S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Wow again making this to complicated and going into to much detail.
Yes I am against Judging others in the welfare of their soul and actions
- Status
Yes I am against Judging others in the welfare of their soul and actions
N
Nate13
Guest
Also since your against “judging others” I’m not allowed to say I think your an incredibly bright 13 year old who shows impeccable tastes by spending so much time on this website. After all I would be judging your actions. For all I know your just on here to cause trouble and aren’t even Catholic. Also if I can’t judge that means I can’t call you a sinner, but I also can’t say your not a sinner. Both would be judging after all. Our courts of law can’t judge anyone’s actions to be innocent since that would be judging. Not being able to call someone’s actions “wrong” also precludes that I can’t call someones actions “right”.
I agree we are not to judge other peoples soul’s because that is something only God can do. Judging people’s actions though is a necessary part of existence and happens everyday in our court systems.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Are you too young to have this conversation?
It is not a shameful thing to learn something. I don’t believe that you really want to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that there are several people on this thread that are actually concerned about your faith formation and are trying to get you to understand a concept that you don’t understand. But if you can’t understand what I posted and why I posted it, it is perhaps too advanced for you.
By the way, did you look at the scripture I referred you to?
Peace
Tim
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
You know I am referring to negative judgment there is no need to twist things.
And yes I am a baptized Catholic.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
We have now explained why your assumptions are faulty.
I didn’t say that or imply that. But here’s what would happen, should I knowingly engage in material cooperation with evil: At my Particular Judgment, Jesus will review with me why I did that. To use a modern term, it will go into my complete “file” (haha, a big one
) of bad decisions. But note that a large “file” of bad decisions does not necessarily result in damnation; it may result in purgatorial time for whatever temporal harm my decisions and omissions caused, which I did not sufficiently acknowledge in this life, atone for, and rectify or repair.~It could have been a decision based on expediency (greed, and/or favoritism by the gay community vis-a-vis gay “marriage” in particular; notice that I have already said twice before that I personally disapprove of discrimination in terms of general, non-“marital” services to self-identified gays) And by implication, the Church also disapproves of such non-marital discrimination in terms of services, lack of persecution, job & housing opportunity, etc. That is included in the Faithful Citizenship document & other Church documents, including the CCC.
~It could have been (whatever the decision/action) a decision based on fear (cowardice, wanting community or individual approval, concern about economic retaliation, etc.)
~It could have been a decision based on vainglory (such as, wanting to be “seen” politically or socially as completely accepting of the entire Gay Agenda, including the phony & illegitimate term “Marriage Equality.” Or some other immoral cause.)
~It could have been a decision based on laziness. (Too difficult to “fight it.” “Not worth” the effort, in a shortsighted way. Minimalizing the effect of my decision.)
THOSE ARE ALL CONVENIENT RATIONALIZATIONS for actions. They are not well-constructed, thoughtful moral decisions. They are cop-outs.
And yes, I will have to answer at my Particular Judgment for the fact that I already know that I have made decisions based on all 4 above categories at least once in my life: I have compromised my moral beliefs on occasion based on the above rationalizations.
No. You are trying to reduce the effect of personal decisions and are using an over-broad understanding of the term “judge.” My explanation is the Church’s explanation. You may not like the complexity of moral theology, but it is what it is: complex.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Umm No sorry didn’t get the scripture you referred to me here give me the verse.
So wait all you guys are accusing me of not being a Catholic simply because I said you can give Gays wedding cake.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Irrelevant and that wasn’t my point. My point was that saying that it was ok because it was her job is a very, very bad line of reasoning. So, now that you know my point, was a guard at Auschwitz excused simply because he was doing his job?
Peace
Tim
N
Nate13
Guest
Ah so now we see what your really saying. Your only against negative judging. But if I can’t judge your action to be wrong doesn’t mean every action is right by default? You seem to think you can avoid making a judgement. The problem is every choice by default IS a judgement. Anytime I choose to do one thing, it means I chose not to do something else. Thus I made a judgement that one thing is better than another.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
No its not complex It is a wedding cake not a deed to the worldWe have now explained why your assumptions are faulty.
I didn’t say that or imply that. But here’s what would happen, should I knowingly engage in material cooperation with evil: At my Particular Judgment, Jesus will review with me why I did that. To use a modern term, it will go into my complete “file” (haha, a big one
~It could have been a decision based on expediency (greed, and/or favoritism by the gay community vis-a-vis gay "marriage" in particular; notice that I have already said twice before that I personally disapprove of discrimination in terms of general, non-“marital” services to self-identified gays) And by implication, the Church also disapproves of such non-marital discrimination in terms of services, lack of persecution, job & housing opportunity, etc. That is included in the Faithful Citizenship document & other Church documents, including the CCC.
~It could have been (whatever the decision/action) a decision based on fear (cowardice, wanting community or individual approval, concern about economic retaliation, etc.)
~It could have been a decision based on vainglory (such as, wanting to be “seen” politically or socially as completely accepting of the entire Gay Agenda, including the phony & illegitimate term “Marriage Equality.” Or some other immoral cause.)
~It could have been a decision based on laziness. (Too difficult to “fight it.” “Not worth” the effort, in a shortsighted way. Minimalizing the effect of my decision.)
THOSE ARE ALL CONVENIENT RATIONALIZATIONS for actions. They are not well-constructed, thoughtful moral decisions. They are cop-outs.
And yes, I will have to answer at my Particular Judgment for the fact that I already know that I have made decisions based on all 4 above categories at least once in my life: I have compromised my moral beliefs on occasion based on the above rationalizations.
