Philosophical positions have nothing to do with sex
While I didn’t attend Mr. Kreeft’s lecture, and therefore do not wish to pass judgment on it, I do have some problem with how it was defended by students at St. Mike’s.
In his letter (Nov. 21), Mr. Elliot says that to attack Kreeft’s statements is to attack the same arguments of natural and divine law present in the scriptures of many faiths, and thus would require us to “tear out the pages of the Bible and the Koran, as well as the scriptures of Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.”
But what is the problem with a little revisitation? It’s not as if the Church preaches the entire Bible, cover to cover every Sunday. I’ve never heard my minister tell me how I should treat my slaves, for instance.
Mr. Kreeft’s teachings and the entire “love the sinner” line of argument is foolish. Kreeft is entitled to his position, but Mr. Elliot should be able to see that this is not a matter of conceptual disagreement. Kreeft’s critics find his position hateful because being gay is not about holding a philosophical “position,” it is who they are. Kreeft’s attempts to separate sin from sinner are nonsensical at best, dangerous at worst. People can argue all they want about how God views homosexuals, but they must realize that at the end of the day, real people are going to get hurt, and no amount of theological gymnastics will avoid it. That is what hate does.
Alex Cooke
