Joseph Farah has his panties in a knot because Ann Coulter is going to talk to teh gheys. In public. For money, even. At which point, she’ll get teh ghey cooties, and earn Farah’s everlasting disapproval. Ace had some rather biting commentary on this phenomenon, and it really does sum up what I’ve been attempting to say for years, but am evidently not a good enough writer to get across. (RTWT, etc.)
3. I can’t help but notice that homosexuality is elevated to rather higher position on the food-pyramid of sins than seems necessary. I note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath…. actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches; it’s nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren’t far behind, either.
And other sins too. Premarital sex? Sex only for lustful purposes and not procreation? Yeah, I’m all about that.
I presume Joseph Farah is as well — on that last point. I am not prepared to believe that he only engages in sex for purposes of creating children. I do not believe that is true of nearly anyone.
I’ll tell you one sin I never have to wrestle with: the sin of homosexual fornication. Why? Because I’m straight. It never even occurs to me that gee, maybe if I’m not scoring with the ladies lately I should change up my game and try for a dude.
Never. Not once has it even crossed my mind.
And I submit that this is true for 99.9% of straight men, which in turn means it’s true of 97.7% of men, period.
So Farah is essentially elevating to the position of Worst Sin the one sin he has absolutely zero chance of committing, zero chance of even being tempted by.
I find this breathtakingly convenient. According to Farah’s priorities, hell, I’m a pretty moral guy — never had gay sex, never wanted to have gay sex, never even thought about gay sex. So I’m pretty pure, right?
Of course I’m not. I’m just not guilty of that sin, but I’m not free of that sin due to devotion to God or exercise of willpower or the strengthening power of faith: I’m free of that sin for the same reason I’m free of the sin (were it a sin) of eating tarantulas. Because I don’t want to.
It strikes me as very convenient, self-serving position to take that the most important sin out there, the most destructive sin, the one, as Farah says, actually destroys whole societies, is the sin that those who are most concerned with it aren’t ever tempted to commit in their entire lives.
And that, on the other side of the coin, the 3% of the population that is gay is soaked in sin and offense to God.
I find it a little curious that Farah flames on about gays but doesn’t seem terribly bothered by non-procreative heterosexual sex, non-procreative heterosexual sodomy (which includes the old blow-jay), non-procreative lustful use of pornography.
Now some will probably say he does mention those. Yes, I would guess he does; but as far as I know he wouldn’t forbid Ann Coulter from appearing at a party I was hosting, and I’m an admitted (and unashamed) pornography user and non-procreative heterosexual sex fan.
Why the special elevation here? Again, I just find it damnably convenient for a proponent of morality to pound and pound on the one sin that he is almost incapable of engaging in, due to deep-seated revulsion to the act.
Spot on. And, oddly, it ties in with something someone said at my bible study last week, regarding how we see sin, compared to how God sees sin. I don’t remember exactly how she phrased it, but these charts I made express the concept pretty well:
Although the idea you are teaching is somewhat popular in churches today, I consider it fairly inaccurate. The Bible teaches degrees of sin (Matthew 23:23, John 19:11, 1 John 5:16), degrees of heaven (1 Corinthians 3:5-15, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 6:20), and probably degrees of hell (Matthew 11:21-22).
Also, the author whom you are citing exemplifies a Catholic understanding of sin. For example, the Bible never explicitly defines “sloth” as a sin, and anyway sloth is a pretty vague term so whereas sloth might sometimes be wrong, in other cases it is perfectly fine to lounge around. “Lust,” as the author uses it, is not a sin either, as sex has purposes other than procreation. Although “pride” is generally acknowledged as a bad emotion for Christians, the author is using that term rather vaguely as well, and sometimes pride is actually good. Envy of someone else’s property is undeniably bad, but given that envy only leads to stealing — punishable by fine — whereas homosexuality was *itself* punished by death, I think I can safely say that envy is a lesser sin than homosexuality. The weird thing is that the Catholics themselves theoretically recognize (at least two) degrees of sin, so it’s strange that the apparently Catholic author makes these arguments.
I think it’s harmful to personal and societal sanctification to equate all sin, because since we are not perfect and never will be in this life, equating all sin will discourage us from attempting to sanctify ourselves. Sanctification, of course, can lead to practical benefits like eternal rewards, earthly blessings, and improved evangelism. Overall, I think it’s usually best to focus on curbing the big sins first, and then to work on fine-tuning the mind to control the less dangerous tendencies. Politically speaking, when God set up his government under Moses, he did not give the example of equating all sins.
