Outlawing Various Sexual Sins

[Winchester]

It's like groundhog day with these threads.  How can we break the loop?
 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bOy3RNyWME[/media]

[BarbTherese]

I wonder if the time has come to fully separate Church and state.  Should the state be a moral guardian in that certain things are criminal offences to be punished by the state.  I think that The Church can and must speak up and loudly, often and consistently on moral issues and where moral failure(s) can have a negative social impact but I do wonder if we should ask of the state that offences be criminalised unless the majority in a democratic society wish it.

 

"[13] You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men." Matthew Ch5:13

 

If society is going down the gurgler somewhere, anywhere - then we are failing somewhere, somehow.  No two ways about it according to the words of Jesus above, Who Is Truth.  Jesus lived in a degenerate time socially and yet it is not social issues He addresses, not social causes He takes up, rather He speaks to individuals He comes across in His Journey, taking them as they are and as they present themselves and speaking to them in terms they can understand.

[Benedictus]

I wonder if the time has come to fully separate Church and state.  Should the state be a moral guardian in that certain things are criminal offences to be punished by the state.  I think that The Church can and must speak up and loudly, often and consistently on moral issues and where moral failure(s) can have a negative social impact but I do wonder if we should ask of the state that offences be criminalised unless the majority in a democratic society wish it.

 

"[13] You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men." Matthew Ch5:13

 

If society is going down the gurgler somewhere, anywhere - then we are failing somewhere, somehow.  No two ways about it according to the words of Jesus above, Who Is Truth.  Jesus lived in a degenerate time socially and yet it is not social issues He addresses, not social causes He takes up, rather He speaks to individuals He comes across in His Journey, taking them as they are and as they present themselves and speaking to them in terms they can understand.

 

I'm not sure seperation of church and state necessarily makes things better. If you compare the US with Britain the political and religious battle ground is far different. Although Brits don't have a clear seperation we don't seem to be at a political, social or legal disadvantage because of it. The crux of the issue seems to be the sway of religious inflence among voters -  they set the agenda, moral or otherwise, for the political battleground. If they demand social conservative laws, as an example, then a strict seperation of state/church powers is of little value. I'm not that confident about democracy yielding the best, or ideal results, in all cases unless its boundaries are clear. People would vote for all types of craziness. We can see what that system has done to protestant churches as well where doctrine, practices and policy are done by delegate vote. But what is ecessary, IMHO, is a strong constitutional foundation and representative base to guard against any excess or abuse of power.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Benedictus

[CrossCuT]

All your (conservative Catholics) efforts to drive me from the Church of Christ have failed.

 

It does feel that way doesnt it? People have asked me why I even go to church. Srsly. So much hate.

[Ice_nine]

I don't think anyone here has shown you hate. Perhaps mild to severe irritation, but not hate.

 

It's not so offensive that people ask why you're Catholic when you disagree with many of the church's teachings that, gee willikers, just happen to mesh really nicely with the secular culture we find ourselves in. Lots of the NT talks about not conforming to the whims and tides of your culture, but conforming yourself to Christ. And if you believe you can conform to Christ whilst ignoring Catholic teaching, than it seems more honest to make your camp with the protestants.

[CrossCuT]

I think it is offensive if people say things like "Why do you even go to church?" or "You must never have had any faith to begin with"

 

Those comments are not well meaning inquires, they are rude spiteful comments. There is an obvious difference between showing genuine concern and simply being a jerk. 

[Perigrina]

I wonder if the time has come to fully separate Church and state.  Should the state be a moral guardian in that certain things are criminal offences to be punished by the state.  I think that The Church can and must speak up and loudly, often and consistently on moral issues and where moral failure(s) can have a negative social impact but I do wonder if we should ask of the state that offences be criminalised unless the majority in a democratic society wish it.

 

A Christian state that supports Christian morality is not a realistic option in most places, even if one were to consider it a theoretical ideal.  Our society is secular and so are our states.  These people are not even capable of understanding Christian morality, more the less enforcing it.

[Credo in Deum]

I voted, YES.  Muahahahahahahaha

 

 

haha!

[CrossCuT]

Rofl! Outlaw all the things!

[Benedictus]

I think it is offensive if people say things like "Why do you even go to church?" or "You must never have had any faith to begin with"

 

Those comments are not well meaning inquires, they are rude spiteful comments. There is an obvious difference between showing genuine concern and simply being a jerk. 

