You are right. We owe the racists in the south who promoted segregation and Jim Crow laws an apology. Who were we to push our morality on them ? Let us never impose our morality on anyone else. Let racists discriminate. Let abortion clinics abort.
It matters because from our perspective a homosexual marriage is an evil act. And we are not to participate in a homosexual marriage any more than we would be permitted to assist illegal drug dealer networks or sell stolen cars.
I personally don’t agree with firing people simply because they are in a SSM, in fact I support the establishment of civil unions for gays, but not marriage.
Hi Ishii: This is another example of how social conservatives usually fall short on arguments. The problem is nuance and in the details. The laws that abolished segregation were not enacted based in law on morality. They were based on legal interpretations on constitutional guarantees of equality/anti discrimination. Those very same guarantees keep us from pushing the moralities of a particular religion on everyone else. In our current day, those same laws are being interpreted to mean that gay people can get married. Many churches are making the same decision, but the decision by churches is based on morality, not the same reasons as the law. Further, the law protects the practices of those churches from influence or coercion by churches like ours and vice versa.
There has never been a time where people didn’t say that the end times are near. Rest assured that the end of one thing always heralds the beginning of another thing. World without end as they say.
Since he can’t directly attack the church, he is using our government to attack us.
Exactly, and its being done in such a slow and methodical way, many many people are being fooled into falling for satans trick, but Jesus warned us that these times would come, should be no surprise really.
Well if you take enough off any cake and it’s tough to tell any cake apart. But to your counterpoint, there is a huge distinction between a marriage and a faux marriage. And a cake celebrating one if much different from a cake celebrating a fake one.
Well it is understood in a couple of different ways, and one of those ways is how the Church understands it. The Church recognizes self defense and defense of the innocent as justifiable uses of force. The difference between your views and the Church’s should be noted.
But would you acknowledge a greater priority to the killing of 1 million innocent babies versus the killing of 35 convicted criminals? Is one a greater sin or not?
Please point out where there is unfettered capitalism. A free market, capitalist economy is not unfettered.
Those qualifiers usually precede some departure from Church teaching. Is that the case for you? Are there Church teachings you reject?
The Church disagrees with your private, personal interpretation of this Scripture passage.
This is a pretty weak argument. It boils down to Jesus being either too afraid to state what He “really” would have said, if He didn’t pick such backward and evil people to incarnate among 2000 years ago. Or it boils down to His teaching being too radical, as if Him telling people He was God and to eat His Body and drink His Blood was pretty blasé.
And now you’re going to try to insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you?
Asking for an example of where unfettered capitalism is practiced now is too high a burden for you to complete?
In your fallible opinion…
So is a book written today about the 1980’s unreliable? Should we throw out all books that weren’t written within 5 years of the events that happened? This is the weak argumentation of many ignorant atheists today.
Luke didn’t meet Jesus. But Matthew and John were Apostles, and Mark was among the disciples.
Not relevant, but it was a fluent language of trade and of the learned class.
I seem to remember a tax collector being among His Apostles. Are you arguing that tax collectors couldn’t write? It was kinda important for the job requirements.
Matthew and John were Apostles. Mark was a disciple.
This is a flat out laughable claim, and again, mirrors claims of ignorant atheists. Luke interviewed many for his gospel, as he notes in the introduction. There is strong evidence that Mary was one of those he interviewed.
Only in your fallible opinion.
Indeed. One could say your were doing that very thing here.
In your fallible opinion…
No doubt. How do YOU know that you are not doing this very thing?
At the very least we should change them fundamentally because they are insolvent and bankrupt now, and it will only get worse. The program is doomed as it stands.
Gary, if you ever take the time to study the civil rights movement which resulted in the decisions that abolished segregation (and I hope you do), you will find that it was initiated by Christian ministers and supported largely by Christians who believed that segregation / Jim Crow laws, etc. were unjust. The arguments in favor of civil rights were based on the inherent rights of blacks given by a creator. Have you ever read a speech by MLK? They are filled with references to God and justice and mostly grounded in the Old Testament - done in order to wake up the overwhelmingly Christian American people as to the injustice and inherently un-Christian nature of segregation. Without the support and participation of Christians, and arguments made based on Christian morality, it is hard to imagine segregation ending when it did.
Error has no rights. People who believe in error have rights, but error itself has no rights. Society as a whole does not have to recognize the error of gay faux marriage as being the same as marriage. People in society can believe that if they wish, but society doesn’t have to pretend they are not in error, and doesn’t have to recognize such error.
Someone’s morality always wins out. There is no vacuum. So who’s will it be?
No need to criminalize Christianity in itself. That would be too direct. One begins by criminalizing Christians acting on their beliefs, such as refusing to participate in same sex weddings or refusing to provide contraceptive or abortifacient services under the guise of ‘health care.’ In Canada one can get into trouble with human rights tribunals merely by directly enunciating Catholic teachings regarding same sex marriage or same sex sexual activity. (That would be classified as prosecutable ‘hate speech,’ I suppose.
What you say Ishii is of course absolutely correct, but it’s worth pointing out that the civil rights movement was not really about Christianity, merely heavily informed by it. (Also, there were a not insignificant number of ministers who supported segregation as well, but that doesn’t mean that the majority were not opposed to it). But it was (is) about treating all men and women as equals.
I have already explained in a good deal of detail how the words of Jesus can be and have been used to make just about any point you like. I have already pointed out that my opinion on the matter is different than the Church’s, however, I am relatively certain that my disinclination to carry weapons is not in conflict with the Church. Are you suggesting that I am required to carry a weapon to be a Catholic?
It would take about 5 or 6 years of study for you to understand how it is that I do not place a numeric value on life.
Have you taken the time to read the Pope’s statement on this or have you not? Or are you going to invoke the customary “selective infallibility” clause oft times used on CAF, wherein he who is guided by the Holy Spirit through Apostolic Succession is infallible on matters relating to the Magisterium, but can’t necessarily be trusted to apply any of it to practical day to day matters, especially when his opinions differ with yours? Personally, I think the Pope is truly guided by God, and I very much take what he says seriously. Read up on what he has to say and check back with me. I’m not here to do your legwork.
Name an area where my interpretations have caused me to live in a manner that is in conflict with the teachings of the Church and we’ll discuss it. Be specific. Is it valuing the lives of convicts as much as those of fetuses, my refusal to say that ten lives are more important than one, or my lack of desire to carry a weapon? Explain it and we’ll discuss it.
Maybe He just figured that He was clear enough on the matter.
Are you feeling insulted?
The Civil Rights movement would not have been successful if the clergy of US Christian denominations were not nearly universal in their condemnation of racism and segregation by race and that had not had a huge resonance with their membership in the pews.
Oh I’m not disputing that at all! And thank goodness for the efforts of the various churches!
I don’t know if it’s true to say it comes from a secular ‘elite’ (seems it’s too broad a movement to call an ‘elite’, but I don’t want to split hairs, as it’s not really important)…but I’d agree is it on the whole secular (which isn’t to say some denominations or churches/groups within other faiths aren’t much more liberal in this regard than others).
