Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Joohan]

(Image)

I'm going to copy-paste from the Catechism of the Catholic Church because this conversation on all sides has gone far off the rails of good faith, and Mr. Bones' Wild Ride does not stop even when it goes off the rails.

CCC1910: "Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

The Romans speak truth for one...

It is not our role to bring men to God, as only a man can endeavor that on his own, but as a community we shouldn't make his journey unnecessarily harder than what it already is.

[Prima Scriptura]

If you think that it's acceptable for the state to illegalise "sodomy," presumably on the grounds that you view it as sinful and therefore spiritually harmful, you've already established that the state has the right to restrict people's personal freedoms on the grounds of protecting their spiritual life. Once you've established that, it's hard to argue against the idea that the state can or should force people to be Christian, or indeed, that a non-Catholic state is justified in repressing Catholicism on the grounds that the practices of Catholicism are spiritually harmful from the point of view of other religions. You can't ban two men from having a bit of fun in bed in order to save their immortal souls and then raise any kind of principled rejection to a Protestant or Islamic state illegalising Catholic worship in order to protect people's immortal souls from what they may equally recognise as spiritual harm.

This doesn't follow. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all reject homosexuality so it's possible for a society made up of those religious groups to prohibit homosexual acts without necessarily going into the state forcing conversions. It would go "Despite our differences, this is the one thing we can agree upon" and of course part of that is that all three are Abrahamic religions so that's not too surprising. What happens however if a society is made up of those three religions but also another where homosexual acts aren't condemned? Or lets say Islam's tolerance for slavery clashes with Christian ethics against it? Eventually the state has to pick a side and will enforce that ethic on everyone else. You cannot have a stable society in which it is acceptable for Muslims to keep slaves but living among Christians for whom it is an abomination. Going back to the period in which the Roman Empire was Christianizing we see this with infanticide. Pagan Romans permitted infanticide while it was condemned as evil and sin by Christians and evoked *very* strong reactions against it. One of these two sides was eventually going to win and have their standard be the standard of the state. There was not going to be a situation in which both could live side by side together so long as that was happening. And I'd like to think that we can agree it's better that we started punishing and condemning people who killed newborns.

Personal sins, such as engaging consensual homosexual activities are far different than sins that involve harming other people, such as murder and chattel slavery.

This is NOT how you reach the lost souls of active homosexuals and transgender people, that should be our main goal.

[Old Tyrannia]

Perhaps you don't, but you've been continually replying to Tarsonis' posts criticising Sundiata, attacking the former's arguments, without criticising Sundiata at all yourself except where you've been prompted to by myself or Tars. It does create the impression that you are in agreement with Sundiata and are defending his position, which is not a good look when said position is "throw the gays in jail."

Just because I don't care for Tars' ideas and arguments doesn't mean I agree with Sun's.

Besides, I think I've already made it clear I don't think the law should be brought down on homosexuals.

Well, you have now- which is of course very welcome. I do think that some of your earlier posts, notably the one I responded to at the start of the present convo, would give the impression to any reasonable observer that you and Sundiata are on the same page; but I don't see any point in pressing the matter further.

I think that making mortal sins illegal, as Sundiata proposes, is fairly ridiculous- especially if the justification is to protect the spiritual safety of citizens. Putting aside the complete impracticality of enforcing a legal ban on sodomy, let alone other things regarded by the Catholic Church as mortal sins such as masturbation, blasphemy or attempting to perform magic, forcing someone to outwardly obey Christian morality will achieve nothing with regards to their inner spiritual reformation and so will not aid in their salvation. It's especially odd to insist that people should not be forced to be Christian, which suggests some acknowledgment of the reality that true faith cannot be forced upon someone, but to nonetheless force them to comply outwardly with Christian moral expectations; if they remain unconverted to the faith, then whether or not they follow all the rules of the Catholic integralist state they're not going to Heaven, as far as traditional Catholic salvational theology is concerned.

