Seeking Understanding on the Emphasis of Certain Sins in Political and Religious Discourse

[JeffP]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

 

[AlexB23]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

I don't understand the judgemental folks either as a Christian myself, and have been bi for a few years (parents are Christian and accepting of my interests). While I don't support those converting genders, judgement is not my place. For me, as a Catholic, we must respect everyone. God said "love thy neighbor", and treat others with kindness. Some folks twist the Bible verses for their own goals. So yes, bi/gay Christians exist. Me personally, if I were to partner with a guy, I'll remain celibate, as it is safe and healthy that way, and am not into intimate activities. But with a woman as my wife, then maybe eventually (with her consent). For reference, I have always been single for my nearly quarter century of being here on Earth, and intend to be so for a while.

 

[JeffP]

I don't understand the judgmental folks either as a Christian myself, and have been bi for a few years (parents are Christian and accepting of my interests). While I don't support those converting genders, judgement is not my place. For me, as a Catholic, we must respect everyone. God said "love thy neighbor", and treat others with kindness. Some folks twist the Bible verses for their own goals. So yes, bi/gay Christians exist. Me personally, if I were to partner with a guy, I'll remain celibate, as it is safe and healthy that way, and am not into intimate activities. But with a woman as my wife, then maybe eventually (with her consent). For reference, I have always been single for my nearly quarter century of being here on Earth, and intend to be so for a while.

Thank you for your reply. While I may stand corrected, it seems to me that individuals (like yourself) who are open about their sexuality might encounter greater scrutiny or judgment within certain church circles than those who may engage in other behaviors deemed iniquitous, such as dishonesty or infidelity. Presently, issues concerning sexuality and gender appear to be disproportionately highlighted, notably by political figures aiming to attract Christian constituencies.

I would be interested to know if you find that statement to be true in your case.

 

[seeking.IAM]

For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked?

I've long suspected the straight obsession over homosexuality is because it's much easier to focus on the other fellow's sin than our own. Seems to me as an old straight guy, I ought to be thinking more about old straight guy sins.

 

[JeffP]

I've long suspected the straight obsession over homosexuality is because it's much easier to focus on the other fellow's sin than our own. Seems to me as an old straight guy, I ought to be thinking more about old straight guy sins.

Love that. Thank you.

 

[AlexB23]

Thank you for your reply. While I may stand corrected, it seems to me that individuals (like yourself) who are open about their sexuality might encounter greater scrutiny or judgment within certain church circles than those who may engage in other behaviors deemed iniquitous, such as dishonesty or infidelity. Presently, issues concerning sexuality and gender appear to be disproportionately highlighted, notably by political figures aiming to attract Christian constituencies.

I would be interested to know if you find that statement to be true in your case.

The statement is true overall, but I don't open up much about being bi in church. I did go to confession in 2022, and the pastor said it isn't the best to act on being bi, but we all have sins, and Jesus can negate them. Luckily for me, I don't act intimately. If I was in a bit more conservative Southern Baptist church, then I would probably be judged harshly. It depends on the church, and the political views of others.

Also, I am surprised why politicians are trying to bring religion into politics, when the Constitution describes separation of Church & State. Yes, it is good to have Christian values, but purposely taking away the freedom of others by banning gay marriage is wrong. The US is supposedly the "land of the free". Politicians shouldn't get into people's personal lives such as being gay. The only time the government should intervene is if something puts folks into harms way (such as homicide, assault, damage to others or theft). That is where we get sensible laws such as "fasten seatbelts" and "no dumping waste or oil into lakes and streams". But gay people pose no harm, unless a specific gay person is a creep or dress indecently in front of the public, but many straight people are creeps as well. Creeps come in every flavor, and can be men or women, straight or gay or white or black.

 

[HTacianas]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

To answer your question, there are very few groups out the advocating for adultery and dishonesty. No one is marching around Washington carrying signs saying "theft and murder are human rights". The open condemnation of homosexuality among Christians today is to counter its advocacy.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Deleted

 

[JeffP]

To answer your question, there are very few groups out the advocating for adultery and dishonesty. No one is marching around Washington carrying signs saying "theft and murder are human rights". The open condemnation of homosexuality among Christians today is to counter its advocacy.

