And how do you feel about your reaction? Was righteous indignation or intolerant homophobia? Bearing in mind that being a light to the world means being respected by it.
Whatever party we go to we will be surrounded by sinners and we should be ill-at-ease with sin. However, when people choose to wear their sin on their sleeve without shame and the nature of that sin is described in scripture as particularly abominable, this should lead to an increase of the ill-at-ease factor. Do not be ill-at-ease with feeling ill-at-ease, just match it with a similar measure of sorrow for sinners.
Hans: Not scriptural basis, I’m not particularly well-read biblically, and frankly I don’t believe in it’s absolute authority. That’s a big topic, however, it probably helps explain my point of view here.
I think I was supposed to say “salt and light” rather than “light of the world”; that would cause some confusion :P It was intended as a justification for some torelarance of secular culture. Being light and salt is basically about people saying “those guys are doing something right” and helping them find salvation that way.
It’s easy to the condemn sins that have been accepted by secular society; however, you never gains someone’s respect by condemning everything about them. And even if you don’t openly condemn them – people can usually tell when others are uncomfortable about something like that. It becomes a block, and it needn’t be.
A little bit of a “you make your choices, I’ll make mine” philosophy will go a long way, This means not letting those choices get to you, even though you don’t agree with them.
Ultimately, whether or not they are gay is not nearly as important as whether or not they know Jesus. So focus on that. Chances are, if they become a part of a church or something, they will confront the gay issue themselves – it’s a much better platform to discuss that sort of thing.
So let it slide, because it’s really not that important. And once you realise that, you’ll feel a lot less uncomfortable in those crazy parties and lectures.
Sam: “It was intended as a justification of some tolerance of secular culture” – I assume by this comment you are implying that matt’s feelings of uncomfortableness and slight fear add up to intolerance of homosexuality?
Tolerate v. = allow the existence or occurence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
Matt was clearly tolerant of the homosexuals at the party.
Re your 3rd paragraph: “It becomes a block, and it needn’t be” – Becomes a block to what? To witnessing opportunities? To friendships developing? Feeling “ill-at-ease”, or “condemning everything about them”, as you have interpreted that phrase to mean, does not translate to an unwillingness to form a friendship with the individual and help them see Jesus’ love.
I assume by this comment you are implying that matt’s feelings of uncomfortableness and slight fear add up to intolerance of homosexuality?
While you are justified in assuming that’s what I meant, I didn’t intend it to be that strong. Much of my language was hyperbolic, I admit; my arguments are directed at a vague group, not to indiviuals. In such cases it is easy to make overestimated generalisations, collecting a thousand bad instants into a seeminly meaningful picture that doesn’t mirror reality.
I guess my point was is that sometimes simply tolerance is not enough. As to what is enough, I honestly don’t know. Thank you for helping me realise that.
I accidentally took a gay date to the ball in first year uni, but he turned out to be a FABULOUS dancer.
I was not frightened by any particular man or fondling couple, it was more generalised pervasive like a too-humid summer afternoon.
And how do you feel about your reaction? Was righteous indignation or intolerant homophobia? Bearing in mind that being a light to the world means being respected by it.
Neither.
Did they get FABULOUS on you?
mwahah
Whatever party we go to we will be surrounded by sinners and we should be ill-at-ease with sin. However, when people choose to wear their sin on their sleeve without shame and the nature of that sin is described in scripture as particularly abominable, this should lead to an increase of the ill-at-ease factor. Do not be ill-at-ease with feeling ill-at-ease, just match it with a similar measure of sorrow for sinners.
So I was justified in leaving early in protest? With furious anger flowing through my veins? Righteous anger?
Sam, “being a light to the world means being respected by it”, somewhat unusual application, any scriptural basis?
Hans: Not scriptural basis, I’m not particularly well-read biblically, and frankly I don’t believe in it’s absolute authority. That’s a big topic, however, it probably helps explain my point of view here.
I think I was supposed to say “salt and light” rather than “light of the world”; that would cause some confusion :P It was intended as a justification for some torelarance of secular culture. Being light and salt is basically about people saying “those guys are doing something right” and helping them find salvation that way.
It’s easy to the condemn sins that have been accepted by secular society; however, you never gains someone’s respect by condemning everything about them. And even if you don’t openly condemn them – people can usually tell when others are uncomfortable about something like that. It becomes a block, and it needn’t be.
A little bit of a “you make your choices, I’ll make mine” philosophy will go a long way, This means not letting those choices get to you, even though you don’t agree with them.
Ultimately, whether or not they are gay is not nearly as important as whether or not they know Jesus. So focus on that. Chances are, if they become a part of a church or something, they will confront the gay issue themselves – it’s a much better platform to discuss that sort of thing.
So let it slide, because it’s really not that important. And once you realise that, you’ll feel a lot less uncomfortable in those crazy parties and lectures.
Oh, and of course gay guys are better dancers! :P
Sam: “It was intended as a justification of some tolerance of secular culture” – I assume by this comment you are implying that matt’s feelings of uncomfortableness and slight fear add up to intolerance of homosexuality?
Tolerate v. = allow the existence or occurence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
Matt was clearly tolerant of the homosexuals at the party.
Re your 3rd paragraph: “It becomes a block, and it needn’t be” – Becomes a block to what? To witnessing opportunities? To friendships developing? Feeling “ill-at-ease”, or “condemning everything about them”, as you have interpreted that phrase to mean, does not translate to an unwillingness to form a friendship with the individual and help them see Jesus’ love.
While you are justified in assuming that’s what I meant, I didn’t intend it to be that strong. Much of my language was hyperbolic, I admit; my arguments are directed at a vague group, not to indiviuals. In such cases it is easy to make overestimated generalisations, collecting a thousand bad instants into a seeminly meaningful picture that doesn’t mirror reality.
I guess my point was is that sometimes simply tolerance is not enough. As to what is enough, I honestly don’t know. Thank you for helping me realise that.
I’m going to leave it at that for now.