dairygirl4u2c Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 They should most definetly be made illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 There is a point at which you need to say "regardless of whether or not people believe the same as I do, it is still a sin." And thus, yes, sin should be made illegal. Anything less would be hypocracy. To say that it is a sin, yet be for allowing others to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirsap Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Personally, I am not entirely sure either way. However, IN PRINCIPLE I see nothing wrong with this concept. It really depends on the situation. It is to my understanding that the State has every right to impose God's Law upon the people. However, the State has the right to decide not to do this if in doing so one would create anarchy, or something else hampering the common good ( the hampering of which would become the greater evil). For instance, a country with 99% Catholic population, this would be practical. Also the question about what type of thing you are forbidding comes into question as well. Is it practical, for example, to constantly work out who has committed fornication, in every situation? That's my 2cents. correct me if im wrong, PLEASE! I could well be wrong on something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruso Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) Which would be the it condemns for whom does not come to mass on Sunday?. Edited April 25, 2006 by ruso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirsap Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 [quote name='ruso' post='959673' date='Apr 25 2006, 12:07 PM'] Which would be the sorrow for whom does not come to mass on Sunday?. [/quote] Mass on Sunday is not of [b]natural law[/b], rather it (in itself) is a [/b]Church Law[b]. The question of Mass attendance only binds Catholics anyway (to my understanding). Although Mass on Sunday is a way in which the Church ensures the [i]application[/i] of the natural law, which is that we need a day of rest, dedicated to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It would be a rather insane thing to do right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 aiding vs. allowing I'm beginning to understand that allowing gay marriages if you are against homosexual acts and such is tantamount to aiding in the sin. It's a proactive aiding stance by passing the law. But I still don't understand how passing laws when one could just not pass anything is the right thing to do. I suppose you are passively allowing the sin, and are sort of "aiding" in the sin. I couldn't really call that aiding though, rather than allowing. I still can't really understand this part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruso Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 We can never impose our point of view, by no means. God made us free and we cannot judge the life of the others. For this way we might end up by forcing the others to follow God of the way that we believe correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Sin should be outlawed. It has been made so with some sin(murder, many kinds of violence, stealing) why not extend this to more acts against God? What makes one sin more worthy of a ban than another? Although one could bring in the argument that these are acts that hurt another person. Although, in reality, what sin doesn't another person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 How come I'm the only one that knows 1+1=3? And you all claim to be Catholics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I always was bad at math , you could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) dp Edited April 25, 2006 by Revprodeji Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Gone Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I have an issue with our desire to make the politics of our time regulate our faith and impose it on others. This is a false theopolicitical view(*woot-woot cavernaugh) this is a role of the church that should not be put on a secular state. If the state starts regulating morality at this level what is stoping them from regulating catholicism? Or even basic christianity? Id rather work within the eccesiology of our own faith and teach the leaders to speak morals to the people and allow the people to make their soul move for the truth. Rather than let a state govern it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC IMaGiNaZUN Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I voted this, because if i was dictator of the world, i would imprison all pornographers. I would destroy all the pornography, and i would get all the pornography models, make a therapy center for them, and they would be locked away until they are emotionally and psychologically adequate to enter the real world. SHALOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now