Conversely, I don't agree with Tarsonis' secularist position either. A Christian sovereign, i.e. the state, should exercise their duties in a manner informed by their faith and by the teachings of the church; and religion should form the basis of the state's legitimacy, since as de Maistre demonstrated the only truly stable basis for the legitimacy of a government is one that is both compelling and fundamentally irrational, and thus beyond dispute. However, a sovereign exercising their duties in line with their faith is not the same thing as seeking to compel by state coercion the adherence of their subjects to the church's moral standards in their private lives. The salvation of individuals is a matter for the church, not the state, which exists to protect those under its jurisdiction and maintain a stable social order within which the church may pursue its own function.

[Immortan Khan]

This doesn't follow. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all reject homosexuality so it's possible for a society made up of those religious groups to prohibit homosexual acts without necessarily going into the state forcing conversions. It would go "Despite our differences, this is the one thing we can agree upon" and of course part of that is that all three are Abrahamic religions so that's not too surprising. What happens however if a society is made up of those three religions but also another where homosexual acts aren't condemned? Or lets say Islam's tolerance for slavery clashes with Christian ethics against it? Eventually the state has to pick a side and will enforce that ethic on everyone else. You cannot have a stable society in which it is acceptable for Muslims to keep slaves but living among Christians for whom it is an abomination. Going back to the period in which the Roman Empire was Christianizing we see this with infanticide. Pagan Romans permitted infanticide while it was condemned as evil and sin by Christians and evoked *very* strong reactions against it. One of these two sides was eventually going to win and have their standard be the standard of the state. There was not going to be a situation in which both could live side by side together so long as that was happening. And I'd like to think that we can agree it's better that we started punishing and condemning people who killed newborns.

Personal sins, such as engaging consensual homosexual activities are far different than sins that involve harming other people, such as murder and chattel slavery.

Infanticide wasn't seen nor treated as murder. It's almost impossible for us to grasp how human life was seen in the past because we've had nearly two thousand years to completely change how we view its dignity. The morality of antiquity and even further back would be just as alien to us as an actual alien civilization.

Slavery isn't seen as harmful by all societies, or even all religions, and see it as normal, if not desirable social system.

[Immortan Khan]

Conversely, I don't agree with Tarsonis' secularist position either. A Christian sovereign, i.e. the state, should exercise their duties in a manner informed by their faith and by the teachings of the church; and religion should form the basis of the state's legitimacy, since as de Maistre demonstrated the only truly stable basis for the legitimacy of a government is one that is both compelling and fundamentally irrational, and thus beyond dispute. However, a sovereign exercising their duties in line with their faith is not the same thing as seeking to compel by state coercion the adherence of their subjects to the church's moral standards in their private lives. The salvation of individuals is a matter for the church, not the state, which exists to protect those under its jurisdiction and maintain a stable social order within which the church may pursue its own function.

There will always be some overlap between state duties, laws, regulations, and so on and the moral standards of whatever faith they belong to. I agree that there should be limits in place for certain things, but a blanket prohibition on it is functionally impossible. People's private lives will always have some regulations in place within a society. As a bare minimum it would be socially enforced through shaming and ostracization if not legally enforced and with said ostracization being legally permitted.

[Sundiata]

(Image)

I'm going to copy-paste from the Catechism of the Catholic Church because this conversation on all sides has gone far off the rails of good faith, and Mr. Bones' Wild Ride does not stop even when it goes off the rails.

CCC1910: "Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

The Romans speak truth for one...

It is not our role to bring men to God, as only a man can endeavor that on his own, but as a community we shouldn't make his journey unnecessarily harder than what it already is.

I agree in principle that we should not make anyone's spiritual journey harder than necessary. The common good necessarily includes Christianity and Christian teaching. Politics is a tool towards that common good, a Christian good. Not separate from it, never separate from it.

[Galactic Transylvania]

The common good necessarily includes Christianity and Christian teaching.

