Creeping Liberalism

[Jesus4Madrid]

The distinction that I don't see being made is that between unwittingly holding un-Orthodox ideas, and actually putting oneself out of communion with the Church.

It is definitely un-Orthodox to support the legality of any actual immorality. Note that divorce itself is not immoral; it is a result of immorality, and can only be justified to protect an innocent party. But a person can hold ideas (like supporting the legality of immorality) and not be putting oneself out of communion; we all, no doubt, have kooky ideas on some point. I think God has mercy on our ignorance. But when we are brought to face Orthodox truth and continue to deny it in favor of what we personally think best, I think we do risk crossing that line at some point, of committing the ancestral sin of choosing what the self-prefers over what God wants us to become.

Where you go wrong is in trying to defend the support of the legalization of homosexual relations. You say that such support "implies neither"; this is manifestly false; the legalization of an activity certainly and absolutely implies its social acceptability. There can be no refuting of this, only unsupported denials. The upshot is that what you support politically winds up biting us all in the butt, an unwitting advancement of the modern evil and hastening of the day of our persecution.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

It is definitely un-Orthodox to support the legality of any actual immorality.

Hold on. I definitely think it is un-Orthodox to justify or downplay immoral behaviour such as homosexual marriage. But how can you say that supporting the legality of all immoral behaviour is un Orthodox?

Two questions:
1. Where do you see this in Holy Scripture and the Fathers? I have not read the Holy Fathers urging Christians to use the apparatus of the State to stamp out all forms of immorality. They write about our personal struggles against immorality (see for example the Epistle of Barnabas) and the Church's struggles (eg St John Chrysostom). But since the Early Church mostly considered the State to be evil--that is why Christians didn't serve in the military--they do not see the State as a means to enforce God's law. So where do you see this?

2. How do you put your assertion in practice? Please explain if and how you would make the following immoral actions illegal and what the punishment would be:
- fornication
- lust
- adultery
- greed
- pride
- boasting
- gossip

Thanks ahead of time.

 

[gzt]

I've always found your obsession with comparing this issue to the Nazi issue a little troubling.

 

[rusmeister]

I think you're hopelessly confused. We'll have to disagree on this.

This doesn't even come close to disagreeing; it does nothing to refute what I said. This is mere denial. Denial is cheap. Showing that it is actually moral to support (including legal support, which IS public tolerance of a thing) immorality is your hopeless object.

I don't know if AC91 is Orthodox; for me it makes all the difference; I am not interested in argument with non-Orthodox here; there are too many unshared assumptions, and here I assume Orthodox doctrine and truth. I will say, though, that trying to make a distinction between "legal" marriage and "religious" marriage is simply an inability to recognize that such distinctions are imaginary and irrelevant to the question of what is moral, which must be the fundamental concern of the Orthodox Christian. In short, it is nonsense to try to pretend that you can support the legality of a thing that you actually have a mandate to condemn as sin.

If we "share a common ancestor" with chimps, if evolution is true, then it is false that by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and that death passed upon all of us as a result of that, for the idea of this "evolution" depends wholly on constant death, death before there was ever any such thing as man. You are free to believe in evolution. You are free to believe in astrology. You are free to believe in past lives. But they are not consistent with Orthodox doctrine, and it is telling that people who accept evolution tend to be the same people that support the legality of immorality, and some of them to even cease to see the "lifestyles" as immoral. I'm not saying that anyone here does that last, but it is easy to see the slippery slope leading that way, and it ain't no fallacy.

 

[rusmeister]

I've always found your obsession with comparing this issue to the Nazi issue a little troubling.

The thing is, the Nazis are a real thing, a real event in human history, proving that people actually can fall to unimaginable depths of inhumanity as a society. The question is whether it is possible for our society to go down a similar road, and it is obvious that it can. Therefore, pointing to the Nazis can be relevant.