Also, the author whom you are citing exemplifies a Catholic understanding of sin.
Not that I’ve ever seen in the Church… sounds a lot like the generic Christians to me. Maybe you mean the C&E Catholics?
The traditional seven deadly sins aren’t very well translated, anyways– ‘sloth’ has a much different implication, a lack of joy in the gift of life.
Not that the seven capital sins are really taught anymore, since it’s more of a philosophy thing to figure out what the weakness one is prone to might be.
Foxfier recently posted..To Be Factual-
I can’t say it tracks with what I see…
Who has to argue, regularly, with vicious opponents, that cheating on your wife is bad? Not very common.
Who has to argue, inside of a religion, that sex outside of marriage is bad? Not very common.
Who has to argue with Christians that hating God is bad? Not very common.
Who has to argue that sexual acts outside of marriage with someone of the same sex is bad, while being accused of racisim, being unchristian, hatefulness and embodying the reason that people don’t like Christ, with those who are SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR BROTHERS? Really, really common.
When you attack a position, you’ll get the most response.
TL;DR version:
We’re supposed to correct our brother when he errors. The most common error within each sect is on homosexuality. Thus, the most noise is going to be on homosexuality. It’s not because it’s worse than, say, drugging and raping a 13 year old girl– it’s because it’s the one with the most conflict.
Foxfier recently posted..To Be Factual-
Something occurred to me:
I presume Joseph Farah is as well — on that last point. I am not prepared to believe that he only engages in sex for purposes of creating children. I do not believe that is true of nearly anyone.
That is one BOOGER of a slander, wrapped with a horrific misunderstanding of the purpose of sex.
Guess he missed that whole “charity” thing– there are virtues, as well as sins, you know? Or are sins only fit fodder for a rhetorical flourish?
That would rather fit with his mis-characterization of the objection to homocon– SSA is not a sin; homosexual sex, on the other hand, is. Rather than complain and spread false accusations about those who dare do something to try to counter the self-identification by perverted desire, why doesn’t he work against the perverted desires he complains are ignored? “PUAs,” perhaps? Teaching joy in life? Battling pride?
“I’m not perfect, so I’m going to assume that this other guy is just as sinful as I am! In the same ways! And I’m going to make a sex joke, too, playing in to all the stereotypes of the popular culture!”
Sex, properly ordered, has to be open to life– that is not the same as “you are committing a sin if you have sex with your spouse without the primary goal of pregnancy.”
While we’re on the topic of sin… epic fail on the pride angle, quoted dude. Wrath, too.
Foxfier recently posted..To Be Factual-
I’m going to respond to your thoughtful comments, just not right now – need to take my mom to the cardiologist.
RL> internet. ^.^
Foxfier recently posted..To Be Factual-
Drew, I know, we’ve butted heads on this topic a time or two before.
But I can’t get past what is to me, the core issue: damned is damned; saved is saved. You’re either an unrepentant person who sins, or you are a saved, repentant person who sins. (Remember, also, that I’m Reformed, so I’ve got all that Calvinism and TULIP stuff going on here as well…) Even if you are right and that some sins are more heinous in God’s eyes than others, the fact is any one of those sins, committed even one time – for that matter, thought of even one time, as Jesus said lust in your heart is the same as adultery – is enough to keep a person out of heaven. So to my way of thinking, anything after that is just quibbling over the details – a real waste of time, and prone to give us a feeling of self-righteousness which is entirely unwarranted.
I’m not suggesting we don’t identify homosexuality as sin – the bible is exceedingly clear on that point. I just don’t want it treated like “the unforgivable sin” or the “I’m bad but at least I’m not that” sin. I know two people who struggle with this – the pull of the world saying, ‘if it feels good do it; this is how God made you so it must not be sinful,” and some people in the church who – not knowing how these two people struggle with this particular sin – push them away with terribly hurtful comments that, if they were not sufficiently grounded in theology, would make them feel they might as well give up and just go live in their sin, since they’re damned anyway. I think we need much more of a sense of proportion, and of mercy.