Considering the large number of people in most western societies which are not Christian and would rebel at the thought, no it's not.

Stoking civil unrest for the sake of your own self righteousness serves literally no one's good.

[Immortan Khan]

Considering the large number of people in most western societies which are not Christian and would rebel at the thought, no it's not.

Why should I care about their opinions? Their values, mores, and ethics are divorced from mine far more than other systems. And who have shown themselves to be incredibly hostile towards Christians and Christianity. Pray tell, why should I consider how they feel? We both think we would form the better society, eventually one would have to seize the reigns and push for it.

Stoking civil unrest for the sake of your own self righteousness serves literally no one's good.

I can imagine many Christians having said the same to hardcore secularists back in the day.

[Sundiata]

This doesn't follow. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all reject homosexuality so it's possible for a society made up of those religious groups to prohibit homosexual acts without necessarily going into the state forcing conversions. It would go "Despite our differences, this is the one thing we can agree upon" and of course part of that is that all three are Abrahamic religions so that's not too surprising. What happens however if a society is made up of those three religions but also another where homosexual acts aren't condemned? Or lets say Islam's tolerance for slavery clashes with Christian ethics against it? Eventually the state has to pick a side and will enforce that ethic on everyone else. You cannot have a stable society in which it is acceptable for Muslims to keep slaves but living among Christians for whom it is an abomination. Going back to the period in which the Roman Empire was Christianizing we see this with infanticide. Pagan Romans permitted infanticide while it was condemned as evil and sin by Christians and evoked *very* strong reactions against it. One of these two sides was eventually going to win and have their standard be the standard of the state. There was not going to be a situation in which both could live side by side together so long as that was happening. And I'd like to think that we can agree it's better that we started punishing and condemning people who killed newborns.

Personal sins, such as engaging consensual homosexual activities are far different than sins that involve harming other people, such as murder and chattel slavery.

This is NOT how you reach the lost souls of active homosexuals and transgender people, that should be our main goal.

Sin whether done in public or private is an affront to God and his way for humanity. Reach the soul, yes. But we should always remember that the spiritual faculties are fed by what they receive from the senses. It is the responsibility of a just state, a Christian state, to guard them.

[Prima Scriptura]

Conversely, I don't agree with Tarsonis' secularist position either. A Christian sovereign, i.e. the state, should exercise their duties in a manner informed by their faith and by the teachings of the church; and religion should form the basis of the state's legitimacy, since as de Maistre demonstrated the only truly stable basis for the legitimacy of a government is one that is both compelling and fundamentally irrational, and thus beyond dispute. However, a sovereign exercising their duties in line with their faith is not the same thing as seeking to compel by state coercion the adherence of their subjects to the church's moral standards in their private lives. The salvation of individuals is a matter for the church, not the state, which exists to protect those under its jurisdiction and maintain a stable social order within which the church may pursue its own function.

There will always be some overlap between state duties, laws, regulations, and so on and the moral standards of whatever faith they belong to. I agree that there should be limits in place for certain things, but a blanket prohibition on it is functionally impossible. People's private lives will always have some regulations in place within a society. As a bare minimum it would be socially enforced through shaming and ostracization if not legally enforced and with said ostracization being legally permitted.

Once again, you’re letting your personal disgust of homosexual activity in the way of softening the hearts of active homosexuals and hopefully eventually accepting God’s grace. Remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes, and saved his more firm and strong language against the Pharisees.

[Sundiata]

There will always be some overlap between state duties, laws, regulations, and so on and the moral standards of whatever faith they belong to. I agree that there should be limits in place for certain things, but a blanket prohibition on it is functionally impossible. People's private lives will always have some regulations in place within a society. As a bare minimum it would be socially enforced through shaming and ostracization if not legally enforced and with said ostracization being legally permitted.

