In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[goout]

NO.
See the crucifixion.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Secular repressive societies make the most gruesome dictatorships, the twentieth century proves that.

Yes, it does. Mussolini, Hitler, Castro…all Catholics. Stalin was enrolled in an Orthodox seminary. Castro went to a Jesuit high school.

I’m sure you have an explanation for that, your type always do with your double standards

Double standards? Freedom is freedom. Choice is choice. But my freedom stops where yours begins. As for the bakers and photographers, I agree that’s a tough issue. I can see arguments on both sides.

Just a glob of jelly and cells?

Yes. You could call it a “potential” human being. But as I’ve said–what, 7 or 8 times?–there is a difference between something being “alive” and something being “human life.” That’s not a matter of science, it’s a matter of religion and belief. And it’s NOT a question of religion on one hand and atheism on the other–it’s a question of some religions on one hand and other religions on the other. Doesn’t freedom of religion matter?

 

[MonteRCMS]

There are numerous venues for education.

For example, Society for the Propagation of the Faith - Wikipedia

 

[goout]

…

However, even the Church does not know when ensoulment takes place. However, the Church chooses to error on the side of life.

Jim

Like so many other things that are an admixture of divine/human, mystery is involved. There are realities that remain beyond our grasp.
The point is to respect that mystery and the full humanity of persons, and not look for loopholes to deny humanity. That always leads to tragedy.

It’s why we don’t shoot into the fog at any moving object when we are deer hunting.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

we as a society have laws based on moral principles

Whose principles? Yours? Mine?

even the Church does not know when ensoulment takes place. However, the Church chooses to error on the side of life.

And there we go. Good. And that’s the Catholic Church’s decision, which binds its members. Not Jews, not Muslims, not atheists, not Buddhists.

 

[Benadam]

Nope. They agree that the cell is alive and that it MIGHT grow into a human being. But to recognized those cells (THAT cell at first) as a “human being” goes beyond science and into theology.

That isn’t true. Embryologists will say a zygote is a human individual. That it is human is ontological. So human by definition pertains to being.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That it is human is ontological.

ontology: the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such. Oh, oh. "A branch of METAphysics. Religion. Theology. I agree! It’s a religious decision, not a scientific one. But I doubt your mean that.

Embryologists will say a zygote is a human individual.

A Catholic one would. But that’s not the issue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The principles use to be the ten commandments, but as you have observed, not everyone accepts the ten commandments.

So we have a society where morality is relevant. How are things working out with that ideology ?

We have a society where mass murders and violence have become epidemic. Look at the murder rate in Chicago alone. Do you think that what society holds as morality isn’t relevant here ?

And there we go. Good. And that’s the Catholic Church’s decision, which binds its members. Not Jews, not Muslims, not atheists, not Buddhists.

Agreed that what the Catholic Church believes, will not be imposed on the rest of society.
Point of correction here, Buddhists believe all life is sacred and can not be directly destroyed.
Jews and Muslims have more tolerance for abortion before detection of a heartbeat, but they both oppose abortion once a healthy fetus has been detected.

As I wrote earlier, I’m not naive to think that any politician will write a law banning all abortions.

However, we at least have to stop abortions after viability, i.e. 21 weeks.

Few doctors will perform an abortion on a healthy viable fetus. An unhealthy one, there is a different position, but lets just leave the healthy fetus aspect for now.

Jim

 

[Benadam]

ontology: the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such. Oh, oh. "A branch of METAphysics. Religion. Theology. I agree! It’s a religious decision, not a scientific one. But I doubt your mean that.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/12/embryology-inconvenient-facts
http://www.bioethicsobservatory.org/2017/06/biological-status-early-human-embryo/21605
Nope a definition based on scientific research. Catholic theology reforms to scientific certainties.

Every human being begins as a single-cell zygote, grows through the embryonic stage, then the fetal stage, is born and develops through infancy, through childhood, and through adulthood, until death. Each human being is genetically the same human being at every stage, despite changes in his or her appearance.

Embryologists are united on this point. Consider the following statements from standard textbooks: “Human development begins at fertilization . . . . This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual” (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud); “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote) . . . . The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual” (Bruce M. Carlson); “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed . . . . The embryo now exists as a genetic unity” (Ronan O’Rahilly and Faiola Muller).

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So we have a society where morality is relevant.

I think you mean “irrelevant” or maybe “relative”?

