J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Isn't trying to ban gay marriage forcing our religion on other people?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
You have therefore answered your own question, the burning of heretics is not Church teaching.in the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine, this statement was condemned along with a bunch of other ones:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
“[condemned] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”."
That has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic teaching. The Pope decided that he would kiss the book that was given to him, that was his personal decision, nothing whatsoever to do with Church teaching.What is the truth regarding whether a Catholic should kiss the Koran?
Catholic teaching on the immorality of contraception is part of the Deposit of Faith and must be accepted by all Catholics, it is part of the Church’s moral teaching. The Church cannot err on issues of faith and morals as this comes from God.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
That’s not what the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine says.You have therefore answered your own question, the burning of heretics is not Church teaching…
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Where in the New Testament or in the first two hundred years of the Catholic Church was this taught?Catholic teaching on the immorality of contraception is part of the Deposit of Faith and must be accepted by all Catholics, it is part of the Church’s moral teaching. The Church cannot err on issues of faith and morals as this comes from God.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is it a good idea for Catholics to kiss the Koran or not?That has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic teaching. The Pope decided that he would kiss the book that was given to him, that was his personal decision, nothing whatsoever to do with Church teaching…
B
bibcat
Guest
Not at all. Same-sex “marriage” is an oxymoron. It defies logic. And it makes a mockery of marriage as an institution. It probably also draws God’s wrath upon any jurisdiction that implements it. So it’s not only proper we combat it, it’s a moral imperative.First let me start off. I don’t condone gay marriage at all. I believe its a grave sin and invalid.
But doesn’t the Church teach that we shouldn’t force our religion on people…
Isn’t that what we are doing when we are so forceful to ban gay marriage (civil, not sacred) just because its against our religious beliefs?
I’m wondering when the line is crossed? You know what I’m saying?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
What has the first 200 years of Church teaching got to do with this argument? It is part of the Deposit of Faith, Catholics are bound to accept the Church’s teaching on contraception. That is the bottom line.Where in the New Testament or in the first two hundred years of the Catholic Church was this taught?
??Is it a good idea for Catholics to kiss the Koran or not?
Pope John Paul II decided to do so at that moment. That was his personal decision, for whatever reason, and had absolutely nothing to do with Church teaching.
What has that got to do with Church teaching? What has that got to do with the topic of this thread?
R
Rau
Guest
I contend most people are able to reason that same sex activity is inconsistent with the bodies of the persons concerned and that SSM is a different undertaking than marriage and should not be deemed the same.??
Most people want to have these bans based on religious reasons. Most people are against same-sex activity and relationships based on religion alone. Appeals to natural law or order ultimately come from a religious interpretation of what is “natural law.”
R
Rau
Guest
In a democracy we get to vote on the options put to us. We do not have a means to please everybody.Or you can do the not lazy thing and provide real world arguments and evidence that won’t ostracize the parts of society that don’t believe in your holy book
R
Rau
Guest
That would be true if seeking to have sex with one’s spouse and not conceive were in itself morally wrong.This is an argument given by opponents of the Catholic teaching on NFP. I have seen this argument on Orthodox forums where they will claim that since the intention is the same whether to use ABC or NFP, you cannot say that one is morally superior or morally inferior to the other.
R
Rau
Guest
No, she simply ignores the fact that reason alone tells us something is amiss in same sex sexual unions. The fact that religious positions accord with that is then used to discard the reasoning.So what is your point? Are you trying to say that religiously-motivated reasons are not valid reasons? Are you trying to say that reasons based on the word of God are inferior compared to secular reasoning?
R
Rau
Guest
Is it wrong with 6 kids? Maybe 5? What about 4, 3, 2 or 1? Is it never wrong? Always wrong? Is the answer to any of these questions determined by popular vote?Even a large percentage of Roman Catholics do not believe that it would be wrong for a married couple with seven children to use artificial birth control. In Euclidean geometry, everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
According to a pamphlet I read by an Eastern Orthodox priest, a married couple should plan on having two or three children at least. However, at that point, it is proper for them to evaluate their financial situation and decide if they are able to have more children. If they, together with their pastor and confessor, come to the conclusion that the situation is such that it would be difficult for the family to support more children at this point in time, then the pastor may agree to let them use some form of birth control.Is it wrong with 6 kids? Maybe 5? What about 4, 3, 2 or 1? Is it never wrong? Always wrong? Is the answer to any of these questions determined by popular vote?
