The American presidential election
I loathe both candidates. It is not merely that they are personally unattractive, although they certainly are; Bush with his fake Texas good ole boy manners learnt at Harvard, and Kerry with a hypocrisy so profound and elaborate that people do not even notice it, as you do not pay attention to the existence of the earth beneath your feet and the
( Read more... )
As for marriage, however, I do not think that you have answered my actual argument, which is that marriage is not to do with love, or even with sex, at all. I know where you're coming from, but I spent from ten to twenty years of my life in close contact with homosexuals and transsexuals, and I still hold by the view that to call what there is of love in their relationship (I do not deny that it is there, though not always and not everywhere) conjugal love, is to deny the meaning of the word. As for Christians not going into politics, God knows I am often tempted to say the same, especially when one sees the spectacle of democracy prostituted as it is now in Britain, America and Italy. However, there are two points: first, in most countries this would exclude the majority of people (for the majority is Christian, whatever the intensity of their faith, in most of Europe and both Americas), and second, it excludes a major distinction in Christian doctrine, between those beliefs which can only be reached by Revelation, and are therefore peculiar to Christians and not to be forced on others (preached is another matter), and those which are open to access by reason, and in which therefore Christians are at one with all human beings. All matters of politics and morality fall under this heading, and therefore a Christian arguing about morality is not arguing from an exclusive position, but from differences in defintion in a matter on which everyone agrees - that there is such a thing as personal morality. In this matter, it is the militant secularist, with his/her repeated cry that "I cannot allow someone else's morality to be imposed on us", who insists on an exclusivist, and indeed irrational (because closed to argument) view of morality.
Reply
Easier said than done, of course. It is, however, an easier decision to *make* if you have already decided on what you would do though, than if you had never thought about it.
As for marriage, however, I do not think that you have answered my actual argument.
Actually, I wasn't answering your argument, I was just stating what I believe. :)
Okay, so are you saying that gay marriage is an oxymoron then, such as unclean food? (Just trying to understand your POV.)
I don't think that a Christian, in good conscience, could run a country. There are too many compromises that must be made because of the position. Also, power corrupts. Absolutely. I don't believe in cliches or maxims, but I hold that one to be truth.
Reply
Yes. Not because I deny there is love, but because I deny that marriage is primarily about love.
I don't think that a Christian, in good conscience, could run a country. There are too many compromises...Also, power corrupts.
So, are you saying, 1), that only Christians have principles that are in danger of being corrupted, and, 2), that politics should be left to crooks?
Reply
What is marriage primarily about?
... only Christians have principles that are in danger of being corrupted...
Of course not. Everyone has morals. But Christians are separate from the world. We are *called* to be separate from the world. (In the world, but not of the world.) I just think that one truly in good conscience, who adheres to the commandments of the Bible, cannot stay in government honestly.
... politics should be left to crooks.
Well, that's implying that if you are not Christian then you are a crook. I don't believe that is true.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Well, perhaps that doesn't fit your definition, since you say legitimate succession...but then again, you can pass beliefs and traditions on to your children even if they aren't your children by blood, and those beliefs and traditions (whether cultural or religious) matter a lot more than the bloodline.
Reply
This is a subject which I do not touch with pleasure, because I am all too aware that it will strike personally a good many people I love and respect. It is literally impossible to make a negative judgement on any kind of sexual attitude without striking at people personally; which is why the notion that one attitude is as good as another, which is philosophically untenable (it would make space for rapists and violent paedophiles), is so popular. It's so much more pleasant not to be forced to confront your friend, a person to whom you maybe owe something, to whom you in any case owe affection, respect, even admiration. It's so much more pleasant to just let "consenting adults" do what they please. It is a terrible thing to have to be in a position where you do not approve, whether by implication or directly, of anyone's basic life choices; and I do not like it in the least. I would do almost anything to avoid it. And by the same token, I think I have done my best to concede as much as I reasonably can, but I do hold by certain principles, which are no doubt not popular in HP fandom right now, and which I try to state with as little force as possible in order not to hurt people - but in whose truth I ultimately believe. And I must be true to what I think is true, even if I lose friends for it.
Reply
Leave a comment