The eternal danger that bloggers run into, especially if they are popular, is seeing themselves as the voice of right opinion. If you can't see this as a danger, then you are probably already too much over the line. Personally, I am very thankful for my periods of inability to blog, where I think that whatever I say is worthless and pointless. These bouts of inertia (I think) have helped to keep me more humble than my natural inclination is to be. Yeah, humility does not come easy to me, as can be many times apparent on this blog.
How can a blogger tell if what they are posting about is more about themselves than any sort of wrongs in society. Well, for Christians, if you are going against what is clear in Scripture, then you need to have a long, hard look at your opinions and probably even spend time in the quiet rather than the noise of blog land in order to reorient yourself. For as Our Lord says, "For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) Likewise, if you promote a cause that makes you feel good, but encourages a lifestyle that is harmful and damages an institution that is necessary for the successful raising of children, then you really need to stop and think ... and pray for help.
Today's blog post by Whale Oil points out that just because the elites are championing a cause (ie "gay marriage") that does not mean that he should stop supporting "equality". This is in regards to an article a reader sent in to him which points out that "gay marriage" is not something being demanded by the masses as women's liberation and black emancipation was, it's instead a cause championed by the elites and now defines the new morality.
As I point out to him in my comment on his site:
Yes, sentimentalism. As explained in the link below, sentimentalists are not reasonable people, they are ruled by their feelings. So, if an action makes them feel good, they'll do it and likewise if something makes them feel bad, they won't do it. Permissive parents could be considered sentimentalists - they'll allow their children to do what ever they want because disciplining them makes them (the parents) feel bad, therefore discipline must be bad.
Doing the right thing (with compassion), no matter how it makes you (and others) feel is one of the signs of maturity. It takes self-discipline, courage and an ability to embrace suffering. We can't help people by letting them do what they want just because they want it. And so it is with "gay marriage" - it's sentimental to think that redefining marriage to suit two men or two women will give them equality. They already have equality, what they want is a fantasy land. Saying no is the kindest thing to do even though it may not feel that way.
Related links:
Dissent of the Day ~ Whale Oil Beef Hooked
The Soft Tyranny of Sentimentalism ~ Patheos
The Sentimentalist trades the clarity of ideas for the feeling that he (as opposed to you) is enlarged of heart and ennobled of mind.
How can a blogger tell if what they are posting about is more about themselves than any sort of wrongs in society. Well, for Christians, if you are going against what is clear in Scripture, then you need to have a long, hard look at your opinions and probably even spend time in the quiet rather than the noise of blog land in order to reorient yourself. For as Our Lord says, "For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) Likewise, if you promote a cause that makes you feel good, but encourages a lifestyle that is harmful and damages an institution that is necessary for the successful raising of children, then you really need to stop and think ... and pray for help.
Today's blog post by Whale Oil points out that just because the elites are championing a cause (ie "gay marriage") that does not mean that he should stop supporting "equality". This is in regards to an article a reader sent in to him which points out that "gay marriage" is not something being demanded by the masses as women's liberation and black emancipation was, it's instead a cause championed by the elites and now defines the new morality.
As I point out to him in my comment on his site:
Supporting "gay marriage" is the new barometer of moral decency, probably a bandwagon jumped onto by those whose morals are questionable, to say the least. And then, as a by product, traditional marriage is being devalued, to the point where the British Government is considering removing the words "husband" and "wife" from the official documents.
So, no, we should not be against "gay marriage" because the elites are all for it, we should be against it because it's wrong. Your moral sense of right and wrong has been corrupted by sentimentalism, where your feelings are overruling your reason.
Yes, sentimentalism. As explained in the link below, sentimentalists are not reasonable people, they are ruled by their feelings. So, if an action makes them feel good, they'll do it and likewise if something makes them feel bad, they won't do it. Permissive parents could be considered sentimentalists - they'll allow their children to do what ever they want because disciplining them makes them (the parents) feel bad, therefore discipline must be bad.
Doing the right thing (with compassion), no matter how it makes you (and others) feel is one of the signs of maturity. It takes self-discipline, courage and an ability to embrace suffering. We can't help people by letting them do what they want just because they want it. And so it is with "gay marriage" - it's sentimental to think that redefining marriage to suit two men or two women will give them equality. They already have equality, what they want is a fantasy land. Saying no is the kindest thing to do even though it may not feel that way.
Related links:
Dissent of the Day ~ Whale Oil Beef Hooked
The Soft Tyranny of Sentimentalism ~ Patheos
The Sentimentalist trades the clarity of ideas for the feeling that he (as opposed to you) is enlarged of heart and ennobled of mind.
Well said Lucia. Your point about sentimentality is very valid, and this empty headed sentimentalism is very prevalent in our society, as it seems it always is in a culture in moral decline. It reminds me of a passage in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov where he describes a particularly debauched character as being prone to sentimentalism and says: "He was sentimental. He was wicked and sentimental."
ReplyDelete