Catholic morality and secular law

  • Thread starter Thread starter mek42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mek42

Guest
Why do most Christians (including Catholics) find it more important to legislate against same sex marriage than taking the Lord’s name in vain? According to the Mosaic Covenant, the latter is a far worse offense. From a secular perspective, both are infringements on liberty.
 
mek42 said:
Why do most Christians (including Catholics) find it more important to legislate against same sex marriage than taking the Lord’s name in vain? According to the Mosaic Covenant, the latter is a far worse offense. From a secular perspective, both are infringements on liberty.
Click to expand...
Interesting question since most Catholics I know probably take the Lords name in vain. But it is kind of irrelevant. There is lots of sin but gay “marriage” is state sponsored sin.
So the analogy would be comparable if the state had a legal process to sign to declare your blaspheme. There would probably be a bigger outcry against that…

But I’m currious. The battle is over. That Pandora’s box is never closing. Vsp why do you think there is so much public outcry against it?
 
mek42 said:
Why do most Christians (including Catholics) find it more important to legislate against same sex marriage than taking the Lord’s name in vain? According to the Mosaic Covenant, the latter is a far worse offense. From a secular perspective, both are infringements on liberty.
Click to expand...
Christians are not bound by the Mosaic law.
 
mek42 said:
Why do most Christians (including Catholics) find it more important to legislate against same sex marriage than taking the Lord’s name in vain? According to the Mosaic Covenant, the latter is a far worse offense. From a secular perspective, both are infringements on liberty.
Click to expand...
The issue is not to legislate against it, it is to oppose the State legislating or directing in favour of it.
 
Micosil said:
:confused: Erm, my RCIA program most definitely includes a section on the Ten Commandments, and we most certainly are bound by them.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a2.htm
Click to expand...
Of course we are.🤷
OP said “mosaic law” not “ten commandments”.
The OP is proposing that swearing is “far worse” than homosexuality while referencing the mosaic covenant.
That’s what I am addressing.
Maybe the OP should reference where he reads “far worse” in scripture and we can specifically address that. The ten commandments certainly don’t say that.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Are we really proposing Sharia-like speech patrols?
Click to expand...
That the punishment for violation of Mosaic laws such as the Ten Commandments isn’t used in Christianity, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a grave matter and a sin.

While most people wouldn’t want people to be stoned to death for such actions, it doesn’t mean it isn’t sinful.
 
clem456 said:
Of course we are.🤷
OP said “mosaic law” not “ten commandments”.
The OP is proposing that swearing is “far worse” than homosexuality while referencing the mosaic covenant.
That’s what I am addressing.
Maybe the OP should reference where he reads “far worse” in scripture and we can specifically address that. The ten commandments certainly don’t say that.
Click to expand...
I suppose the confusion here is what is meant by “Mosaic Law”. If it means all of the precepts of the Pentateuch, including the harsh punishments, sure. Now, if it only refers to the moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments, that’s something else.
 
Micosil said:
I suppose the confusion here is what is meant by “Mosaic Law”. If it means all of the precepts of the Pentateuch, including the harsh punishments, sure. Now, if it only refers to the moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments, that’s something else.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Rau said:
The issue is not to legislate against it, it is to oppose the State legislating or directing in favour of it.
Click to expand...
How are these not logically equivalent?

I was thinking about the Ten Commandments when I wrote Mosaic Law. Apologies if I used poor language.
 
mek42 said:
How are these not logically equivalent?
Click to expand...
The action in the present is different. Were marriage always understood to be “unisex”, one could seek to eliminate a subset of cases by legislation.

We have the reverse. The State seeking to endorse a new idea.
 
Rau said:
The action in the present is different. Were marriage always understood to be “unisex”, one could seek to eliminate a subset of cases by legislation.

We have the reverse. The State seeking to endorse a new idea.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I understand the reasoning now.
 
Rau said:
The action in the present is different. Were marriage always understood to be “unisex”, one could seek to eliminate a subset of cases by legislation.

We have the reverse. The State seeking to endorse a new idea.
Click to expand...
How about if we compare blasphemy with sex outside of marriage (not adultery) or contraception. The same problem as suggested in the OP would apply as it surely must be considered a graver sin.
 
Bradski said:
How about if we compare blasphemy with sex outside of marriage (not adultery) or contraception. The same problem as suggested in the OP would apply as it surely must be considered a graver sin.
Click to expand...
You make an assertion.
Can you give us the reasoning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top