Gurney's point was that your position can literally be taken and applied in a society that was in a moral tailspin, as ours actually is, and shown to be devastating, to be inconsistent with who we are called to be in the world. For it IS harder to see this on the backdrop of our own reality, yet is painfully clear when put in 1940 Germany, and we KNOW the consequences of those attitudes in that society, and so can see how they can produce similar results in our own, making us culpable in what happens, by approving, in the name of freedom, libertarianism, liberalism, or whatever.

 

[gzt]

There are dozens of ways in which the type of position I mention - not advocate here - is different from one that stands aside as the Nazis rise to power. This is immediately clear when one notes that the Nazi option leads to the murder of millions while the option of first making sex outside of marriage legal and second extending legal rights to homosexuals to marry leads to... what, exactly? Not gas chambers.

 

[rusmeister]

Hold on. I definitely think it is un-Orthodox to justify or downplay immoral behaviour such as homosexual marriage. But how can you say that supporting the legality of all immoral behaviour is un Orthodox?

Two questions:
1. Where do you see this in Holy Scripture and the Fathers? I have not read the Holy Fathers urging Christians to use the apparatus of the State to stamp out all forms of immorality. They write about our personal struggles against immorality (see for example the Epistle of Barnabas) and the Church's struggles (eg St John Chrysostom). But since the Early Church mostly considered the State to be evil--that is why Christians didn't serve in the military--they do not see the State as a means to enforce God's law. So where do you see this?

2. How do you put your assertion in practice? Please explain if and how you would make the following immoral actions illegal and what the punishment would be:
- fornication
- lust
- adultery
- greed
- pride
- boasting
- gossip

Thanks ahead of time.

Hi there!
I can easily say it. A child can understand it, if we put it in children's terms.
But you seem to think I am trying to PASS laws against immorality, when what I am saying is that we ought not support the legalization of a thing hitherto recognized as immoral. I thinking passing laws against immorality to be a last-ditch effort to slow down the spread of immorality, one generally doomed to crumble. Such efforts may briefly delay the spread of evil, but cannot stand unless the hearts of a people, public opinion, turns back to God and away from the immorality.

All political involvement of any sort is the attempt of a person to influence the character of his society. Either voting has real power or it doesn't; either a Christian should engage in political activity because he loves his neighbor and desires the best for him, or refrain from all political activity out of a conviction that we should focus exclusively on changing ourselves, which is where I see the thought of your last post leading.

So I think you've misread me.

 

[rusmeister]

There are dozens of ways in which the type of position I mention - not advocate here - is different from one that stands aside as the Nazis rise to power. This is immediately clear when one notes that the Nazi option leads to the murder of millions while the option of first making sex outside of marriage legal and second extending legal rights to homosexuals to marry leads to... what, exactly? Not gas chambers.

This may be the key. You are asking what it leads to (which is a good thing). I got the answer from "The Superstition of Divorce", in which Chesterton makes crystal clear sense out of what the family is, what holds it together, and what the freedoms attacking it result in. The short answer without the extensive explanatory chain (thus, the book should be read) is social anarchy, and enslavement by Hudge and Gudge, big government and big business. "Without the family we are helpless before the state." So you have to understand that the family is a specific thing, instituted by God, the heart of which is father, mother and child, mirroring the holy Family of Child, Mother and Father, that people can parody but not actually re-form; they can only destroy the society in which they try to do so. And aiding and abetting that, including advocating the legalization of those movements towards social anarchy, makes one culpable.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know you do, g. I find your apathy in areas like this and adoration of scientistism troubling, so I guess we're all troubled together!

I've always found your obsession with comparing this issue to the Nazi issue a little troubling.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It leads not to gas chambers, but a society in deep moral decay....men sodomizing each other in a bedroom while their children they adopted or surrogated in the next room are deluded into thinking these two men in this grotesque embrace are "husbands." The children are poisoned while the men rot their souls. As they walk down the streets their hand-holding is seen along with their "wedding rings" and farce, all for kids to see.

Their disgusting and ungodly bed is an affront to the Lord, a type of anti-icon....a window into hell.

