Morning Karen
"I think you also implied that being a homosexual is not immoral as long as one abstains from sexual activity. I hope I've understood you correctly."
Not exactly, As we have discussed before thought precedes action. Not that thinking about robbing a bank is the same moral equivalent to actually robbing it, BUT....
Lusting in your heart is also considered to be a sin by Christ Himself, so....thinking and doing are inextricably related. The question still remains; How can we determine what is moral behavior if no standard exists to compare it to?
I don't pretend to be any mans judge, that is God's prerogative, but if I see you are heading down a road, when I know the bridge is out, and I fail to at the very least, warn you about it, then I have failed to do something that I "ought" to have done. In other words I have committed a sin of omission. With respect to the issue of homosexual behavior God has clearly said the bridge is out.
It is up to civil authorities to erect signs and make laws that restrict the actions of individuals in society. All laws function in a restrictive sense. There are a few things we could do as a society with respect to the issue of homosexual behavior. But these are not done in a moral vacuum. It makes a world of difference what moral principals you start with, and even more importantly, how did you arrive at them.
One is, we could remove the bridge out ahead signs entirely. After all, we can hardly impose our belief that driving over a cliff is somehow harmful to ones health. Since people will drive over the cliffs anyway, who are we to judge. We should abstain from making moral judgements about this behavior because we have no way of determining morality. But then shouldn't we also remove all other moral restrictions on society? If we have a vote and the voters say kill all the Jew's? Should we? The OSBL crowd had a vote that concluded the same thing about America, were they morally "wrong" for doing so?
If we wanted to promote the non traditional gorge crossing, we could even declare a national drive over a cliff day, and have "splayed pride" parades, where every one who had, or wanted to drive themselves over a cliff, could paint the wreckage of their lives in rainbow colors and "drag" them down the street. We could pass out rubber suits for people to wear when not using the bridge, and we could provide counseling for those who are struggling with their decision to drive themselves over a cliff. Reassuring them that people have always driven over cliffs, and it's only those people who own stocks in bridge building companies that want you think this might not be in your best personal interests. We could write stories about the heroic efforts of some at the WTC, to show that cliff divers are "good" people.
We could put up a sign that said bridge out, and leave it at that.
Or we could erect a fence by re instituting laws prohibiting such behavior and enforcing them.
So we could deny it exists, advocate it, warn people about it, or restrict it, which one would you choose, and why?
If God does not exist then "ALL things are permissible" but you can't just stop at allowing homosexual behavior. The ramifications go much further than that. I'll need a bunker of my own now.
Have a good day karen
Greg |