I was told that this was general advice which could be but might not be representative of what is taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The Deposit of Faith dates from the first few years of the Church.What has the first 200 years of Church teaching got to do with this argument?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
And did not stop there. The Deposit of Faith consists of all teachings on faith and morals, including Church teachings on contraception. As Catholics, we are bound to assent to these teachings.The Deposit of Faith dates from the first few years of the Church.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Coming to the thread late and apologize if I am repeating what has been said.First let me start off. I don’t condone gay marriage at all. I believe its a grave sin and invalid.
But doesn’t the Church teach that we shouldn’t force our religion on people…
Isn’t that what we are doing when we are so forceful to ban gay marriage (civil, not sacred) just because its against our religious beliefs?
I’m wondering when the line is crossed? You know what I’m saying?
In my view, grounding legislation in a western liberal democracy that has no foundation other than a specific religious belief is forcing our religion on others. Such a practice is an attempt to ensure others who do not profess our belief live in accordance with it by incorporating our religious beliefs into the mechanism of the State… This does not mean we should sacrifice principles we truly believe in. What it means is that if we desire others who do not profess our faith to live in accordance with those principles, we must
arguments that are viable irrespective of a specific faith or faith in general. My belief is if something is true the evidence is available irrespective of faith if we want others to accept those principles. If we have to convert everyone first we will fail.
The early Christians lived their faith and did not live in a world that accepted their faith via the mechanisms of the Stae. Jesus did not ask us to ensure the State upheld our beliefs via legislation. In first century Rome homosexual relationships happened and were not unlawful. Jesus did not ask Christians to change this via legislation. We are free to disagree with law and have the right to demand the State does not interfere with this, but irrespective of what others think we do not have the right to demand the State legislates contrary to their wishes on the basis of our religious belief. We were asked to live the Gospel, not ensure others do so by force - subtle or otherwise. We do not demand legislation in order to live in a world we feel most comfortable with. I do not think a union between two men or two women is a marriage. I am entitled to think that and no one has the right to demand I think otherwise. Likewise, I do not have the right to demand others who do not profess my beliefs not only think it is wrong but demand the law should say it is. In western democracies politicians and political parties formulate policy in accordance with what will get them elected. Such is the world we live in, We cannot demand laws that force others to live in accordance with our beliefs, Doing so means they have no real belief in what they are doing. It is only to avoid punishment. Voluntarily doing something you truly believe in and contrary to contemporary trends is a sign of true faith. It is better individuals live in accordance with the Gospel by choice rather than force. Jesus did not ask us to force people and people will always live contrary to our beliefs irrespective of legislation.
R
Rau
Guest
This argument seems to be the “reverse” of what applies in reality. No-one is demanding a law to prevent (say) 2 men having a sexual relationship. The latter have demanded the society take a new position on what is marriage and who is eligible. The latter have demanded that the society accept a new kind of relationship as a marriage.Coming to the thread late and apologize if I am repeating what has been said.
In my view, grounding legislation in a western liberal democracy that has no foundation other than a specific religious belief is forcing our religion on others. Such a practice is an attempt to ensure others who do not profess our belief live in accordance with it by incorporating our religious beliefs into the mechanism of the State… This does not mean we should sacrifice principles we truly believe in. What it means is that if we desire others who do not profess our faith to live in accordance with those principles, we must
arguments that are viable irrespective of a specific faith or faith in general. My belief is if something is true the evidence is available irrespective of faith if we want others to accept those principles. If we have to convert everyone first we will fail.
The early Christians lived their faith and did not live in a world that accepted their faith via the mechanisms of the Stae. Jesus did not ask us to ensure the State upheld our beliefs via legislation. In first century Rome homosexual relationships happened and were not unlawful. Jesus did not ask Christians to change this via legislation. We are free to disagree with law and have the right to demand the State does not interfere with this, but irrespective of what others think we do not have the right to demand the State legislates contrary to their wishes on the basis of our religious belief. We were asked to live the Gospel, not ensure others do so by force - subtle or otherwise. We do not demand legislation in order to live in a world we feel most comfortable with. I do not think a union between two men or two women is a marriage. I am entitled to think that and no one has the right to demand I think otherwise. Likewise, I do not have the right to demand others who do not profess my beliefs not only think it is wrong but demand the law should say it is. In western democracies politicians and political parties formulate policy in accordance with what will get them elected. Such is the world we live in, We cannot demand laws that force others to live in accordance with our beliefs, Doing so means they have no real belief in what they are doing. It is only to avoid punishment. Voluntarily doing something you truly believe in and contrary to contemporary trends is a sign of true faith. It is better individuals live in accordance with the Gospel by choice rather than force. Jesus did not ask us to force people and people will always live contrary to our beliefs irrespective of legislation.