I have been very clear in why I call them Nazis. Their fascist-style tactics, strong arm bullying, propaganda, branding and labeling, and infiltration of all sectors of society is like a disease.

And as Rus points out, seeing as how he was easily able to grasp my simple post, Nazism rose because of apathy and indifferent societal going with the flow, Catholics and Lutherans thinking racism, national socialism, hate, book-burning, and selective persecution could be co-existent with their weak faith.

We are called to resist evil in society and stop the cancer of immorality. And thinking we can have our foot in two worlds simultaneously is the epitome of the luke-warmness and serving two masters the Lord condemns.

There are dozens of ways in which the type of position I mention - not advocate here - is different from one that stands aside as the Nazis rise to power. This is immediately clear when one notes that the Nazi option leads to the murder of millions while the option of first making sex outside of marriage legal and second extending legal rights to homosexuals to marry leads to... what, exactly? Not gas chambers.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

LOL I didn't know you thought gay marriage would lead to gas chambers, talk about demonization of some folks on gzt part.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Absolutely! Gay sex always leads to gas chambers! Lol

LOL I didn't know you thought gay marriage would lead to gas chambers, talk about demonization of some folks on gzt part.

 

[All4Christ]

My personal thoughts on the laws: If there was a law to remove control of marriage from the federal government, I'd be all for it. The federal government is much less likely to prohibit homosexual marriage than the states. Plus, there is too much federal involvement overall in my opinion.

As I said earlier, it gets sticky with supporting marriage laws for members of the same sex, as it - for better or worse - also tends to legitimize marriages outside of a man and wife.

That said, I can't see myself judging the status of a person's Orthodoxy based on whether they support all people having the same legal rights with marriage, assuming they wholeheartedly affirm the immorality of homosexuality. I don't support that personally - not that it really matters - since it is hard for me to say that even a secular / civil marriage between two members of the same sex is a valid relationship under American law.

I don't thinking supporting the legality of homosexual marriage is to the same level as supporting abortion. We need to protect those who cannot protect themselves, which means supporting laws that prohibit abortion. Again, states would be more likely to prohibit this than the federal government. I would have a hard time accepting an Orthodox Christian's decision to support pro-choice laws, as it removes the right for a child to live. At least homosexual marriages primarily affect the couple rather than children. (Yes, I know it impacts society, but at least children aren't killed by it)

That said, I understand both sides. I'm glad I don't decide the status of other people's Orthodoxy, as I am far from qualified to do that. Actions we can judge. Salvation, not so much.

 

[gzt]

I'm the one demonizing? I'm not exactly the person who's comparing people to Nazis.

I'm strongly opposed to scientism. When I'm not wasting time on Orthodox boards, I spend a good amount of time on boards talking about how scientism and the New Atheists are examples of bad philosophy.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm the one demonizing? I'm not exactly the person who's comparing people to Nazis.

I read OrthodoxJay's post as saying the opposite of how you read it. I didn't think he was saying you demonized people.

 

[rusmeister]

My personal thoughts on the laws: If there was a law to remove control of marriage from the federal government, I'd be all for it. The federal government is much less likely to prohibit homosexual marriage than the states. Plus, there is too much federal involvement overall in my opinion.

As I said earlier, it gets sticky with supporting marriage laws for members of the same sex, as it - for better or worse - also tends to legitimize marriages outside of a man and wife.

That said, I can't see myself judging the status of a person's Orthodoxy based on whether they support all people having the same legal rights with marriage, assuming they wholeheartedly affirm the immorality of homosexuality. I don't support that personally - not that it really matters - since it is hard for me to say that even a secular / civil marriage between two members of the same sex is a valid relationship under American law.

