Building on my post from a couple of weeks ago about the imago Dei as the "person-in-community," the theology of the image of God has social, moral and political implications.
I intuitively knew that I cannot trust certain conservatives after they were outed as homosexuals. It doesn’t matter how conservative they are fiscally. You explained my (and many other’s) intuition. This article will be saved and reread.
The problem with state surveillance is not so much just the consequences, but the inherent failure of a state which already approves of immorality, watching over you. When the state is unjust and their surveillance is contingent on policing everything *but* the very behaviours you describe, it becomes a problem. Surveillance is not needed when just law and just courts are in place. It can only come out of corruption, and perhaps hatred which endangers our safety. I think the good formulation here is the state's surveillance should *only* be done in the military context. Surveillance is an extension of securing our rights to freedom from danger, where our privacy comes second (most advocates of 'privacy' really mean watching pornography or other immorality tbh).
I don’t think he’s arguing for state surveillance, more like surveillance from gossipy neighbors, hah. Which does have downsides, but also helps strengthen a community in the best cases.
This helped me see the issue from a different perspective—thank you! It’s clear that we are, as you said, coasting on the capital of community that was previously functioning much better. My heart aches for what is going on….
Ignoring what people do in the bedroom absolves us of action, but the perspective you bring out demands it. I’m curious what actions you’d recommend?
Other than bringing an end to mass society and our current way of life? I think the biggest thing is to be mindful that real community is different than the reality. We want the feeling of community without the real thing. Being in a real community means relationships where people know and meddle in your business, where standards of morality are imposed upon people socially. For most of us the community we do have is often stressed and frayed and hanging on by a thread. It is sad, but understanding this makes you realize the degree to which our social fabric has frayed.
I agree that for real community to exist we must be willing to see and be seen for who we really are. Otherwise we're just posturing and engaging with each other's masks.
The immorality that has infiltrated much of society at large most likely can't be undone, but there is greater power at the state and local level. From a practical perspective, being neighbors with people who share your values seems like one of the main ways to do this. And tending to our own families moral integrity as family is the foundational building block of community!
You note that in real communities a moral order is imposed. You also note that at present limits on language are imposed to deter expressions of differences. The former is, presumably, a community premised on faith of some sort, or at least a recognized shared humanity. The latter is the moral sensibility that exists at present. How are these distinguishable? Both are moral orders in their own right. It can be argued that it is preferable to have moral order emerge upwards, from the people to the government, as was the hope of the Founding Fathers, rather than devolving down, from the government to the people, as is the hope of many.
Much of what is seen today is, as you write, a notion of liberty that is libertine in character and scope. A notion of liberty that is rooted in faith or in acknowledgement of obligations to others seems to be unwanted.
What happens as mass society undermines organic communities, is that the previous morality that existed is abstracted, rationalized and universalized and adjusted to conform to the needs of the regime operating at a mass scale, whether in government, business or even non-profits like large churches. A simulacrum of organic morality is imposed through technical means. It might, say in the case of a large conservative mass church, even have the same content as before, but now it is imposed technically by means of propaganda and though mechanism of control like small groups that mimic real community are not the same thing.
Don't forget where deviancy spreads like wildfire - among outcasts.
Whoever wants to bring community back together needs to understand that pushing for conformity sometimes creates a backlash stronger than the intended effect.
There is some validity in this comment. The article is repetitively verbose, and could have made the point clearer and faster. That said, if you are too weak, stupid, or impatient to read for an extra minute or two to get to the core of the rather important point/s he makes, then it’s on you that you are a typical instant-gratification NPC, and as such, your opinion, view and actions are essentially irrelevant anyway, so nothing is lost from your absenting yourself.
If you think you are being effective at policing the internet, do know that I absolutely could care less what you have to say and your blabber has no impact on what I choose to post.
To whom you are attracted sexually is mostly a subjective feeling (although there are some objective tests that can identify it) and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
Sex is quite literally how we make children. Forget this at your own peril.
Not the kind of sex this guy is worried about
I intuitively knew that I cannot trust certain conservatives after they were outed as homosexuals. It doesn’t matter how conservative they are fiscally. You explained my (and many other’s) intuition. This article will be saved and reread.