Once again, you’re letting your personal disgust of homosexual activity in the way of softening the hearts of active homosexuals and hopefully eventually accepting God’s grace. Remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes, and saved his more firm and strong language against the Pharisees.

Our Messiah was not some relativistic will-o-the-wisp with no backbone, no core values.

He was disgusted by the sins of the prostitutes and the pharisees alike but he loved them so much that he died for their sake.

[Old Tyrannia]

Once again, you’re letting your personal disgust of homosexual activity in the way of softening the hearts of active homosexuals and hopefully eventually accepting God’s grace. Remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes, and saved his more firm and strong language against the Pharisees.

Our Messiah was not some relativistic will-o-the-wisp with no core values.

He was disgusted by the sins of the prostitutes and the pharisees alike but he loved them so much that he died for their sake.

Which is good news for you, given that you are a modern day Pharisee.

I make no comment with regards to whether you are or are not a prostitute, although I doubt it. You probably wouldn't get much business.

[Immortan Khan]

There will always be some overlap between state duties, laws, regulations, and so on and the moral standards of whatever faith they belong to. I agree that there should be limits in place for certain things, but a blanket prohibition on it is functionally impossible. People's private lives will always have some regulations in place within a society. As a bare minimum it would be socially enforced through shaming and ostracization if not legally enforced and with said ostracization being legally permitted.

Once again, you’re letting your personal disgust of homosexual activity in the way of softening the hearts of active homosexuals and hopefully eventually accepting God’s grace. Remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes, and saved his more firm and strong language against the Pharisees.

I don't find homosexuality disgusting, I don't even view it as wrong.

[Suriyanakhon]

Our Messiah was not some relativistic will-o-the-wisp with no core values.

He was disgusted by the sins of the prostitutes and the pharisees alike but he loved them so much that he died for their sake.

Which is good news for you, given that you are a modern day Pharisee.

I make no comment with regards to whether you are or are not a prostitute, although I doubt it. You probably wouldn't get much business.

Reading this out of context was just 10/10.

[Farnhamia]

Our Messiah was not some relativistic will-o-the-wisp with no core values.

He was disgusted by the sins of the prostitutes and the pharisees alike but he loved them so much that he died for their sake.

Which is good news for you, given that you are a modern day Pharisee.

I make no comment with regards to whether you are or are not a prostitute, although I doubt it. You probably wouldn't get much business.

I can think of no reason that you might call Sundiata a Pharisee except to insult him, knowing that the term would be taken that way.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Karolengia]

One of the common talking points I have heard from this new crowd of post-liberal, right-integralists — who I am not in full agreement I must clarify! — is that liberalism is just a hollowed out bastardisation of Christianity. So perhaps the other way around?

More seriously, I don't actually object to this characterisation that much. A confessional state or a liberal state will both enforce their own moral doctrines. This is the nature of governing.

I can't adequately respond to other posts at the moment as I'm face deep I a bowl of cheesy pasta, and then I have to prep for a trip, but I can clarify this one. Liberalism isnt a hollowed out version of Christianity, rather Liberalism is a direct derivative. While it stratifies into deism depending on which author you're reading, Christian Humanism, and the emphasis on the Imago Dei was an important factor in the emergence of the concept of human rights which Western Liberalism is derived from.

Oh yes, perhaps I should have said — I do not necessarily agree with the right-integralists. But if we accept that liberalism is a derivative of Christianity then there is nothing necessarily wrong with positing that it is a hollowed out version of it. The two are not in contradiction.

[Karolengia]

The common good necessarily includes Christianity and Christian teaching.

Considering the large number of people in most western societies which are not Christian and would rebel at the thought, no it's not.

Stoking civil unrest for the sake of your own self righteousness serves literally no one's good.

Yeah I am sure they would totally rebel. Just like how people are going to totally rebel over government surveillance, vaccine mandates, and all the other stuff that people said they would totally rebel over.