No. You are trying to reduce the effect of personal decisions and are using an over-broad understanding of the term “judge.” My explanation is the Church’s explanation. You may not like the complexity of moral theology, but it is what it is: complex.
N
Nate13
Guest
Haha I was being sarcastic in my post. Of course I believe your a Catholic and I believe your a good one at that because your on this site. I think you just misinformed
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Listen there is this famous quote:
“You don’t have to try to be a great man, just try to be a man.”
Guess who said that?
That’s right Star Trek
J
John21652
Guest
Hi Juliane…Don’t you have any homework to do??
I’ve been reading through this thread and it would seem you are dealing with someone who has a very short attention span, who can’t conceptualise and who has been brainwashed with the old mantra of ‘do not discriminate’.
That’s where society today has gone wrong and is going wronger.
Discrimination has always been a part of building up a moral character. The youth of today can’t build that character because the tools for doing so have been taken away from them.
Because they are taught to not discriminate, they have to keep silent about all personal behaviours that are sinful and even anti-social. In the process society is being fragmented into conclaves and no-one may dare speak out against it for fear of being labelled. The trick some use is to call anyone who crticises those obnoxious personal behaviours ‘just another sinner’, which is based on such a huge assumption as to be a great big whopping joke.
A
ahs
Guest
Thanks for this wonderfully informative post! I was having trouble putting thoughts into words as I skimmed through the thread, and you have done it so well.We have now explained why your assumptions are faulty.
I didn’t say that or imply that. But here’s what would happen, should I knowingly engage in material cooperation with evil: At my Particular Judgment, Jesus will review with me why I did that. To use a modern term, it will go into my complete “file” (haha, a big one
~It could have been a decision based on expediency (greed, and/or favoritism by the gay community vis-a-vis gay "marriage" in particular; notice that I have already said twice before that I personally disapprove of discrimination in terms of general, non-“marital” services to self-identified gays) And by implication, the Church also disapproves of such non-marital discrimination in terms of services, lack of persecution, job & housing opportunity, etc. That is included in the Faithful Citizenship document & other Church documents, including the CCC.
~It could have been (whatever the decision/action) a decision based on fear (cowardice, wanting community or individual approval, concern about economic retaliation, etc.)
~It could have been a decision based on vainglory (such as, wanting to be “seen” politically or socially as completely accepting of the entire Gay Agenda, including the phony & illegitimate term “Marriage Equality.” Or some other immoral cause.)
~It could have been a decision based on laziness. (Too difficult to “fight it.” “Not worth” the effort, in a shortsighted way. Minimalizing the effect of my decision.)
THOSE ARE ALL CONVENIENT RATIONALIZATIONS for actions. They are not well-constructed, thoughtful moral decisions. They are cop-outs.
And yes, I will have to answer at my Particular Judgment for the fact that I already know that I have made decisions based on all 4 above categories at least once in my life: I have compromised my moral beliefs on occasion based on the above rationalizations.
No. You are trying to reduce the effect of personal decisions and are using an over-broad understanding of the term “judge.” My explanation is the Church’s explanation. You may not like the complexity of moral theology, but it is what it is: complex.
By the way, when it comes to judging…for those who are of the “thou shall not judge” crowd and feel like we should all mind our own business in such affairs, please read this and see that we indeed are called to judge…in the proper manner:
blog.adw.org/2010/06/correcting-the-sinner-is-not-being-judgmental-it-is-an-essential-work-of-charity/
blog.adw.org/2009/11/fraternal-correction-the-forgotten-virtue/
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Really?Haha I was being sarcastic in my post. Of course I believe your a Catholic and I believe your a good one at that because your on this site. I think you just misinformed
Thanks people are starting to question my faith.
N
Nate13
Guest
Ah I see where your going. Yes it specifically has to do with the ceremony and whether the ceremony is in support of immoral actions.Huh??
I’m trying to get to the crux of the problem here…because some posters are saying she didn’t refuse (or they wouldn’t refuse) to bake the cake merely because the couple is gay, but because it would support the wedding ceremony.
So that’s why I’d want to know…if the ceremony was something different, yet still, it involves a married gay couple…would that make a difference?
Meaning, if the gay couple is already married…and they have a child (either one bears it, or they adopt) and they are parents to this child…would the cakebaker (or you) still make the cake?
It is still linked to a gay couple being married…and a gay couple having a child together.
So if the woman baked a cake for the birthday party of the child, would that still be considered supporting gay marriage—and in fact, more than that…supporting gay couples having children. ???
This is a serious question.
I’m trying to figure out the nuances here.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Aright I get It!
You are participating n an unholy union that is against God will because you are choosing to supply there unnatural festivities.
Alright you guys here that I get it you right!
You are participating n an unholy union that is against God will because you are choosing to supply there unnatural festivities.
Alright you guys here that I get it you right!
O
Orogeny
Guest
Look back at the post you replied to.
No, but I do accuse you of being a 13 year old who thinks he is smarter than he really is but is too young to actually see reality. Do you want to learn? Yes or no.
Peace
Tim
N
Nate13
Guest
The point of which is that those men who are content with “just being a man”, are the true great menListen there is this famous quote:
“You don’t have to try to be a great man, just try to be a man.”
Guess who said that?
That’s right Star Trek
Those who aspire for greatness are usually too prideful to ever really get there.
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
I never said I was smarter than everybody.
I simply said I do not get why it’s wrong to give a gay couple a cake!
O
Orogeny
Guest
Your attitude says it for you. You also said much, much more than that.
Do you want to learn? Yes or no.
Peace
Tim
- Status