Luckily for society, we can all agree (Catholics, Buddhists, atheists…whatever) on almost all moral issues. However, there certainly are areas that might have shades of grey for one religion vs. another that only sees black and white. And in those very limited areas, yes, I think we need to respect other viewpoints and not impose our views on others–unless, as I keep saying–there is a consensus of opinion. For example, extreme breakaway Mormons believe in polygamy. But the consensus is that polygamy is wrong. So it’s illegal. But if 50% of the population believed in polygamy? It shouldn’t be illegal–no matter what you or I think. So is that “relative” morality? Not on a personal level, but on a societal level. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[rose321]

You need two people to play chess. If you refuse to play chess with me, you caused me to not be able to play chess, and therefore you hurt me. Yeah, it’s an argument to the absurd, but we live in the absurd today - where you can be sued if you don’t use the right gender pronoun for a person.

Respectfully opinion only.
Ever hear of Free Will?
Forcing others to do your will, if they choose not to play chess with you they hurt you>>>Yet you cause pain on those who freely choose to not play chess with you,

Also one who forces others to do their will, is also >stealing< the Freedom and Free of others, example those who will not to play chess with you. Thou shall not steal?

Breaks another moral civil commandment also>>Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods, property ( is his body to do with what he wills?) oxen wife etc.>>one who rapes, breaks the Commandment>>Thou shall not steal and Thou shall not covet ones property of others . ones body is ones property.

Gone beyond common sense or being absurd is it not?
Natural Laws of Life there will be pain along the way, through out ones journey, no one escapes in this world from experiencing pain, such pains also teach us Life lessons to learn from and to rise from a higher self within>>morality

Royal Ten Commandment Laws, are righteous moral civil laws>>> Then Commandments are>> His Kingdom Law, to maintain peace, order and to provide >" Equality Rights, Freedom and Protection for all " Thou shall not

Notice?>>>Not one Ten Commandment Laws tell us>>>Thou shall not commit adultery >>>>only applies for Woman to obey, but not men?

there is no gender with our Heavenly Father is there within His Government Kingdom Laws his>>>His Royal Ten Commandments Laws, are morality laws, civil laws to maintain equal Righteousness and maintain civil rest>> in all His Thou shall not’s?

All Human Beings are Equal?
Peace opinion only right or wrong.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Embryology: Inconvenient Facts by William L. Saunders, Jr. | Articles | First Things

So to prove a “scientific” point of view you’re quoting an article from “First Things,” "an ecumenical, conservative and, in some views, neoconservative religious journal aimed at “advanc[ing] a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society”. Sorry. Doesn’t sound all that scientific to me. Sounds like they just might have an agenda! And it’s not science.

But I think what you like is this sentence: “Every human being begins as a single-cell zygote.” Sure. Who’s denying that? Not me. But there is a world of difference between saying that and saying “a single-cell zygote is a human being.”

And the other quotations he gives are the same: “Human development begins…” Of course. Development.

I might be making a far-fetched analogy here, but if I said “See that clay in the river? It’s not really clay. It’s a beautiful ceramic statue.” That would be nonsense, right? The clay has the POTENTIAL to be a statue. The clay and the statue have exactly the same material in them. But IS the clay a statue? No.

http://www.bioethicsobservatory.org/2017/06/biological-status-early-human-embryo/21605

And then you go off and put in a link to the Catholic U. of Valencia. Religious bias? Are you kidding? We’re talking Opus Dei territory here.

But let’s play along. Here’s a quotation from the article: “A critical point in the current bioethical debate is, therefore, to establish the biological nature of the human embryo.” Oh oh. Even they are admitting there is a “current bioethical debate.” But let’s go on–

“There is even a fourth group, which are those researchers or clinicians who circumvent the problem, and who neither affirm nor deny the human identity of the embryo; they simply state that only the scientific aspect concerns them and that discussing the human nature of that biological entity that they use does not affect their job.” Interesting language, and certainly not unbiased. “circumvent the problem”? That’s the opinion of the author, nothing more. “who neither affirm nor deny the human identity of the embryo…” Exactly. Because that’s a religious determination (the author prefers to call it an “ethical” one, but it’s the same thing.)

So the article is a very good presentation of the Catholic viewpoint. But is it a fair representation of the scientific community? No. Far from it.

