I'm Not Gay Are You?

[marigold]

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

[Benedictus]

10 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

I agree with this. I think there's lots to be said for simply being, in one manner or another, and that can be powerful. Knowing when to simply listen, keep silent, pray and give space to people is important. Love them, be open. But if people don't ask for help, advice, opinion, or a lecture then it's probably not wise to start doing it. Seems to me that sometimes folk act because it's what they feel they have to do, not necessarily what the person/situation needs. With that sort of approach it seems unlikely it will bring a good dynamic.

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

If you know people who are going hungry or thirsty, or in need of shelter, etc., and you are in a position to give them food or water, etc., but choose not to help them, would you be doing your Christian duty?  Would it be enough to simply "love" them, while doing nothing further to help them?

Obviously, Christ tells us it is our duty to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc.  Love always translates into action, and it is clear that Christ wants us to help our brothers and sisters in need.  Love is more than just warm feelings toward others.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox teaching, but the Church teaches that the good of the soul is greater than the good of the body, and the ultimate good we do for others is to help them get to heaven.  

That's why in addition to the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.), we are also commanded the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which include admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant.

That doesn't mean that we should run around screaming at homosexuals about the wickedness of their behavior, but it does mean that if we are in a position to do so, we should gently and in charity do what we can to teach them the truth and help them turn from sin.  I don't think acting as if we are perfectly fine with their behavior is really true charity in that regard.

[marigold]

18 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

 

7 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you know people who are going hungry or thirsty, or in need of shelter, etc., and you are in a position to give them food or water, etc., but choose not to help them, would you be doing your Christian duty?  Would it be enough to simply "love" them, while doing nothing further to help them?

Obviously, Christ tells us it is our duty to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc.  Love always translates into action, and it is clear that Christ wants us to help our brothers and sisters in need.  Love is more than just warm feelings toward others.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox teaching, but the Church teaches that the good of the soul is greater than the good of the body, and the ultimate good we do for others is to help them get to heaven.  

That's why in addition to the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.), we are also commanded the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which include admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant.

That doesn't mean that we should run around screaming at homosexuals about the wickedness of their behavior, but it does mean that if we are in a position to do so, we should gently and in charity do what we can to teach them the truth and help them turn from sin.  I don't think acting as if we are perfectly fine with their behavior is really true charity in that regard.

Thank you for your thoughts, Socrates. I highlighted a couple of things in my earlier post that might not have been as emphasised as I meant them to be.

I don't know about greater goods or official categorisations of works - that goes over my head a bit, sorry - but if I knew people who were going hungry, etc., and chose not to help them, then I would be failing in my Christian duty. And I agree that admonition and instruction ought to be included in that. But I'm saying that we confuse the latter for love itself. I think your comments about 'simply "love" them' and warm feelings are revealing; - there is this thought that love itself must not be enough, if love is just fuzzy stuff. But when I see how saints love people... To love people as Christ loves us, that's not fuzzy! That doesn't let us get away with anything! It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. I can't explain it well, but this undercurrent of a separation between loving as feelings and instruction as duty - it goes very deep and can be quite sneaky.

[Papist]

It is not either/or, but rather both/and.  Instructing the ignorant and admonish the sinner IS love. For what does one gain from instructing the ignorant or admonishing the sinner? In fact, I believe it takes much courage to do so. That said, one ought not do it with spit and vinegar, but with love and compassion.  I had this exact conversation with my sister some years ago.  She thought the Bishops were being mean towards gays regarding gay marriage and living out homosexuality.  I say the Bishops are the only ones that are acting out of love. For they are concerned about their eternal destiny rather than worldly happiness.

[Benedictus]

It's situation based and wise discernment is important.  We all have our own skills, expertise, limits and boundaries. You don't use the same methods for every task and some people are more disposed or skilled to deal with certain things. We don't all need to do everything, simply our best. We're a big body.

A distorted view of utility and action was used to persecute enclosed monastics. There are different ways of being and acting. They aren't opposed, they complement eachother.

[Ice_nine]

Maybe we can all post our stats on how many gay SSA people we have successfully proselytized and see whose methods are more effective.

[Gabriela]

7 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Maybe we can all post our stats on how many gay SSA people we have successfully proselytized and see whose methods are more effective.

0. Null. The empty set.

But not for want of trying!

(I did once turn a gay man straight. That's not for online discussion, though. )

Edited December 1, 2015 by Gabriela

[marigold]

13 hours ago, Gabriela said:

0. Null. The empty set.

But not for want of trying!

(I did once turn a gay man straight. That's not for online discussion, though. )

Gabriela!

[Gabriela]

7 hours ago, marigold said:

Gabriela!

[Socrates]

On 11/29/2015, 4:41:40, marigold said:

 

Thank you for your thoughts, Socrates. I highlighted a couple of things in my earlier post that might not have been as emphasised as I meant them to be.

I don't know about greater goods or official categorisations of works - that goes over my head a bit, sorry - but if I knew people who were going hungry, etc., and chose not to help them, then I would be failing in my Christian duty. And I agree that admonition and instruction ought to be included in that. But I'm saying that we confuse the latter for love itself. I think your comments about 'simply "love" them' and warm feelings are revealing; - there is this thought that love itself must not be enough, if love is just fuzzy stuff. But when I see how saints love people... To love people as Christ loves us, that's not fuzzy! That doesn't let us get away with anything! It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. I can't explain it well, but this undercurrent of a separation between loving as feelings and instruction as duty - it goes very deep and can be quite sneaky.

Can't disagree with anything you've said there.  If you're just making the point that, as St. Paul says, without love you're but a noisy gong or clanging symbol, then I agree.

My issue was with the statement "I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything."  I believe it's our Christian duty to help our brothers and sisters get to heaven - or so I was taught.  But, of course, if we truly love others as Christ wants, that will follow.  I disagree with those who say we must never teach truth to others on certain "controversial" topics because it's "not loving," but that doesn't appear to be what you're saying here.

This is a bit like the whole "Faith and Works" issue.  ("Faith without works is dead.")

On 11/24/2015, 4:57:33, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

Sorry K of C (and MLF), but it's just not that black and white. I know you want it to be, but it's just not. I'd say that I'll see what you think about this 30-40 years from now, but I won't be around on earth anymore. We can talk about it in heaven.

My ex-husband came out as gay at 40. I know he really didn't want to be gay. But, he also realized he needed to act on his homosexual feelings, and neither of us could live in a marriage that didn't at least TRY to be monogamous.

Not sure how to say this without sounding like an insensitive jerk, but strictly speaking, nobody actually needs to act on feelings towards immoral behavior of any kind.

Engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong, just as it is wrong for a man to leave his wife or commit adultery because he feels a need to have sex with other women.

This isn't to say that doing the right, moral thing isn't sometimes extremely hard.  Often, it is only possible through God's grace.

[marigold]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

Can't disagree with anything you've said there.  If you're just making the point that, as St. Paul says, without love you're but a noisy gong or clanging symbol, then I agree.

My issue was with the statement "I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything."  I believe it's our Christian duty to help our brothers and sisters get to heaven - or so I was taught.  But, of course, if we truly love others as Christ wants, that will follow.  I disagree with those who say we must never teach truth to others on certain "controversial" topics because it's "not loving," but that doesn't appear to be what you're saying here.

This is a bit like the whole "Faith and Works" issue.  ("Faith without works is dead.")

My bad, the emphasis I had intended clearly didn't come across I should learn how to write properly instead of relying on accentuation! I think we are basically agreed at this point. Love first, but love always includes action. Right?