Thank you for contributing your perspective. Your point about the visible advocacy for certain beliefs, particularly in the context of LGBTQ+ rights, opens up an intriguing discussion. It prompts a reflective "chicken or the egg" question: is the vocal advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights in response to the longstanding marginalization and condemnation experienced by these communities, or does the advocacy itself fuel further resistance and condemnation?

Furthermore, when considering the quieter, perhaps unintentional tolerance of other behaviors like dishonesty or infidelity within congregations, an interesting query arises. Is it possible that an underlying bias, perhaps inadvertently inherited from parents or trusted sources, contributes to the selective vocal opposition to certain behaviors or identities while silently permitting others?

Exploring these conversations with a foundation of love and understanding, as emphasized in many religious teachings, is crucial. How can we ensure that our discussions and disagreements pave the way toward a more inclusive and respectful dialogue that honors both our shared and differing beliefs and experiences?

Your thoughts add a crucial dimension to this multifaceted dialogue and underscore the importance of ongoing, mindful conversation in navigating our collective ethical journey.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

It exists as it does in the U.S. because many evangelical Christians confuse, and at times equivocate, the act of defending the Christian faith itself with the notion of Christian political nationalism and its concern to maintain a Christian hegemony. As if doing the latter of these "saves" the nation.

Fortunately, most of us can see through the equivocation and, like a wise person, simply refrain from following suite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

P.S. and addendum to what I wrote above: I'll be the first one to admit that I have my own shortcomings; I'm also the first one to admit that on the grander scale, it's the shortcomings of those of us who are "straight" which are most problematic and which stand in opposition to adhering to, and sometimes believing in, the truth of the Christian faith.

Being that this has been historically the case among straignt folks in the U.S., even among many straight Christians, it's why that in those moments when I'm tempted to get on a moral high-horse or stand upon a soapbox of vast impeccable ethical poignancy, I tend to hammer down on folks like Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccione rather than those in the LGBT+ community. It was folks like Hefner and Guccione who made their problem my problem. And when that became a problem, I made my problem---and that of so many straight males today---the main problem!

 

[JeffP]

"I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity."

Do you think the ..... either embrace and more so, agree with the LGBTQ+ or be canceled/attacked has anything to do with it?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Your viewpoint sparks a compelling conversation. You mentioned that people might feel like they have to support LGBTQ+ issues or else they get criticized or "cancelled", and that's a pretty important point to discuss. And I'm not saying it isn't true.

It is worth pondering however: is the focus on LGBTQ+ genuinely because it's "being pushed" into societal view, or might it be that certain leaders are subtly (or not so subtly) endorsing a critique of them, thereby revealing concealed biases and strengthening their support? Just because a matter is presented to us, it doesn't necessarily dictate our feelings or response, right? We decide our hangouts, our viewing, and our associations. History has witnessed a myriad of civil rights movements that have been perceived, by some, as intrusive or omnipresent, often reflecting deeper, unexplored biases or resistance to change.

Here’s a brief political thought to consider: could the potent debates and robust standpoints on LGBTQ+ issues sometimes be a calculated move by politicians? The LGBTQ+ community might inadvertently become pawns in a larger political strategy, not necessarily being the sole drivers of this agenda, but being utilized to fortify particular voting bases. After all, if prominent Republicans are railing against LGBTQ+ wouldn't you think that prominent Democrats may find an advantage in very publicly supporting this community? Doesn't it make sense that the more people fight against it the more is will be "shoved in our face"? Perhaps people of this community are actually victims of our pollical system. If so, they wouldn't be the first. Rhetorical question: can you think of any other marginalized communities that were used by politicians to gain support over the years? I can think of probably 7 or 8 off the top.

Regardless, navigating through these intricate discussions with a spirit of openness and respect is crucial. It's commendable that you're participating in this discussion, and through such exchanges, perhaps, we can inch towards a better understanding of one another.

Thank you.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

I deleted my post because I did not want to come off as standoffish or insensitive.
I have friends that are gay and they know that I am a Christian. They do not ask me to agree with their lifestyle and I do not ask them to agree with mine. We just accept each other for who we are.

 

[Soyeong]

I am having a difficult time deciding where I should post this query. I've decided to put it here because I believe that this question of mine is truly about behavior. Thank you for reading this - it took me some time to put this question together. I have no angle here. I am trying to understand and I hope you can help me.