Well, it’s a democracy, so if the majority wish that situation, then so be it. My right, and your right, is to vote for what we think is the better course.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
But it isn’t quite as simple as that. This isn’t a case of, “You have your view and you’re entitled to live out your life in accordance to your view, even though it differs to mine etc.” Once something like this is enshrined as a right, and not as a right to live out a relationship, but that that relationship is given a new form of reality enshrined in law, we will be legally obliged to accept the newly defined reality. We may be granted a right to disagree with it in private, but we will not be allowed to publicly reject this new ‘reality’ because by doing so we will be deemed to be acting in a discriminatory fashion. The big issue now looming will be regarding the education of children, schools (including Catholic schools) will be judged as acting in a discriminatory fashion, as not properly exercising their duty of care towards children, and of not educating children properly if they fail to teach children this newly defined ‘reality’ as a reality, i.e. that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex.We are free to disagree with law and have the right to demand the State does not interfere with this, but irrespective of what others think we do not have the right to demand the State legislates contrary to their wishes on the basis of our religious belief. We were asked to live the Gospel, not ensure others do so by force - subtle or otherwise.
E
ephesians4
Guest
I’d agree with the compulsion part and go as far as to say that theocracy is one sign of a false religion - if God’s will is just a group of people doing things to other people, that isn’t truth, that is not His Kingdom that is not of this world, that is a gang and the Truth is probably their worst nightmare. Truth doesn’t have to be forced into anyone’s mouth or mind with a sword, much as it might have to be defended with one in the long run.In my view, grounding legislation in a western liberal democracy that has no foundation other than a specific religious belief is forcing our religion on others. Such a practice is an attempt to ensure others who do not profess our belief live in accordance with it by incorporating our religious beliefs into the mechanism of the State… This does not mean we should sacrifice principles we truly believe in. What it means is that if we desire others who do not profess our faith to live in accordance with those principles, we must
arguments that are viable irrespective of a specific faith or faith in general. My belief is if something is true the evidence is available irrespective of faith if we want others to accept those principles. If we have to convert everyone first we will fail.
The early Christians lived their faith and did not live in a world that accepted their faith via the mechanisms of the Stae. Jesus did not ask us to ensure the State upheld our beliefs via legislation. In first century Rome homosexual relationships happened and were not unlawful. Jesus did not ask Christians to change this via legislation. We are free to disagree with law and have the right to demand the State does not interfere with this, but irrespective of what others think we do not have the right to demand the State legislates contrary to their wishes on the basis of our religious belief. We were asked to live the Gospel, not ensure others do so by force - subtle or otherwise. We do not demand legislation in order to live in a world we feel most comfortable with. I do not think a union between two men or two women is a marriage. I am entitled to think that and no one has the right to demand I think otherwise. Likewise, I do not have the right to demand others who do not profess my beliefs not only think it is wrong but demand the law should say it is. In western democracies politicians and political parties formulate policy in accordance with what will get them elected. Such is the world we live in, We cannot demand laws that force others to live in accordance with our beliefs, Doing so means they have no real belief in what they are doing. It is only to avoid punishment. Voluntarily doing something you truly believe in and contrary to contemporary trends is a sign of true faith. It is better individuals live in accordance with the Gospel by choice rather than force. Jesus did not ask us to force people and people will always live contrary to our beliefs irrespective of legislation.
Still, I think it is the right thing to do, for individuals to stand against things that are not for the best, will not make people happy in the long run, will lead to tears for little ones. This is a matter of conscience.
I think it is also the right thing to do, for individuals to recognize (and seek to avert) an impending situation where the compulsion of Christians to violate the souls of others and themselves may become something the law provides for.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.