 

 

Wow they were definitely rude! They could have said the same thing in a much more open and respectful way.  I think some of it, or maybe a lot in some cases, comes from a place of fear or insecurity. If you challenge someone's cognitive status quo, especially if you create some cognitive dissonance, this can be uncomfortable to their firmly held ideas and they therefore get defensive or aggressive. It's much easier to be nasty and hope someone leaves a church, or wherever we are, than to listen to people, process what is being said and then see where they stand. I think it's usually because they feel unable to defend their position or are worried about the implications of changing their own view.  In conflicts it's common for people to wait to speak, rather than listen, or to create ways to make the situation difficult so the other person gives up.  Some people use groups, power structures, or other tools around them as a weapon as well. I guess we can all be tempted to be the difficult one sometimes, in various situations, but it's not he Christ way of doing things.

[Perigrina]

Wow they were definitely rude! They could have said the same thing in a much more open and respectful way.  I think some of it, or maybe a lot in some cases, comes from a place of fear or insecurity. If you challenge someone's cognitive status quo, especially if you create some cognitive dissonance, this can be uncomfortable to their firmly held ideas and they therefore get defensive or aggressive. It's much easier to be nasty and hope someone leaves a church, or wherever we are, than to listen to people, process what is being said and then see where they stand. I think it's usually because they feel unable to defend their position or are worried about the implications of changing their own view.  In conflicts it's common for people to wait to speak, rather than listen, or to create ways to make the situation difficult so the other person gives up.  Some people use groups, power structures, or other tools around them as a weapon as well. I guess we can all be tempted to be the difficult one sometimes, in various situations, but it's not he Christ way of doing things.

 

People shouldn't be rude about it, but there is nothing wrong with thinking that Catholics ought to accept Church teaching.   It is not a sign of fear, insecurity or inability to deal with having one's views challenged. 

 

It is normal to want integrity and consistency in the people around us.  Accepting Church teaching is a basic part of being Catholic, so it is difficult to know what to make of people who identify themselves as Catholic while rejecting Church teaching.  It is only natural to feel like these people are being dishonest.

[CrossCuT]

 It is only natural to feel like these people are being dishonest.

I dont think thats natural at all. Thats very presumptuous. Why would someone be dishonest about their feelings on these big issues? Because they enjoy going through the crappy treatment people give them? Or they enjoy arguing?

I think that statement is incredibly ridiculous. 

 

The only reason I say any of this stuff is because I AM being honest. In my heart of hearts this is how I feel. I have weighed so many options, read about so many views, asked so many questions and I come to this conclusion. 

 

I hope you do not treat people in a similar situation to mine as being dishonest. That is a horrible horrible way to approach to situation. 

[Benedictus]

People shouldn't be rude about it, but there is nothing wrong with thinking that Catholics ought to accept Church teaching.   It is not a sign of fear, insecurity or inability to deal with having one's views challenged. 

 

It is normal to want integrity and consistency in the people around us.  Accepting Church teaching is a basic part of being Catholic, so it is difficult to know what to make of people who identify themselves as Catholic while rejecting Church teaching.  It is only natural to feel like these people are being dishonest.

 

Did Jesus walk up to people and act like that with people with different lifestyles and beliefs? If you dig hard enough there will be things many Catholics don't know, don't like, don't agree with or simply ignore. I'm sure some people would prefer a pure church of people who agree with them on anything and everything (if that's ever existed, let me know). But I don't think it's pragmatic or possible. Well, it is if someone wants to be the only person in their pew or would prefer to be some small sect like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Westboro Baptist! It is possible to get so obsessive with others over what they struggle with or can't accept that it gets in the way of the bigger picture.

[Nihil Obstat]

[Perigrina]

I dont think thats natural at all. Thats very presumptuous. Why would someone be dishonest about their feelings on these big issues? Because they enjoy going through the crappy treatment people give them? Or they enjoy arguing?

I think that statement is incredibly ridiculous. 

 

The only reason I say any of this stuff is because I AM being honest. In my heart of hearts this is how I feel. I have weighed so many options, read about so many views, asked so many questions and I come to this conclusion. 

 

I hope you do not treat people in a similar situation to mine as being dishonest. That is a horrible horrible way to approach to situation. 

 

You may be being honest about your feelings, but I question how honest you are being about how you identify yourself.  If I put a Coca-Cola label on my generic cola and tried to sell it, I would probably be sued for false advertizing.  There would be a consensus that I was guilty of fraudulent and dishonest business practices.

 

The word Catholic means something and that meaning includes accepting Catholic doctrine.