I don't thinking supporting the legality of homosexual marriage is to the same level as supporting abortion. We need to protect those who cannot protect themselves, which means supporting laws that prohibit abortion. Again, states would be more likely to prohibit this than the federal government. I would have a hard time accepting an Orthodox Christian's decision to support pro-choice laws, as it removes the right for a child to live. At least homosexual marriages primarily affect the couple rather than children. (Yes, I know it impacts society, but at least children aren't killed by it)

That said, I understand both sides. I'm glad I don't decide the status of other people's Orthodoxy, as I am far from qualified to do that. Actions we can judge. Salvation, not so much.

I think on the whole we agree, especially that last. If I'm saying anything different, it is that we CAN wind up separating ourselves from the Church in fact and practice, and so ought to very much desire to acquire the mind of the Church, and be prepared to let go if any of our prior ideas that we gradually come to find inconsistent with Orthodox teaching.

I think the mind of the Church reveals what marriage really is, the mystery of it that even unbelievers who marry touch a little of. When you understand what this thing is that we call marriage, it becomes impossible to talk about "supporting equal rights" for it. You can't support equal rights of wrongs, of devilish parodies with holy mysteries. You just can't. No one has a right to a wrong, because wrongs aren't right. If you do support that, you hold the modern idea of "equality" higher than the mind of the Church. And in saying that, I'm not judging anyone's salvation. I'm saying that you can depart from Orthodoxy, little bit by little bit, just as you can grow in the Church bit by little bit. And if you're in the Church, and teaching perpendicular or flat-out contrary to the mind of the Church, you are sliding towards or already in heresy. We ought to be at least a little bit afraid of that, and if we love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we ought to be both willing to listen to them and consider our own weaknesses carefully, and speak the truth in love to them.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Comparing Nazis to people who fight for equality when it comes to legal rights and further trying to bring less discrimination towards LGBT (places where it's worse such as Russia and Africa, etc) does not make sense. Has the LGBT movement sinned? Yep but their sin is on a whole different lvl then the monsterous actions of the Nazis. At least the LGBT movement has positive traits especially for gays who face hatred from others.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Hi there!
I can easily say it. A child can understand it, if we put it in children's terms.
But you seem to think I am trying to PASS laws against immorality, when what I am saying is that we ought not support the legalization of a thing hitherto recognized as immoral. I thinking passing laws against immorality to be a last-ditch effort to slow down the spread of immorality, one generally doomed to crumble. Such efforts may briefly delay the spread of evil, but cannot stand unless the hearts of a people, public opinion, turns back to God and away from the immorality.

All political involvement of any sort is the attempt of a person to influence the character of his society. Either voting has real power or it doesn't; either a Christian should engage in political activity because he loves his neighbor and desires the best for him, or refrain from all political activity out of a conviction that we should focus exclusively on changing ourselves, which is where I see the thought of your last post leading.

So I think you've misread me.

Well, now that I understand you, I like what you are saying even less.

Your standard for what is sinful--calling for the legalisation of immoral things that are illegal--makes the sinfulness of the action subject to the current laws. So, following your logic, if I support legalised gay marriage when it isn't, I am sinning. Yet if the next day the Supreme Court legalises gay marriage, then it seems support for legalisation is no longer sinful.

Moreover, your standard is just an appeal to preserve the status quo; you are providing no guidance for us as Orthodox about what sort of just society we should seek. What if the status quo allows actions that we both agree should be illegal such as torturing little children or slavery? Shouldn't we try to pass laws to prohibit certain types of immorality? Wouldn't support of legalised child torture be sinful?

So I don't think your standard gets us too far.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

In fairness I used to support legal gay marriage "rights." Then little by little the homofacists tipped their hand a little too much, and I realized it is completely incompatible with religious freedom.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In fairness I used to support legal gay marriage "rights." Then little by little the homofacists tipped their hand a little too much, and I realized it is completely incompatible with religious freedom.

and it's typically not merely rights that they are fighting for. they don't want to stop with the benefits that the government can give. I had a conversation asking a homosexual friend if they were granted all civil benefits, so there is no legal inequality, if they would be fine with civil unions, and this person said no. many (not all I am sure) will not be satisfied until Christians (and other faiths) are forced to admit the equality.