I am a straight, married, man that was brought up in the Episcopal church. However I find myself now slightly agnostic. I am perplexed by a palpable paradox within certain religious and political circles. Specifically, I'm puzzled by the seemingly disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation directed at the LGBTQ+ community, which seems misaligned with the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

This scrutiny seems particularly jarring when comparing the attention and condemnation allotted to different perceived 'sins'. For instance, why is there a pronounced emphasis on opposing homosexuality, a matter that concerns a modest portion of the population, while other notable transgressions, such as adultery and dishonesty, appear to be downplayed or overlooked? The latter of which can be exemplified by the substantial religious support for figures like former President Trump, whose tenure and personal life have been marked by instances that ostensibly conflict with Christian ethics.

As someone who strives to live with integrity and empathy, acknowledging my own shortcomings and practicing grace and patience toward others, I find the apparent selective moral outrage disconcerting. The emphasis on the condemnation of one specific group, despite other arguably non-virtuous behaviors being exhibited prominently in public and political spheres, confounds me.

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

It is not that homosexual sex is worse than adultery, but that there are factors that make it a more of a public issue. For example, someone might commit adultery and nobody would know about it, but if two people are in a homosexual relationship, then it is publicly clear that they are committing unrepentant sin.

Moreover, instead of repeating of their sin, there are people who try to justify themselves by arguing that it is not a sin to have homosexual sex, but there is not the parallel where there are people who try to justify their adultery by arguing that it is not sin. If there many people trying to argue that adultery is not a sin, then that that would receive a lot more attention, and more than that they are taking pride in having homosexual sex, where there is no parallel of things like adultery pride parades. In some people's eyes it is more of a sin to say that homosexual sex is a sin than to commit the sin of having homosexual sex.

In addition, homosexuals are not just people who happen to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender like someone happens to prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream, but it is wrapped up in their identify of who they are as a person, which again there is no parallel with adultery.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't just want to be left alone, but they want to force people accept their decisions, such as forcing pastors, photographers, cake decorators and such to participate in a "gay wedding" even when it is against their religious beliefs. They want to redefine "marriage" as though though a relationship between two people for the purpose of having sex is the same as a relationship between two people for the purpose of raising a family, which is foundational building block of society.

Tolerance is not treating ideas the same, but rather tolerance is treating people the same even when we disagree with their ideas. Some ideas are better than others, so not all ideas are created equal and we should discriminate between them, but far too often people thinks that all ideas should be respected and will mistreat people if they disagree with their ideas, which makes homosexuals some of the most intolerant people out there.

 

[JeffP]

It is not that homosexual sex is worse than adultery, but that there are factors that make it a more of a public issue. For example, someone might commit adultery and nobody would know about it, but if two people are in a homosexual relationship, then it is publicly clear that they are committing unrepentant sin.

Moreover, instead of repeating of their sin, there are people who try to justify themselves by arguing that it is not a sin to have homosexual sex, but there is not the parallel where there are people who try to justify their adultery by arguing that it is not sin. If there many people trying to argue that adultery is not a sin, then that that would receive a lot more attention, and more than that they are taking pride in having homosexual sex, where there is no parallel of things like adultery pride parades. In some people's eyes it is more of a sin to say that homosexual sex is a sin than to commit the sin of having homosexual sex.

In addition, homosexuals are not just people who happen to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender like someone happens to prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream, but it is wrapped up in their identify of who they are as a person, which again there is no parallel with adultery.

Furthermore, homosexuals don't just want to be left alone, but they want to force people accept their decisions, such as forcing pastors, photographers, cake decorators and such to participate in a "gay wedding" even when it is against their religious beliefs. They want to redefine "marriage" as though though a relationship between two people for the purpose of having sex is the same as a relationship between two people for the purpose of raising a family, which is foundational building block of society.

Tolerance is not treating ideas the same, but rather tolerance is treating people the same even when we disagree with their ideas. Some ideas are better than others, so not all ideas are created equal and we should discriminate between them, but far too often people thinks that all ideas should be respected and will mistreat people if they disagree with their ideas, which makes homosexuals some of the most intolerant people out there.

I appreciate your detailed thoughts and perspectives on these matters. Your reasoning is compelling and thought provoking, although you kind of lose me when you start painting everyone with a broad brush. Afterall, I'm a middle-aged, white, male, heterosexual - just like about 99% of all serial killers. Yikes, please don't put me in that group.