Thanks!
The problem with state surveillance is not so much just the consequences, but the inherent failure of a state which already approves of immorality, watching over you. When the state is unjust and their surveillance is contingent on policing everything *but* the very behaviours you describe, it becomes a problem. Surveillance is not needed when just law and just courts are in place. It can only come out of corruption, and perhaps hatred which endangers our safety. I think the good formulation here is the state's surveillance should *only* be done in the military context. Surveillance is an extension of securing our rights to freedom from danger, where our privacy comes second (most advocates of 'privacy' really mean watching pornography or other immorality tbh).
I don’t think he’s arguing for state surveillance, more like surveillance from gossipy neighbors, hah. Which does have downsides, but also helps strengthen a community in the best cases.
This helped me see the issue from a different perspective—thank you! It’s clear that we are, as you said, coasting on the capital of community that was previously functioning much better. My heart aches for what is going on….
Ignoring what people do in the bedroom absolves us of action, but the perspective you bring out demands it. I’m curious what actions you’d recommend?
Other than bringing an end to mass society and our current way of life? I think the biggest thing is to be mindful that real community is different than the reality. We want the feeling of community without the real thing. Being in a real community means relationships where people know and meddle in your business, where standards of morality are imposed upon people socially. For most of us the community we do have is often stressed and frayed and hanging on by a thread. It is sad, but understanding this makes you realize the degree to which our social fabric has frayed.
I agree that for real community to exist we must be willing to see and be seen for who we really are. Otherwise we're just posturing and engaging with each other's masks.
The immorality that has infiltrated much of society at large most likely can't be undone, but there is greater power at the state and local level. From a practical perspective, being neighbors with people who share your values seems like one of the main ways to do this. And tending to our own families moral integrity as family is the foundational building block of community!
I guess the action I would suggest is to engage the community you do have a do so with a willingness for people to know your life.
Actually, they don’t
Hope that helps!
You note that in real communities a moral order is imposed. You also note that at present limits on language are imposed to deter expressions of differences. The former is, presumably, a community premised on faith of some sort, or at least a recognized shared humanity. The latter is the moral sensibility that exists at present. How are these distinguishable? Both are moral orders in their own right. It can be argued that it is preferable to have moral order emerge upwards, from the people to the government, as was the hope of the Founding Fathers, rather than devolving down, from the government to the people, as is the hope of many.
Much of what is seen today is, as you write, a notion of liberty that is libertine in character and scope. A notion of liberty that is rooted in faith or in acknowledgement of obligations to others seems to be unwanted.
What happens as mass society undermines organic communities, is that the previous morality that existed is abstracted, rationalized and universalized and adjusted to conform to the needs of the regime operating at a mass scale, whether in government, business or even non-profits like large churches. A simulacrum of organic morality is imposed through technical means. It might, say in the case of a large conservative mass church, even have the same content as before, but now it is imposed technically by means of propaganda and though mechanism of control like small groups that mimic real community are not the same thing.
Don't forget where deviancy spreads like wildfire - among outcasts.
Whoever wants to bring community back together needs to understand that pushing for conformity sometimes creates a backlash stronger than the intended effect.
Practice an economy of words.
I quickly gave up reading your article very because your just kept going on-and-on.
Your message might have been worthwhile. But I will never know.
There is some validity in this comment. The article is repetitively verbose, and could have made the point clearer and faster. That said, if you are too weak, stupid, or impatient to read for an extra minute or two to get to the core of the rather important point/s he makes, then it’s on you that you are a typical instant-gratification NPC, and as such, your opinion, view and actions are essentially irrelevant anyway, so nothing is lost from your absenting yourself.
If you think you are being effective at policing the internet, do know that I absolutely could care less what you have to say and your blabber has no impact on what I choose to post.
Christians have a Cuckold consciousness longing for the days they belonged to to the Muslims
Nice easy mute there.
To whom you are attracted sexually is mostly a subjective feeling (although there are some objective tests that can identify it) and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.