[Albrenia]

I doubt trying to force a particular religion on those not believing in it would go well - people tend to take their faith extremely seriously.

[Joohan]

The common good necessarily includes Christianity and Christian teaching.

Considering the large number of people in most western societies which are not Christian and would rebel at the thought, no it's not.

Stoking civil unrest for the sake of your own self righteousness serves literally no one's good.

Yes, and Lincoln I suppose was just a rabble rouser who should have kept his mouth shout. Who was he to tell the southern states that what they were doing was wrong?

[Galactic Transylvania]

Why should I care about their opinions?

For that matter why should I care about yours, or, rather, considering your preferred methods, why ought I be forced to care? Your judgement is fallible.

I can imagine many Christians having said the same to hardcore secularists back in the day.

"The government ought not be a theocracy" is a rather non-offensive an unrestrictive idea. And certainly not much, if any, of a burden to anyone.

[Galactic Transylvania]

Considering the large number of people in most western societies which are not Christian and would rebel at the thought, no it's not.

Stoking civil unrest for the sake of your own self righteousness serves literally no one's good.

Yes, and Lincoln I suppose was just a rabble rouser who should have kept his mouth shout. Who was he to tell the southern states that what they were doing was wrong?

The fact that the South objectively started the war and Lincoln's original policy was not full abolition aside, it's rather absurd to suggest that seeking to free people who were involuntarily arranged into forced labor is far different than wanting to regulate personal matters and consensual behavior against the will of the governed.

[Prima Scriptura]

Once again, you’re letting your personal disgust of homosexual activity in the way of softening the hearts of active homosexuals and hopefully eventually accepting God’s grace. Remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes, and saved his more firm and strong language against the Pharisees.

I don't find homosexuality disgusting, I don't even view it as wrong.

Homosexual activities are a sin, and quite a serious one. In both the Old and New Testament, it is condemned.

Our Messiah was not some relativistic will-o-the-wisp with no core values.

He was disgusted by the sins of the prostitutes and the pharisees alike but he loved them so much that he died for their sake.

Which is good news for you, given that you are a modern day Pharisee.

I make no comment with regards to whether you are or are not a prostitute, although I doubt it. You probably wouldn't get much business.

I wouldn’t call Sundiata a Pharisee. I would say that he is getting his anger in the way of reaching the lost souls of active homosexuals. God hates sin, but in order to save lost souls from hell, we need to preach the grace that God offers. That is what Sun fails to do, along with many of our fellow Christians. Homosexual activities are not the unpardonable sin, not even close. But Sundiata is acting like it is.

[Joohan]

The fact that the South objectively started the war

yes they, as you say, rebelled at the thought, of Lincoln's supposed, self righteousness.

it's rather absurd to suggest that seeking to free people who were involuntarily arranged into forced labor is far different than wanting to regulate personal matters and consensual behavior against the will of the governed.

The Christian statesmen seeks to create a better society by ensuring welfare and equity for all. Law is always a restriction on men's ability to act on their desires. We saw that slavery was destructive to men in their dignity, both that of the slaver and slave themselves - and today we see a great many vice in the same light, as destroying men's dignity, and further weakening our society as whole. Men are going to do as they please, as they always have, but we should endeavor to create a community which doesn't force them unnecessarily towards destructive lifestyles. Letting your brother kill himself from addiction isn't love, and it certainly isn't respect. You alone can't very well fix him, but you can help him to fix himself, and most certainly you shouldn't enable his destruction.

[Celritannia]

Yes. You support the use of violence against non-Christians to force them to conform to Christian doctrine, to violate their own moral conscience and submit to yours. You support forced conversion via the sword.

Christian doctrine should be enforced by the state.

Fuck no.

[Celritannia]

I don't find homosexuality disgusting, I don't even view it as wrong.

Homosexual activities are a sin, and quite a serious one. In both the Old and New Testament, it is condemned.

Where does it say in the New Testament that homosexual activities are wrong?