I really don’t think it’s quibbling over details, though. The Bible is *full* of these details. There is a lot more to spirituality than just being damned verses being saved. The disciples instinctively understood this much:
1 Corinthians 9:24
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
Matthew 20:21-24
“What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
And if you get a chance, Jerome wrote a pretty good book about the issue of eternal rewards. I disagree with some of his interpretations, and you have to get past his idiotic promotion of celibacy, but he nonetheless makes good arguments about eternal rewards:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm
He also wrote a separate, pretty good piece against works-salvation (“Against the Pelagians”) so aside from his ascetic tendencies, I consider him reasonably well-grounded.
And since you’re apparently interested in core matters, I would point out that people who ignore the doctrine of eternal rewards are more prone to legalism. The reason for this is that they read all the passages that speak of earning rewards from God and erroneously think those passages are talking about earning salvation itself.
Well, yes. I’m not dismissing sanctification. I also don’t subscribe to the theory that you can be saved, and that more or less gives you a free pass to keep willfully sinning, whether that sin be gossip or teh butt secks or whatever. If a person consistently, unapologetically sins I think they may have tried to buy a fire insurance policy instead undergoing genuine conversion. I’m just making a couple of points here: rejecting Jesus, not homosexuality, is the unforgivable sin. And that Christians would do well to be more gentle and welcoming to people who do struggle with the temptation to homosexuality because Jesus died for them, too. Mind you, welcoming doesn’t mean glossing over sin or pretending something is not sin. I’m just suggesting we not get on our high horse about it because our sins are also repulsive to God.
Solomon consistently, unapologetically sinned, yet he presumably did not get his fire insurance cancelled.
And whether a believer’s homosexuality somehow negates Jesus’s atonement is completely beside the point — except I guess for Catholics, whom I generally consider unsaved anyway because they commit the unforgiveable sin you described. Given that the two men you cited are apparently both Catholics, maybe that’s why they have to come up with these crazy ideas like “all sins are equally bad.” Under the Catholic setup, it’s hard for me to imagine *any* homosexuals getting into heaven. Presumably, Ace was trying to figure out a way for at least a few homosexuals to get into heaven under this setup.
If all sins are equal, why did Jesus say that the Pharisees were neglecting the “weightier matters of the law”?
The “fire insurance” comment was a reference to a person who has not undergone a genuine transformation – they are not and never were saved. Ecclesiastes speaks to the complete waste of a life which doesn’t serve and glorify God, which would seem to indicate that he did, in fact, repent of his idolatry, disobedience, etc.
Drew, which two men I cited? You have really lost me here. Ace and Farah? they are hardly in agreement.
With regard to “all sins are equally bad” being a crazy idea – given that even one sin, of any type, is adequate to keep us out of heaven if we lack salvation, but if we are saved, then whatever sins we committed are forgiven, then yes, I’d say that all sins are equally bad. I think to a certain extent we’re talking past each other – I’m looking at the macro while you’re looking at the micro. But for the sake of argument only, let’s say you’re right and there’s a definite hierarchy of sin. So what? Meaning, what next? The bible seems clear that rewards in heaven are not based on our lack of sin, but on the degree of faithfulness we practiced. (John McArthur goes into some detail on this concept.) Our capacity to serve and love God in heaven will be based on how much we served and loved him while on earth.
Well I guess Solomon *talked* a good game in Ecclesiastes — assuming he actually wrote it — but the story we get from 2 Samuel is that he never really shaped up to a meaningful degree. And although our sins are forgiven in the eternal scheme of things, I also don’t think it makes much sense to say that eternal rewards are unrelated to sin. Like you said, our rewards will be based on how well we loved God on earth, and there is a negative correlation between sin and love.
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good OR bad.
And in my first comment, I already touched on the “what next” issue. What my position means is that we should exert greater effort on curbing the greater sins. Just like Moses issued a greater penalty for murder than for stealing, we should treat our own sins differently, while working to eliminate them all. And since the main issue here is homosexuality, I would point out that this particular sin is a destroyer of civilizations. No people has ever gotten very far by tolerating it.
All this said, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether Ann Coulter should speak to the gay group. But I just think it’s important to give some level of ranking to sins, based on Moses and/or on common sense. Otherwise, it’s easy to wind up like the Leftists who are incapable of judging ever anything because “we’re all imperfect.”