Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neil_Anthony said:
Well, your first question was “Does GOD believe in freedom of religion?” … which is a different question than these. Is it supposed to have the same answer? I don’t see the connection.
Click to expand...
Does God believe in freedom of sin?

Does free-will = we may do anything we wish without consequece? No. “Man’s freedom is limited and fallible.” (ccc# 1739) “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (ccc# 1740)

If God does not give us the right to sin (false worship), even with free-will, how can the state possibly have the authority to do so? It does not.

Since the state’s authority to rule is God-given (ccc # 2234-2235), the state has no authority to grant the protected right to sin, such as false worship. But the state may tolerate it if the greater good necessitates it. But the state may not go against God’s will, else the state severs its link to the source of its authority: God. If that happens, then the state has no authority to rule whatsoever, and can and must be disobeyed in this area.

Just because the state says a myriad of sins are ok, does not make it so. Also, the state may not force or coerce you to commit sin.

The state may not separate itself from God (See the encyclical Quanta Cura and the syllabus of errors), the same as we may not separate ourselves from God.

So the freedom of religion must somtimes be tolerated. But we have no God-given right to it.
 
Miles_Mariae said:
No one should ever be coerced into professing belief in the Catholic faith. However, no one has the inherent right to false worship, still less the right to spread their errors.
Click to expand...
Yes, let us convict them of their thoughtcrimes, and silence those infidels as they proclaim their differing beliefs!

😉
 
Shredderbeam said:
Yes, let us convict them of their thoughtcrimes, and silence those infidels as they proclaim their differing beliefs!

😉
Click to expand...
"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
 
Dauphin said:
"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
Click to expand...

Or people could mind their own business.
 
40.png
Dauphin:
Unfortunately, false religions tend to engage in missionary work. It’s at that point that the state is justified in intervening.
Click to expand...
It’s fine to intervene where they use force. Can you intervene when they are simply speaking their minds? I think society tried that once, and it didn’t work out very well.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Do you believe in freedom of religion?

If not, what should the punishment be for not being Catholic?
Click to expand...
No. Christ’s Will has been revealed. He said “church”, not “churches”.

Leave the judgement to the Divine.
 
Shredderbeam said:
It’s fine to intervene where they use force. Can you intervene when they are simply speaking their minds? I think society tried that once, and it didn’t work out very well.
Click to expand...
I refer you to the quote above. Unless there are some circumstances which justify tolerance, false religions must not be allowed to spread error.

This is because a much greater violence is done through the spread of religious error than through murder or genocide. The latter only kills the body, while the former damns the soul. The notion that religious beliefs don’t matter and that only material things matter is fundamentally atheist, because it pretends that there is no such thing as salvation.

Salvation is the ultimate purpose of our temporal existence, and the state has a responsibility to safeguard its people by giving them the best conditions possible to gain it. There is absolutely nothing more important.
 
40.png
Dauphin:
I refer you to the quote above. Unless there are some circumstances which justify tolerance, false religions must not be allowed to spread error.

This is because a much greater violence is done through the spread of religious error than through murder or genocide. The latter only kills the body, while the former damns the soul. The notion that religious beliefs don’t matter and that only material things matter is fundamentally atheist, because it pretends that there is no such thing as salvation.

Salvation is the ultimate purpose of our temporal existence, and the state has a responsibility to safeguard its people by giving them the best conditions possible to gain it. There is absolutely nothing more important.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I don’t like to presuppose that God exists for my arguments.
 
Shredderbeam said:
Hmm. I don’t like to presuppose that God exists for my arguments.
Click to expand...
It’s a much more solid presupposition than the presupposition that the person with whom I’m speaking is real.

The existence of God is knowable with absolute certainty from reason alone*. If one doesn’t presuppose the existence of God, it’s because he isn’t reasoning correctly.

*Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Article 2, Question 3 ()
 
Dauphin said:
It’s a much more solid presupposition than the presupposition that the person with whom I’m speaking is real.

The existence of God is knowable with absolute certainty from reason alone*. If one doesn’t presuppose the existence of God, it’s because he isn’t reasoning correctly.

*Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Article 2, Question 3 ()
Click to expand...
Objection 1 - The religiosity of the majority of the world has no bearing upon whether or not God exists.

Objection 2 - Is something that exists in reality “greater” that something that exists in the mind only? I doubt it. Even if it were, all that the Ontological argument proves is the most perfect possible being would have to exist if it were to be considered the most perfect possible being, not that such a being exists.

Objection 3 - Yes, objective truth exists, but “God is truth” is but a statement, not a certain fact.

Even if we get into the First Cause/Mover arguments, and found them to be valid - would that prove the existence of the Christian God, or a First Cause/Mover (who may simply be a simple, naturalistic cause)?
 
Shredderbeam said:
Objection 1 - The religiosity of the majority of the world has no bearing upon whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...
Of course, but I didn’t even raise this point.
Objection 2 - Is something that exists in reality “greater” that something that exists in the mind only? I doubt it. Even if it were, all that the Ontological argument proves is the most perfect possible being would have to exist if it were to be considered the most perfect possible being, not that such a being exists.
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
Objection 3 - Yes, objective truth exists, but “God is truth” is but a statement, not a certain fact.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to something Aquinas said? I don’t think anyone has made the argument that “God is truth” is self-evident - only that the existence of God can be demonstrated from reason.
Even if we get into the First Cause/Mover arguments, and found them to be valid - would that prove the existence of the Christian God, or a First Cause/Mover (who may simply be a simple, naturalistic cause)?
Click to expand...
These arguments prove that God exists, but do not prove anything about His nature. You have to get further into the summa for that.
 
Yes, and if anyone believens otherwise, they are against un-American. Why? Cause America is based on freedom when other countries persecuted.
 
40.png
Dauphin:
Of course, but I didn’t even raise this point.
Click to expand...
It was in the link you provided me.
40.png
Dauphin:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
Click to expand...
The link referenced the Ontological argument by saying that in understanding the word “God”, his existence becomes self-evident.
40.png
Dauphin:
These arguments prove that God exists, but do not prove anything about His nature. You have to get further into the summa for that.
Click to expand...
Do they prove that God exists? Why is the first cause uncaused?

I’ll have to read more into the summa for the nature of God, I haven’t really looked into that at all.
 
Unitas said:
Since the state’s authority to rule is God-given (ccc # 2234-2235), the state has no authority to grant the protected right to sin, such as false worship. But the state may tolerate it if the greater good necessitates it.
Click to expand...
To me, a right means exactly that, that the state tolerates the behaviour. I guess we’re using words that we define differently.
 
Shredderbeam said:
Even if we get into the First Cause/Mover arguments, and found them to be valid - would that prove the existence of the Christian God, or a First Cause/Mover
Click to expand...
Is the purpose of the First Cause/Unmoved Mover argument to prove the existence of the Christian God particularly or a an intellectual argument for a Primary Mover?
(who may simply be a simple, naturalistic cause)?
Click to expand...
Care to explain how an uncaused cause can be naturalistic when the root of “Nature” (ie Natus) means to be “born” (ie caused)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top