It’s intriguing to consider your observation that "homosexuals don't just want to be left alone." It’s imperative to note that a multitude of experiences exists within the LGBTQ+ community, as with any community. While some may seek visibility and advocacy, others desire quiet and unintrusive lives. Just like any other group, there’s a vast spectrum of wants, needs, and approaches within their community.

The point about intolerance also opens up an interesting avenue for discussion. It's noteworthy to ponder upon the parallel that while some individuals may perceive homosexuals as being intolerant, there are those who might perceive white evangelicals, in some instances, as equally intolerant based on public displays of stringent beliefs and actions. Both perspectives are generally derived from the more vocal and visible members of each group and may not accurately represent the entirety of their respective communities.

As we navigate through scenes of cheating, smoking, drinking, and violence in our media, and yet maintain a significant focus on opposing homosexuality often under the banner of protecting children and preserving societal morals, it’s vital to reflect on the implicit messages being relayed. What are we teaching the younger generation about tolerance, empathy, and acceptance when the principal narrative, especially from certain religious and political corners, appears predominantly anti-gay?

Indeed, these discourses invite a wealth of reflection and underline the importance of ensuring our dialogues are informed, inclusive, and cognizant of the rich tapestry of experiences within each community we discuss.

I did not write this question to then shove my rebuttal down anyone's throat. Your response, like I said, is thought provoking for me and I think you for taking the time.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The sins of which you speak are called "abominations." They are abominations because if they take hold in a culture or a nation, they will inevitably lead to the destruction of that nation and the damnation of many. Nature itself will rise up and destroy the generation that indulges itself in the behavior.
Regarding believers and their response, I do not see it differently than against adultery or fornication. If there is a difference, it is because of the gravity of the sin, as explained above. What some call "judgementalism" is actually nothing more than making obvious observations. If I see you rob a store, you are a robber. If you murder, you are a murderer. If you are doing something that you feel is righteous and ok, then why would it offend you if others point it out? You should thank them. Why do you feel condemned in yourself, and what do you care if others reject what you think is correct?
Believers are charged with warning the world about the danger that lies before it. Hell is coming. It is a heartbeat away. So we are like people walking down a road in the foggy darkness. We know the bridge at the bottom of the hill is out, and we know any who travel that way will certainly fall to their death. And so, we warn people. One car goes by and ignores our warnings. They scream at us to stop judging them and leave them alone. They fall to their doom. Another car goes by and throws blasphemes and threats at us. They fall to their doom. A companion with us says, "Stop being so judgemental. Just love them!" A car goes by, and the companion says, "We love you! We apologize for the meanness and cruelty of our friends demanding you turn around!" All who occupy that car also fall to their death. This happens again and again and again.
As far as those who practice such behavior, if you feel there is nothing wrong with what you/they are doing, then what do you care? Why would you be offended if you think what you do is "right in your own eyes?" Just ignore them and go on with your life and behavior.
I do not want to be in heaven one day looking down at people in hell and hearing them screaming why we did not warn them. I wonder if our companion who refused to warn them will feel the same? I suppose that companion will yell down to the people below, "At least we loved you!" Did they?

 

[Runningman]

My genuine question to this community: How is it that such fervent opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals coexists with a willingness to seemingly disregard or excuse other behaviors considered sinful within the same moral framework? This incongruence partly steers my skepticism toward organized religion, and so, I sincerely seek your insight and understanding on this matter.

It would seem that what people believe or do not believe can be leveraged for any purpose whether political, moral, or otherwise. Sometimes the line between these things can become grayed.

 

[Aaron112]

the broader teachings of love, tolerance, and forgiveness I associated with Christianity.

Where specifically if possible, did you get these teachings ? i.e. was there someone in particular who taught you ?

 

[Aaron112]

It would seem that what people believe or do not believe can be leveraged for any purpose whether political, moral, or otherwise. Sometimes the line between these things can become grayed.

The devil and society and the carnal world 'leverages' everything to cause irreperable harm and destruction to souls and to the earth itself.

 

[dlamberth]

When studying Medieval Women Mystics I came across Marguerite Porete. Porete was a French Beguine who lived during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. She wrote something that has dramatically changed what I look for in any spiritual setting. What she wrote is that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church, she wrote, preaches Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church preaches rules, laws and order. On June 1st, 1310 Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church. For myself, that spoke volumes.