Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Banning Sin


dairygirl4u2c

  

23 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c

ty
i think the last one doesn't work right. maybe i didn't check the multiple choice box. i made the poll like three times but phat mass is slowand i lost it so the forth time i musta forgot in my asperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

"non-procreative sex acts" is ambiguous...do you mean things that couldn't possibly make life or do you mean couples having legitimate but infertile sex or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

as i said, use common sense. you know what i mean.
but, that said, it is ambiguous and could be construed for the ultraconservative out there to mean what you suggest, embracing it. or the liberal to avoid what you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choices are far too poorly thought out to be meaningful, as they include completely different categories of things.

"Natural law" simply means the law which can be known through natural reason alone (as opposed to revealed religion). That is an extremely broad catecgory.
The :Seven Deadly Sins" are categories of sin, or "root" sins, rather than specific sinful acts.
Other things listed are specific sins or acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest T-Bone

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1220144' date='Mar 26 2007, 08:37 PM']as i said, use common sense. you know what i mean.
but, that said, it is ambiguous and could be construed for the ultraconservative out there to mean what you suggest, embracing it. or the liberal to avoid what you suggest.[/quote]

You contradict yourself.

Do you really want us to take you seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

how do i contradict myself?

how does having general and specific choices overlapping change anything? You haven't stated your point in bringing that up. As far as I can tell, since it's multiple choice, choose the ones you want, the fact it overlaps doesn't change anything as it would with either or. If you see natural law, and can think of something you don't want to ban, don't vote for it. Otherwise, vote for it. Vote for waht you think is natural law.

If you see condom use and wonder if it'd be practical to ban it, don't bother with those practicalities because this is only theory of what should be in an ideal world where those practicalites don't exist but the sin still needs banned. As I said, use common sense in reading it to get to my intent.

I wonder if you guys just don't want to admit you'd have to be for banning most of that stuff if you'r efor banning some of it. (condom use if gay acts or whatevr the case)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as how "banning sin" would also be banning free will, I was going to abstain from voting; however, upon further review, I went with "excessive speeding" which is already a punishable offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

I didn't say, or at least didn't mean, that "my statemets were so ambiguous that they couldn't be deciphered, yet use common sense to know what they mean. "
It's not contradictory because something can be ambiguous but everyone still knows what it means. Most things people say are ambiguous but people are so accustomed to knowing what the ambiguous thing means they don't think about it. I think that's the case here for the reasons I've stated above.
Here, people could only looking for things to poke holes in. That's the mindset that people take with polls. Almost no poll other than the very basics can be perfect, that's a common knowledge amoung poll makers. Sure there will be some shades to how people answer, but overall the average is what you're seeking anyway. As a poll maker you make your shades as little as you can, and i think this is at taht point. People who shade it are trying to for hte most part.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

Thanks Kujo. You're a Catholic and consistent. You draw a very real line with things that affect other people. (as a Catholic, shouldnt you have voted for abortion too? it is multiple choice...)

Others vote against sodomy but can't give much reasons why they dn't ban fornication. According to what they say and the poll results. I agree it's less wrong in their theory fornication is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned? Unless their argument is that ti's a matter of degree whereas I don't think so, then it's be inherent difference of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thessalonian

[quote name='kujo' post='1220179' date='Mar 26 2007, 11:18 PM']Seeing as how "banning sin" would also be banning free will, I was going to abstain from voting; however, upon further review, I went with "excessive speeding" which is already a punishable offense.[/quote]


Being in sin is not free will. It's enslavement. Being in Christ is free will, that is what we are given when we become Christian. The power to overcome sin. Free will is not the power to do good or evil. For when we are evil we do not have the power to do good. Free will is the ability or freedom to do good as Augustine defined it. Those in sin are not free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

Whatever you want to call it, God gave man the power and autonomy to choose to sin. If we deny them that, we are denying them what God gave them.
And I would posit what he gave them to have the right to act on.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1220197' date='Mar 27 2007, 12:50 AM']Thanks Kujo. You're a Catholic and consistent. You draw a very real line with things that affect other people. (as a Catholic, shouldnt you have voted for abortion too? it is multiple choice...)

Others vote against sodomy but can't give much reasons why they dn't ban fornication. According to what they say and the poll results. I agree it's less wrong in their theory fornication is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned? Unless their argument is that ti's a matter of degree whereas I don't think so, then it's be inherent difference of opinion.[/quote]

I guess I overlooked abortion (and the fact that it is multiple choice :rolleyes: :idontknow: ) ABORTION IS HOMICIDE AND SHOULD BE VERY VERY VERY VERY ILLEGAL.

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1220464' date='Mar 27 2007, 01:41 PM']Being in sin is not free will. It's enslavement. Being in Christ is free will, that is what we are given when we become Christian. The power to overcome sin. Free will is not the power to do good or evil. For when we are evil we do not have the power to do good. Free will is the ability or freedom to do good as Augustine defined it. Those in sin are not free.[/quote]

Agreed.

But the question is should we mandate the proper use of free will? Is that our job? Or is it our duty to educated and evangelize to the world, being instruments of God's love and mercy, showing our fellow man the Truth and how to live in It?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kujo' post='1220571' date='Mar 27 2007, 04:15 PM']I guess I overlooked abortion (and the fact that it is multiple choice :rolleyes: :idontknow: ) ABORTION IS HOMICIDE AND SHOULD BE VERY VERY VERY VERY ILLEGAL.
Agreed.

But the question is should we mandate the proper use of free will? Is that our job? Or is it our duty to educated and evangelize to the world, being instruments of God's love and mercy, showing our fellow man the Truth and how to live in It?[/quote]Actions have consequences at many different levels. We do put limits on Rights not just to protect other's Rights, but because Rights include Responsibilities.

Just because you can get away with something does not mean it's morally okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1220728' date='Mar 27 2007, 07:50 PM']Actions have consequences at many different levels. We do put limits on Rights not just to protect other's Rights, but because Rights include Responsibilities.

Just because you can get away with something does not mean it's morally okay.[/quote]

Agreed.

But, as one of my political science professors once told me, my rights as an American end at the point at which they infringe on the rights of my fellow man. So, for instance, I have the "right" to think that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are lame and evil. As such, I have the "right" to campaign for the prohibition of this dastardly treat; however, I do NOT have the "right" to snatch PB&J sandwiches out of the hands of unsuspecting preschool children at their lunch table because they have the "right" to eat whatever they wish.

It may seem like a very basic explanation, but I think it holds true to more weighty discussions. As Americans, we can hold true any set of beliefs that we wish. But the second we infringe on the self-determination and free will of other Americans, we have violated their rights.

We are actually have a very similar discussion in another thread on homosexuality in the armed services that you should check out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...