I.Y.O. What can't we agree to disagree on

[GEddie]

Is there any “Protestant” denomination that would argue abortion or adultery is right?

Abortion, maybe not yet; but we know that many Protestant bodies accept divorce and remarriage, and we know what our LORD said about that and adultery.

The Mormon church is said to allow abortion in some circumstances, i.e. it is not to them categorically wrong.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jane_doe]

My lack of clarity seems to be evident

Allow me to try again.

Protestants and Catholics agree on several KEY issues: One True God for example

And likewise we disagree on other KEY issues: The primacy of Peter for example

So what OTHER issues do we disagree on and WHY?

Thanks and GB

Well, as long as you live in a land of “freedom of religion” you have to agree to disagree on anything. Doesn’t mean you have to be in communion with disagreers, but you still have to share the same country without persecuting each other.

 

[Horton]

I think I understand your point but your examples make me wonder?

Is there any “Protestant” denomination that would argue abortion or adultery is right?

Some denominations are okay with abortion in certain circumstances, such as a pregnancy from rape, or for the health of a mother. I would doubt any would tolerate it as a form of birth control.

One would have to understand the how Catholics see adultery. We do not believe a civil divorce breaks the bond of marriage. So a divorced person who is sexually involved with another is committing adultery. Many Protestant churches do not view it as such. They believe a civil divorce ends the marriage bond. I have family members who are Protestant and are in second or third marriages and believe there is nothing wrong with it, so I get it, but I can’t ever believe those marriages are valid.

 

[Horton]

Well, as long as you live in a land of “freedom of religion” you have to agree to disagree on anything. Doesn’t mean you have to be in communion with disagreers, but you still have to share the same country without persecuting each other.

Not quite. While we do live in a country where freedom of religion is a founding concept, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with faith traditions that are a contradiction to my faith. Tolerate it I must, but I don’t have to agree to disagree with any of the teachings outside the Catholic Church.

That is relativism and absolute truth is not relative!

 

[drac16]

The Deity of Christ. We cannot agree on whether he is or is not God. Muslims believe that he is just a man. Christians believe he is God. Muslims and Christians can fight abortion together and we can rebuke those who wish to profane marriage, but we cannot agree on who Jesus is. There is no room for compromise on that issue.

 

[Horton]

The Deity of Christ. We cannot agree on whether he is or is not God. Muslims believe that he is just a man. Christians believe he is God. Muslims and Christians can fight abortion together and we can rebuke those who wish to profane marriage, but we cannot agree on who Jesus is. There is no room for compromise on that issue.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m admittedly a little confused on your question. Two people can agree to disagree on anything, and in a world where diverse views (religious/political/moral/scientific/etc) that is incredibly important. We vote on laws to govern ourselves, and even if you don’t agree with the laws you must abide by them or pay the punishment. Now, even if you don’t agree with that system, you may choose to either A) deal with it despite your objections, or B) move somewhere else.

Hi Jane. I’m not entirely sure what to make of this thread, but I’d like to respond to your post anyhow.

I looked online for definitions of “agree to disagree”, and the one given by Wikipedia “the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s)” seems to best fit what you’re saying.

However, my own experience of the phrase fits more with the definition given by Merriam-Webster: “to agree not to argue anymore about a difference of opinion”. That is to say, usually when I’ve heard the phrase, it’s in a situation where two or more people have been arguing about something, but have come to a decision to discontinue that discussion without either of them changing their mind.

That being said, I belief there’s also a third sense of the phrase: when two disagreeing persons make a “career” of debating each other, each using the other to improve their status, enlarge their following, etc. This third sense of the term, in practice, is often the most problematic IME.

 

[edwest2]

Not quite. While we do live in a country where freedom of religion is a founding concept, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with faith traditions that are a contradiction to my faith. Tolerate it I must, but I don’t have to agree to disagree with any of the teachings outside the Catholic Church.

That is relativism and absolute truth is not relative!

Some will “disengage” with others but then pass laws to force their opinions on them.

Absolute truth exists. I know that partly because some want to actively fight against it.

Ed

 

[Horton]

Some will “disengage” with others but then pass laws to force their opinions on them.

Absolute truth exists. I know that partly because some want to actively fight against it.

Ed

That was one of my biggest fears with this last election. Not trying to derail this thread into politics at all. I think we’ve all had enough of that for a long time. Our freedom to practice the religion of our choice is a core principle of this country. Those who fight against it will not win, ultimately God will make the truth know, He will guide the faithful.

