.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sad2.gif[/img] [/quote] Good. Because I wasn't particularly joking with that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310496773' post='2266437'] Good. Because I wasn't particularly joking with that one [/quote] I know.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappie Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 There is a failure of ethical imagination here, an inability to utilise two mental muscles at the same time: the muscle of strong conviction and the muscle of compassion for all. Jesus was the master of this ethical exploit. Open the Gospel of Luke at chapter 13 and you’ll hear him condemning certain behaviour and warning of coming judgment. Continue through to chapter 15 and you’ll find him wining and dining with ‘sinners’—those you might have thought were first in line for judgment—and illustrating the point with a parable about a father’s love for his prodigal son. Keep reading to the end of the story and the point is made with disturbing clarity: so seriously did Jesus take sin that he thought he had to die for it; so seriously did he love sinners, a category in which he placed us all, that he thought he had to die for them. He was able to be morally exacting and deeply compassionate toward the same people at the same time—though it is a sad and undeniable fact that many in the church since have had difficulty emulating the feat. But secular society sometimes shares a certain reasoning with narrow-minded religion. The logic says: we are able to love only those whose lives we endorse. This can take you in two directions. The religious version reduces the number of people it loves, to match the lifestyles of which it approves. The secular version increases the number of lifestyles it endorses, and derides those who don’t do the same. In both cases the assumption is the same: we are able to love only those whose lives we agree with. But there are weaknesses in both incarnations of the logic. The weakness of the religious version is its inability to love beyond the borders of its moral convictions; hence the hateful speech, and sometimes violence, of old-time religion against gay people. The weakness of the secular version is an aversion to speaking about ‘morality’ in the first place, especially in the area of sex. But there is a third way, based on a different logic. We ought to be able to love even those with whom we profoundly disagree. It must be possible for Christians to question the moral status of sexual intimacy outside heterosexual monogamy while demonstrating respect and care for neighbours who are neither heterosexual nor monogamous. True open-mindedness is not merely accepting as true and valid someone else’s viewpoint; it is the more difficult and noble commitment to honouring people whose viewpoints you reject. Thoughts naturally rush to other important matters. Why does the church oppose gay marriage? Why should religious schools and organisations be exempt from certain employment laws? And what possible grounds could there be anyway for the Christian critique of gay sex? These are good questions which must be tackled carefully. My point is more basic. For all the important advances we’ve made in this area in recent years, some of the associated rhetoric has damaged our ethical imagination to the point where agreeing with Christian teaching about sex equals cruelty and hatred. It’s time for a more thoughtful and open conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310496498' post='2266432'] Yeah. Unless, of course, the joke features a slight towards some left-wing person or belief. [/quote] yeah, everyone gets those jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Left-wing persons and beliefs are jokes alright, but I still don't get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310518958' post='2266626'] Left-wing persons and beliefs are jokes alright, but I still don't get them. [/quote] I was gonna make a backhanded compliment to this, but got stalled on the compliment part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310520461' post='2266632'] I was gonna make a backhanded compliment to this, but got stalled on the compliment part. [/quote] Don't quit the day job, kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissyP89 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) [quote="cappie"]It’s time for a more thoughtful and open conversation. [/quote] Bless you, Father. Edited July 13, 2011 by MissyP89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 "For all the important advances we’ve made in this area in recent years, some of the associated rhetoric has damaged our ethical imagination to the point where agreeing with Christian teaching about sex equals cruelty and hatred. It’s time for a more thoughtful and open conversation. " Father Cappie as usual sums it up nicely so I think this is the end of the thread. Repeating the same arguments ad nauseum is pointless. The Church has rules and the task to apply them. Thank you all for your contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts