To flaunt one’s disorder and to indulge it in such a public fashion is to remove oneself from under God’s protection.
Wow, Other Eric, long time members of CAF know you are anti-homosexual, but to condone the murder of gays simply because of their sexual orientation… that is pretty far out there.
Spray shooting teenagers with an automatic weapon must first and foremost be seen as the vile and evil act of a coward.
Really, that is all that needs to be said when murder is involved.
i have not heard any more news today. i don’t know if they have caught the gunman or not or whether it is connected to terrorism or someone who was anti-homosexual.
i know they said that there were some who were in critical condition. very sad that these were just teenagers. another senseless act of violence.
I know! I saw a group of people at the mall the other day, rolling around in wheelchairs, bold as brass! Somebody ought to do something.
Who is condoning murder? Not I. I merely make the reasonable observation that certain sinful behaviors leave individuals exposed to this kind of violence. That is not “far out there,” it’s in full keeping with the Teaching of the Church.
If we mean it to be the norm to equate the use of a wheelchair to a person advertising their hedonistic misuse of the sexual faculty then, yes, something definitely must be done about that.
You just did. You said what there doing is there own fault and they deserved it. People with that attitude is the reason most of us Pagans stay hidden and the reason I constantly ask my Gods for there protection.
Which catholic church doctrine teaches sinful behavior should be exposed to violence?
I thought you guys tossed out the stoning stuff from the OT?
Living an orthodox Christian life also exposes individuals to this kind of violence as well (i.e. religious persecution/martyrdom). Should we conclude that upholding Christian values “removes oneself from God’s protection” also?
There is a distinction to be made between consequences for behavior that are imposed from without and consequences inherent to said behavior. If I watch a man who is playing with a viper get bit, would anyone accuse me of *condoning* the behavior of the viper should I happen to remark that the man might very well have expected that outcome? Similarly, a group of young men and women publicly flaunting their predilection for sexual deviancy tend to expose themselves to the whims of deranged, sociopathic individuals.
As I recall, Christians who have faced significant persecution or the credible threat of martyrdom moved their practice of the Faith underground. Have you forgotten the significance of the Roman catacombs? This is the sort of thing prudence demands. If, however, an Orthodox Christian in, say, modern China, were to do something as stupid as publicly declaring his allegiance to Rome in defiance of the church set up by the communist government, then he obviously removes himself from God's protection in exactly the same way as a "gay" man who publicly flaunts his sexuality.
What exactly is your contention here? That God only protects those who are in no danger? That gays enjoy God’s protection so long as they engage whatever sexual deviancy they choose in private? That Christians who practice their faith underground are protected from persecution and martyrdom?
Similarly, a group of young women who publicly gather to excercise together expose themselves to the whims of deranged, sociopathic individuals.
Similarly, a group of Christians who publicly gather to worship expose themselves to the whims of deranged, sociopathic individuals.
Blaming the victim is sloppy thinking.
I think we can both agree that there is a low-level risk associated with the decision to step out of one's front door every day, such that it isn't surprising to find the rare instance of lethal, unprovoked violence. That, however, is not the case with any so-called gay pride parade, gay political action committee or gay nightclub. In those examples, part of the *point* is provocation. Such people mean to call attention to themselves in a way that simply cannot be said of gym patrons or churchgoers.
This is the substance of my point, that overt advertisement of a predilection to which no one has any conceivable right is bound to catch the attention of wide array of people and, indeed, become a sort of lightning rod for the deranged and the self-righteous. Why should any of us be surprised when one who has knowingly putting oneself in danger of harm comes to such harm? In their arrogance, such people strive to put God to the test so that they may flaunt His moral law. Here, the OP has posted a link to the fruit of such malignant pride: death.
You are looking for guarantees where there can be none. I am just making the normal observation that people who choose stupid behavior leave themselves exposed to peril in a way that more prudent people do not.
Unless you can demonstrate that shootings at gay nightclubs are more prevalent, on average, than those that occur at churches (and I suspect that the opposite is true), you can’t really say that the patrons of said clubs “become lightning rods” for these acts any more than churchgoers. Or that churchgoers don’t “knowingly put themselves in danger” to the same or greater extent than gay nightclubbers do.
Understand that I do not condone the flaunting behavior you describe. I just find your reasoning for blaming the victims to be specious.
I mean, by definition, if someone is deranged, they are not rational, right? So it doesn’t make sense to try to live one’s life so as not to upset an irrational person.
Also, you are assigning intent to support your claim. While I’m sure some people engage in group gay activities to be provocative, I don’t see how you can know that any of the people at that club intended to do so.
You say their deaths are a fruit of their actions. I say their deaths were random and senseless.
A deranged person may, in fact, be irrational, but that does not mean that there are certain violent triggers one would do best to avoid. Should I wave a red flag in front of a bull, does it matter that the rage this brings on in the beast is irrational? Am I wholly blameless in the matter? The answer to both is no.
Further, let’s suppose that there is a 99% likelihood that going to church on Sunday morning will get you shot and a mere 1% chance that going to a gay nightclub carries the same risk. If both of these things are undertaken publicly, the only fig leaf the churchgoer could point to would be that he had a right to such behavior. The gay man, since he possesses no such right cannot claim such. His act is entirely self-seeking by its very nature and as such he removes himself from God’s protection.
Further, why should it be that removing oneself from God’s protection can only be realized in a nightclub shooting? This is certainly one possible manifestation but this can also manifest itself in venereal disease, mental illness, sexual crime and exposure to illicit drugs. It should be noted that these are inherent to the homosexual act in a way that they never can be for the mere churchgoer. If you can show that the practicing Christian exposes himself to a wider variety of self-inflicted peril than the active man with same-sex attractions, then you may have a point.
No doubt this is exactly what the shooters were thinking…