Stubenville course, crime, homosexual deviant

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Pope Benedict:

The Holy Father says:
Code: 
"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live, how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."
“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Amen times ten to the twelfth power.
 
edwest2 said:
You’ll have to back up your claim that they teach Creationism.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
That’s what I was thinking. FUS does not teach Creationism.

A few of their professors might be supporters of Intelligent Design, but I suppose we shouldn’t open up that can of worms. 😛
 
For those that are interested in moving beyond knee jerk responses (;)), here is the complete course description:

SWK 314

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.
3 credit hours

Just because all these “deviant behaviors” are listed together and examined throughout one college course does not mean that they are teaching that each one is exactly as bad as all the rest. Let’s not leave our common sense at the door, people! 😛 It’s a three sentence course description, not a dissertation. It’s job is to convey the topics of the course. If you want to hear the explanations, sign up for the class! 🙂
 
edwest2 said:
Give me relativism and consent, and approve of my behavior.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Isn’t that the truth. If my immoral behavior is accepted then I can delude myself that it’s not really immoral, even though natural law tells me better.
 
Seems to me that there is a reasonable accomodation that could be made here (a REAL one, not a phony political “accomodation”). FUS could simply clarify the sentence to remove the apparent suggestion that rape and homosexual sex of of similar natures. No need to back away from the moral assertion that both are deviant, but one could be more diplomatic in lumping homosexual actions in with deviant hetero sexual actions such as adultery, fornication, etc, instead of lumping it in with the civilly criminal actions like rape and domestic abuse.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m on FUS’s side here. But I also think it pays to listen to one’s critics and in cases of severe conflict like this, grant them any reasonable points they make.
 
What I meant about the university possibly teaching Creationism is that it’s a Catholic school, so they can teach what they want. I’m sure the people that attended that class would already believe it was deviant anyway. 🤷
sedonaman said:
I think it would be more accurate to say the world is at war with the Church.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, but only because the world is growing up and is really having to drag the church kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Although, I do feel that the church should be left to its own devices sometimes. It’s only when I feel the church are imposing their beliefs on other people that I have a problem.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Well, sure, but only because the world is growing up and is really having to drag the Church kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Click to expand...
People having been saying that for centuries. They are all gone, yet the Church is still here.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Well, sure, but only because the world is growing up and is really having to drag the Church kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Click to expand...
That may be the skeptical pagan viewpoint. In the case of someone with a belief in absolute good, absolute morality and natural law, it is a different matter entirely.
 
fix said:
People having been saying that for centuries. They are all gone, yet the Church is still here.
Click to expand...
Centuries? No, they haven’t. The church has almost had complete and utter control over people and nations in Europe for centuries. It’s only in the last century or so that the church is losing its grip. And it now probably has the smallest amount of power since it was formed.
Faithdancer said:
From the skeptical pagan viewpoint, that may be the case. In the case of someone with a belief in absolute good, absolute morality and natural law, it is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
I love posts like this. I’d say I’d accept that if you were Protestant, as the Bible isn’t going to change, but the Catholic ideals don’t seem to be set in stone.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Centuries? No, they haven’t. The church has almost had complete and utter control over people and nations in Europe for centuries. It’s only in the last century or so that the church is losing its grip. And it now probably has the smallest amount of power since it was formed.
Click to expand...
People have rebelled against the Church from the start.
 
fix said:
People have rebelled against the Church from the start.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but not so much Christianity. If fact, the church has pretty much been the oppressor for centuries. The majority of those people who rebelled against the church would have probably been put to death. The only major obstacles the Catholic church would have met would be other denominations of Christianity, such as Protestantism. The earliest example of an atheist opposing the Catholic church I could find was in the 1700s, and that was after he died:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

If he’d been found out before he’d died, I’d imagine he’d have been in big, big trouble.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Possibly, but not so much Christianity. If fact, the church has pretty much been the oppressor for centuries. The majority of those people who rebelled against the church would have probably been put to death. The only major obstacles the Catholic church would have met would be other denominations of Christianity, such as Protestantism. The earliest example of an atheist opposing the Catholic church I could find was in the 1700s, and that was after he died:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

If he’d been found out before he’d died, I’d imagine he’d have been in big, big trouble.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the propaganda. The Church did not put people to death. The state did.
 
fix said:
Thanks for the propaganda. The Church did not put people to death. The state did.
Click to expand...
Well, if we’re talking about Great Britain or most of Europe, then the church pretty much controlled those countries. While I suppose you’re correct, there were many deaths that were caused due to religion. I mean, the Crusades were blessed by the Pope and the Catholic church, and only really existed to restore Christianity to the Holy Land. On top of that, loads of people have been put to death for having certain beliefs that opposed certain denominations of Christianity. Such as in the Tudor period.

I’m not trying to beat up on the church or Christianity, but you seem to hold this belief that Christians, or Catholics, have always been an oppressed group. This isn’t true.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
…
Well, sure, but only because the world is growing up and is really having to drag the church kicking and screaming into the 21st century. …
Click to expand...
The Church is in a teaching capacity. As such it is to lead, not follow. If it were to follow, there would be no need for a church; we could simply adopt the current liberal “in” thought and causes célèbre.
“…the Church does not find the source of her faith and her constitutive structure in the principles of the social order of any historical period.”[1]
  • Joseph Card. Ratzinger
    Prefect
    [1] Translation: Church doctrine is not determined by liberal American jet-set philosophy of the day.
Click to expand...
I would not consider repeating the errors of the past as “growing up”; it is regression:
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – Historian Paul Johnson
Click to expand...
Of course, many are not humbled because they think their ideas are original. The Church has had 2,000 years of experience dealing with human nature, and I think it is in a better theological position than, say, the likes of Rosie O’Donnell or Oprah Winfrey, as though 100 generations got it wrong, but thank God the latest one got it right. Such hubris. Such pride.

What you are advocating is modernism.
The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: “Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion”. A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century — such is the longing that possesses the modernists. “The avowed modernists”, says M. Loisy, “form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today” (op. cit., p. 13). “Our religious attitude”, as “Il programma dei modernisti” states (p. 5, note l), “is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who live in harmony with the spirit of the age”. The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:
  • A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
  • A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
  • A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.
Click to expand...
Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of “essential” modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm
Click to expand...
 
sedonaman said:
What you are advocating is modernism.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I don’t know. All that stuff you just posted sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory. I also find it interesting that you claim you have finally got Christianity right. It’s funny, because generations before you have claimed the same thing. And they’ll carry on claiming it. As I stated, I wasn’t using mistakes of the past to beat up on Christianity, but to dismiss the idea that the church has always been a victim of oppression, which it surely hasn’t. I also know for a fact that there were not any major atheist or evolutionist movements from prior to the 19th century (and possibly not even prior to the 20th century, I’d have thought).

I myself don’t support the things I support because I feel they’re modern. I support them because I feel they’re right. I also oppose many things which may be considered modern, such as abortion.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Well, sure, but only because the world is growing up and is really having to drag the church kicking and screaming into the 21st century. .
Click to expand...
Curiously, the Episcopal Church in America—which has yet to find a progressive value it does not embrace and craft a prayer for—is dwindling. I don’t know how a long-established church could be much more 21st century, and yet they keep losing people. “Liberal” churches for decades now have had to deal with declining membership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top