When people base their view of sin only according to the law of the land and ignore God, homosexual behavior can be pure and not marrying same-sexed couples can be a sin.
The right to nondiscrimination
- Thread starter Nihilo
- Start date
Except God calls homosexuality an "abomination." Sin is defined as something that leads to death. (Romans 6:23) Sin is going against God's will. God's will is that all would have life, and more abundantly. If something leads to death, and God calls it an abomination, that means it goes against God's will, meaning there's no other word for it. IT'S SIN!
I think I just threw up a bit reading that.... What part of God calling it an "abomination" do you not get?
SHAME ON YOU for promoting sin, for being someone who turns the truth of God into a lie, who calls good evil and evil good.
Homosexuality is a sin, it's sexual immorality. Forget allowing the perverts to pervert marriage, which is something God Himself instituted, for their own benefit, they should be executed just for committing such acts.
Spoiler
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I agree with you, reread my post.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i caught JR's response to you, but i think he misunderstands you
we have those here who worship man's law above God's (not you JR)
they have all the reward they'll get
There are a lot of people (even besides atheists) who start at the civil law, and logically work backwards to morality, and that's what I meant when I said that "homosexual behavior can be pure and not marrying same-sexed couples can be a sin," the latter being the case if they ever penalize the Catholic Church for only celebrating the sacrament of marriage between a man and a lady. It was part of why I started the thread, because from a position of religious faith, we believe that the Founder of our religion taught that the sacrament of marriage is only validly celebrated between a man and a lady, and never between two same-sexed people, so to try to force the Catholic Church by law to do so would be violating not only the religious liberty of Catholics, but also of the Lord Himself.
Oh well, as long as I am being judged, that's the important thing I guess.
Stuart
So you are saying that the Catholic church is going to stop opposing the availability of abortion on demand for non-Catholics?
Stuart
No, abortion's killing, but the Catholic Church doesn't require you to get an abortion in order to go to Catholic schools or to Catholic hospitals.
I was thinking more of the Catholic church keeping its club rules for just its members when decriminalisation of abortion is being passed through the legislature. Will it acknowledge that its rules apply to its members only, or will it insist on trying to apply its club rules to everyone?
Stuart
The Catholic Church believes abortion is killing and should be outlawed, and Catholics have the freedom of religion to vote their conscience, so that's the process, good, bad or indifferent I guess.
Moral laws apply to everyone, not just a specific religion.
I wonder, do you believe that there is absolute right and absolute wrong?
In other words, can something be wrong in all circumstances at all times in all places, as opposed to only in some circumstances sometimes in a few places?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Club rules...
... apply to club members only. This is a perfect example.
I believe it is absolutely right that a human being can decide what is done or not done to his or her body, no matter what club is trying to apply its rules to everyone.
I am starting to think it is wrong in all circumstances for a hobbyist to try to apply the rules of his hobby to all of humanity.
Stuart
So your answer is no, you don't believe in absolute right or wrong.
Then tell me, is is wrong for a man to rape a woman?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I think the question is meaningless.
It is wrong for a man to rape a woman for exactly the same reason that it is wrong for the Catholic church to try to insist everyone follows its club rules on topics like contraception and abortion. Specifically, the woman may not have given consent in either case. There is a very real sense in which the Catholic church has 'raped' women for centuries.
Do you think the right to medical consent is 'absolute'? If the club rules of the Catholic church override the right to consent (and a hierarchy of rights is what we are actually talking about here, not absolutes) then medical consent to ones own body means nothing. So if I ever need a replacement liver, I could just turn up on your doorstep and take yours, right?
Stuart
But you're still up against the very practical matter that the Church, under no compulsion but of her own charity, provides the very needed services of school and hospitals. In order to address this, you need to spend a lot of money. And once you're done, you've got a more thorough public school system than you ever did, and you have to decide how to interpret the law of the land in your policy decisions, and one of those decisions is going to be what to do about contraception and abortion, and you'll follow the law, that clearly applies to public works, but the issue is murky when dealing with charitable religious organizations providing needed assistance to the public.
Is it absolutely meaningless, or just meaningless to you? :think:
Answer the question with an answer, please. I'll. Even make it multiple choice. Is it wrong for a man to rape a woman?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know
I will reply to this once you have answered my question.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Like the word unique, the word meaningless is absolute. I didn't mean that I believe it has meaning to some other people. Absolute morality is a meaningless concept.
I refer you to the post where I wrote: "It is wrong for a man to rape a woman for exactly the same reason that it is wrong for the Catholic church to try to insist everyone follows its club rules on topics like contraception and abortion."
Stuart
Are you scared of giving a straight answer to my question? I want to see if you can even comprehend the principle before we talk about contraception/abortion, etc.
Is it wrong for a man to rape a woman?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
And I appreciate there is nothing pragmatic about hoping that the Catholic church removes itself from any of this kind of work, to be replaced by some utopian secular alternative. But I still believe that would be the only just outcome, given the RCC's singular inability to resist spreading its muck all over humanity.
Just in case I have left you in any doubt (!), I am of the opinion that a just course of action would be to bulldoze the Vatican (a gaudy religious theme park at best, especially the nasty St Peters which is both ugly and paid for in lies), save the Sistine Chapel as a memorial to the gay man who painted it, and turn the rest of that Roman suburb into an international park for children, no priests allowed.
You may not agree, but you see the point I hope.
Stuart
If someone comes into my home, they take off their shoes, specifically to not spread muck on my floors. House rules. You're making an antisocial mountain out of a molehill bud.
Do you agree that your position is an extreme and antisocial one?