 

[alexyanthar]

The issue with why people struggle with these moral issues that are against the canon law, is that the leaders who are in power and shape society, regardless whether they know the supreme truth or not, is that their intentions are for reputation and to make themselves look good and feel good by giving the illusion that what they are doing is right. “We will lower taxes for middle-low income families, free health care, abortions etc…”

It’s as you said and it’s quite obvious you are much more knowledgeable about the current situation for women who are contemplating abortion and those who follow through with the entire pregnancy of having a child. To get to the point, many people are forced into doing things they would rather not do. The argument of pro-life and pro-choice has only come up because of the situations that you have shared with us and if there was true pro-choice then the girls who wished to bear children, but could not because of financial circumstances, could in fact do so. If we can limit the sin of abortion to those who created these circumstances of having children so difficult and the women who committed the abortion, the one who is truly responsible for the sin will be the leader who implemented these money laws for having children. The woman who has committed the abortion is at much less sin because the Lord knows that she has not nearly as much power as the leader does. With that said, there is too much of a focus on going to abortion clinics and telling those women to not abort, but rather it should be in front of the government buildings and leaders for their souls are much more in need of being saved and they have the ability to stop these abortions. It is amazing to think that the government, with their actions and laws, have not only lead the blind with their blindness, but turned those who could once see become blind. These women who say they know the truth (Catholics) should not be going against those who really have no choice, but against those who have the choice and power. These leaders, full of self-love, have put on limitations to everything that was natural at one point and because of this, it pulls people into their ways and into their ideals of life. Why should one person be higher than another in terms of what they think is right? A leader is never above the people, but with the people and when someone is struggling, will lower themselves from their high position and become as that person to help carry the slack and make their society one of strength and love.

I am with you on this and I do feel that it is much more wide-spread than just abortion and pregnancy. Unfortunately, most actions that are not agreed upon are because they are not done with love of the neighbor but rather love for themselves. Of course, it has to be said that it is not easy to be a leader, but one knows the responsibility that comes with being a leader and the consequences in turn.

 

[Benadam]

I googled embryologist zygote human individual…those were two up front is all. There are many more.

My point is your statement that it is not in any way considered a human being is not true.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ll throw in my own link just for fun: http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

A PhD in genetics and author of several college textbooks. What does she say?

“Life science textbooks from traditional publishers don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

For the record, she lists 14 points at which you could argue the fetus/zygote becomes a human being.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

your statement that it is not in any way considered a human being is not true

I think you’re putting words into my mouth. Please don’t! “in any way”? When did I ever say that?

I would say that a zygote is a POTENTIAL human being from a scientific point of view. As a Catholic, I would even say it’s a human being. But that is my religion talking, not science.

 

[Mary888]

Enforce others to believe? No. But freedom of expressing their beliefs I would think yes. One cannot expect a Christian to come out and say pagan gods are for real just because the society permits all religions. Because society permits all religions to exist then Christianity is permitted to exist. According to the Christian religion pagan gods are false idols. As long as Christians don’t start a civil conflict with pagans (example given, can be applied to other religions) and do not use slur words and incite to violence against pagans, why do Christians have to change their religion because it is in theological adversity with another one? The civil society is only sometimes affected by theological disagreements.
Freedom of thought, freedom of speech - this entitles the Christians and other religions to express their ideas honestly, influence politics with others (politics are negotiated in a democracy, it is a fact), as long as they do not wilfully start a fight with another religion or a-religious groups and cause actual damage to society.
A uniform society where everyone is pluri-religious can only be achieved through dictatorship. And then it may be pluralistic but it is no longer a free society of people but an in-human system.

 

[Dan123]

I’m generally pro-choice and I’ll say stating an embryo is not a human life is sloppy language at best, and certainly incorrect. It’s alive, and it’s human. I would stand by someone saying it’s not a person as I think viability needs to be considered.

Late term abortions are a red herring, there’s no evidence beyond emotional rhetoric that late term abortions are done in measurable number for reasons other than medical necessity. The vast majority of women who seek abortions do so shortly after learning of the pregnancy, if they’re going to seek one.

 

[Dan123]

When used correctly they’re extremely effective, which is why I included education as one of the goals. That also includes education on long term options like subdermal implants and IUDs. A lot of patients and even doctors lack awareness of these options.

Increased availability and education in regards to birth control is correlated with lower abortion rates every time it’s studied.

 

[steve-b]

Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.

Yes and no

I would change Tolerance to indifference, is not a Christian virtue
JanSobieskill:

Tolerating evil/depravity/degeneracy is not an act of love.