 

[edwest2]

That was one of my biggest fears with this last election. Not trying to derail this thread into politics at all. I think we’ve all had enough of that for a long time. Our freedom to practice the religion of our choice is a core principle of this country. Those who fight against it will not win, ultimately God will make the truth know, He will guide the faithful.

Amen. The world we live on, and the country we live in, are under God’s watchful eyes, and we must keep the light we’ve been given on a candlestick.

Ed

 

[PJM]

Well, as long as you live in a land of “freedom of religion” you have to agree to disagree on anything. Doesn’t mean you have to be in communion with disagreers, but you still have to share the same country without persecuting each other.

AGREED!

GBY

 

[PJM]

That was one of my biggest fears with this last election. Not trying to derail this thread into politics at all. I think we’ve all had enough of that for a long time. Our freedom to practice the religion of our choice is a core principle of this country. Those who fight against it will not win, ultimately God will make the truth know, He will guide the faithful.

AGREED!

Thanks

But God’s ways are very often Mysterious

 

[Horton]

AGREED!

GBY

So are you agreeing that we MUST agree to disagree with non-Catholic religions or faith traditions solely because we live in the US? I fully understand this founding principle of our country. I understand that every person in the US has the right to practice which ever religion or faith tradition they choose. The government can not stop any faith practice regardless of how odd or strange we think it may be.

That being said, there is nothing saying I must, as a US citizen, agree with other’s religion or faith practices or agree to disagree. I, as a US citizen must NOT infringe on their right to practice the religion or faith tradition of their choice.

Does that make sense?

 

[GEddie]

So are you agreeing that we MUST agree to disagree with non-Catholic religions or faith traditions solely because we live in the US? I fully understand this founding principle of our country. I understand that every person in the US has the right to practice which ever religion or faith tradition they choose. The government can not stop any faith practice regardless of how odd or strange we think it may be.

That being said, there is nothing saying I must, as a US citizen, agree with other’s religion or faith practices or agree to disagree. I, as a US citizen must NOT infringe on their right to practice the religion or faith tradition of their choice.

Does that make sense?

We have, to an extent, to subordinate our religious disagreements to the requirements of good citizenship. And to the extent that religious disagreements would prevent a peaceable coexistence, it doth behoove us to abstain from same.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Horton]

We have, to an extent, to subordinate our religious disagreements to the requirements of good citizenship. And to the extent that religious disagreements would prevent a peaceable coexistence, it doth behoove us to abstain from same.

ICXC NIKA

That is what I said. In my mind the concept of agreeing to disagree on matters of faith & morals leads to Relativism. Since we know there is absolute truth regarding faith & morals, as taught by the Catholic Church agreement, even in disagreement, weakens our stance on what we know to be true.

Again, I fully recognize I have no right to stand in the way of anyone practicing their religion and I wouldn’t as I am a good citizen. I just believe my personal feelings on the validity of some religions or faith traditions shouldn’t have to be compromised.

 

[PJM]

So are you agreeing that we MUST agree to disagree with non-Catholic religions or faith traditions solely because we live in the US? I fully understand this founding principle of our country. I understand that every person in the US has the right to practice which ever religion or faith tradition they choose. The government can not stop any faith practice regardless of how odd or strange we think it may be.

That being said, there is nothing saying I must, as a US citizen, agree with other’s religion or faith practices or agree to disagree. I, as a US citizen must NOT infringe on their right to practice the religion or faith tradition of their choice.

Does that make sense?

"

So are you agreeing that we MUST agree to disagree with non-Catholic religions or faith traditions solely because we live in the US?

NO

What I am saying is that each of us has a moral obligation to know and defend our Catholic Faith. This is a Universal obligation, not limited to the USA.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

That is what I said. In my mind the concept of agreeing to disagree on matters of faith & morals leads to Relativism. Since we know there is absolute truth regarding faith & morals, as taught by the Catholic Church agreement, even in disagreement, weakens our stance on what we know to be true.

Again, I fully recognize I have no right to stand in the way of anyone practicing their religion and I wouldn’t as I am a good citizen. I just believe my personal feelings on the validity of some religions or faith traditions shouldn’t have to be compromised.

OK

But how can “truth” be anything but singular per defined issue? Are we too for the sake of “PC”, ignore God’s Truths? [a rhetorical question].

Of course we are inn charity to explain with clarity[evidence] and charity our Catholic Faith.

GBY