Morality = Hate, Part 2
Rev. Steve Schlissel - March 12, 2018
It’s now anon.
Back to morality as hate. Dissent, or refusal to approve of morally perverse behavior, is now regarded as “obviously hateful” –and it is seen to be such–for important reasons. But first note, I am not asserting, nor should it be asserted, that in an explanatory offering such as this, there is any assumption of *self-conscious* antiChristianity, or a self-conscious embrace of sterility, futility and death by those who love sin unto death. Rather, what I am offering is an explanation of how and why DISAGREEMENT has been so blithely morphed by them into what is called and TREATED as self-conscious hate in the heart of the moral objector.
The obvious, the ubiquitous, historically and universally cherished moral norms of heterosexuality, monogamous marriage and core-family-unit-based society are easily understood to be connected in their God-originated character. Although you will occasionally hear or read of efforts to twist Scripture and revelation into a smile toward homosexuality and other perversions, God is overwhelmingly a matter of little to zero concern among the practitioners and advocates. In this civilizational crisis you will not find in the camp of the revolutionaries, any significant number of people who are there because they EARNESTLY believe they are submitting to God’s will DESPITE their own feelings or desires. You are not dealing with waves of people busy denying themselves or taking up their crosses. Rather–and of course–it is exactly the reverse. To the extent that there is even feigned interest in God’s will, it extends no further than their ability to convert His manifest and violent disapproval of their behavior into some sort of complicity on His part. This is usually parked behind vague, amorphous, mush-headed notions of content-less love (especially) unconditionality. The pervert refuses the summons to appear the dock; he puts the Lord God on trial and will accept or acknowledge Him ONLY insofar as He can be wax-nosed into a deity who either permits the perversion of choice or can be re-imagined into a cloudy being who celebrates it with them.
So, it isn’t merely a matter of “Thus saith the Lord” being an argument unavailable to them. Rather, that is an argument they do not want–not at all. If you get this, then we are close to understanding why it is tagged “HATE.”
Part 3 to follow.