E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Maybe. It’s a possibility…
Why the Lack of Support & Exodus from the Church
- Thread starter NoelFitz
- Start date
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Anyone of any religion, including Catholics, who push abortion as a permissible option are acting as agents of evil. Period.
Frankly, Catholics need to start convincing other Catholics, who ostensibly share the same belief system, to properly think through the moral implications of that system.
In case you haven’t noticed, that is what I am trying to do, but the task is not simply one of flipping a few light switches to enlighten minds, there is far more to it. The resistance in some of the mental wiring is very high. (More on this later.)
V
vsedriver
Guest
I believe we see these people not practicing because they don’t want to do the work required to be a Catholic. Liturgy has nothing to do with it. They want to win votes and will avoid any Catholic issues that are not popular with mainstream media.
The majority of the people listed are not pew attending Catholics. Either they had a very minimal Catholic education or none at all. Many Catholics leave for the non-denominational churches because they are not really Catholics because of Catholic theology.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Some European countries and some US states have laws allowing euthanasia. Am I “going to sit back and be OK with that”? Well, I would vote for someone who opposes euthanasia. But I would never (NEVER) vote for someone because of one issue.
Once again, with the business about Nazis, etc., you are suggesting that I am somehow opposing free speech or the right of anyone to protest. I keep saying the opposite, over and over. Oppose abortion as much as you want. And if you can convince the overwhelming majority of people that abortion always = murder, then good for you.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
But I think you are equating two completely different groups:
- People who are in favor of abortion.
- People (like me!) who oppose abortion, but believe that abortion should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Yes, it is.
One cannot negotiate with evil.
Evil is to be fought tooth and nail, even to death. Taking a passive approach to evil is unacceptable.
E
Elf01
Guest
Why is abortion up to the individual concience but not all drugs?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose this is the crux of the issue.
You seem to think that laws SHOULD merely reflect the consensus of the entire community. Whereas, I think laws should be based upon sound moral principles founded on a solid grasp of what is good for the community.
To put it in Aristotelian terms, YOU are arguing that the community, as an individual writ large, should act on its immediate wants and desires just as one individual would live if they simply acted on whatever emotion or appetite is strongest at any moment in time.
On the other hand, I am arguing that – like any sane and rational moral agent, one who has really thought through what it means to be a healthy, well-functioning and morally good being – the entire community should take a “long” view regarding what it is, how it should behave and what rules ought to govern it, rather than merely allow its current strongest, or most dominant, urge to have power over its destiny.
Current consensus operates at the community level much like most dominant desire or appetite functions at the level of an individual human being. I wouldn’t advise living your life simply following your strongest momentary urges. It is a recipe for disaster at both the individual and community level.
Unfortunately, that is just the training many in modern culture have had over the past half century – do what feels good. We are all paying the price.
Jesus came to that conclusion and, if he is God, I suppose what you think to be “nonsense” regarding demonic forces means very little. You had better take up your quibble with him.
Last edited:
G
GrandPaRay
Guest
Hi Fitz, GrandpaRay here. this is my first response
I am 82 and was raised catholic was very involved. I have a few thoughts for you. Why do lay people accept the secondary position in any questions that come up? I was always told to tell the truth. Science is a path to realty and gets closer to truth than any other method. Youth today take responsibility upon them selves to question things they are told. Can we keep the good and get rid of the out dated dogma? Why does this catholic forum not require real pictures of respondents? I would put my picture next to my name but do not know how it’s done. yours Grand Pa Ray
I am 82 and was raised catholic was very involved. I have a few thoughts for you. Why do lay people accept the secondary position in any questions that come up? I was always told to tell the truth. Science is a path to realty and gets closer to truth than any other method. Youth today take responsibility upon them selves to question things they are told. Can we keep the good and get rid of the out dated dogma? Why does this catholic forum not require real pictures of respondents? I would put my picture next to my name but do not know how it’s done. yours Grand Pa Ray
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, pro-choice is pro-abortion in the sense that by removing abortion from the sphere of morality (by making it MERELY a matter of choice) you are supporting abortion on demand BECAUSE you have made it, de facto, a matter of choice.
Try the same line of thinking with any other determinably moral issue.
People (like me!) who oppose rape, but believe that rape should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
People (like me!) who oppose murder, but believe that murder should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
People (like me!) who oppose torture, but believe that torture should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
People (like me!) who oppose child abuse, but believe that child abuse should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
People (like me!) who oppose pedophilia, but believe that pedophilia should be a choice left to the individual’s conscience.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Welcome, Grand Pa Ray to the forum
.As a philosopher, I would answer that it is ideas that are important rather than names or pictures. In fact, names and pictures are largely irrelevant to the truth of the ideas being discussed. (Cf. naturalistic or genetic fallacy.) These forums, if they are about anything important at all, ought to be about the truth of the ideas. Whether that truth comes from the mouths of babes (in the Biblical sense) or grizzled old turkeys like me should matter nada. Putting up pictures of old grizzled turkeys might actually serve to scare off the babes (in the Biblical sense) who might just have something interesting and profound to add.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Look at the top right corner where your G in green is on your screen. Press or click on that green circle with the G. When the drop down menu appears, press or click on the gear icon just below the G in green.
Your Preferences will open up in your browser. Scroll a little ways down until you see your Profile Picture – which is currently the G in green. Beside that is a little pencil icon you can click on to upload a new picture. Make sure you have one on your computer or mobile device that you can navigate to so you can upload it. As soon as you upload the new picture it will become your profile picture.
Here is mine:
G
GrandPaRay
Guest
Harry what is the difference between philosophy and BS? when factual claims are made they can be tested by anyone, if the claim holds up we get the best possible answer.
G
GrandPaRay
Guest
Fitz, How do you know we catholic’s have the “one true faith”? No one has ever given me a answer to that question.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Is your position that any claim that cannot be tested by replication is BS?
If not, how do you distinguish between BS and any claim that you do accept as true but that cannot be replicated?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
That’s easy. I keep saying (what, 1,546,789 times now??) that you need a CONSENSUS of opinion. 60% of
Americans now think marijuana should be legal ( http://news.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx ). To me that’s not a consensus percentage, but as you can see, every year more and more people support the idea. Only some states have now legalized it, and without looking it up, I suspect there is a consensus in those states. But when 70-80% support it nationally (in 5 years?) then we will have general agreement, and Congress should act to follow overwhelming opinion.
There is NO such consensus that other drugs–cocaine, heroin, etc.–should be legal. In fact, there is a consensus the other way–that they should be illegal. Only 8-18% think various other drugs should be legal; so 82-92% think they should be illegal. So they are. The laws reflect the consensus opinion, as they should.
Your question is an easy one.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Ah, but that’s the question!!! WHO decides what’s “good for the community”? Sounds like a dictatorship to me. You seem to have an unhealthy, undemocratic view of the ability of ordinary people to rule themselves. And I don’t see any “immediate wants and desires” in any of this. It’s not like this question just popped up. It’s been around 40+ years. And in those 40+ years, public opinion has been pretty consistent.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I don’t know where that is coming from! In NO WAY am I removing abortion from the sphere of morality. In fact, I’m doing the opposite–I’m saying that each person (woman, if you like) has to decide for themselves. Their conscience is supreme (as the Catholic Church teaches–and if YOU say their conscience is not well formed, that’s YOUR opinion, not theirs).
I guess you just ignore what I write. I’ll try all caps: RAPE, MURDER, TORTURE, CHILD ABUSE, PEDOPHILIA are all crimes where THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF OPINION (!!!) that they are morally wrong and should be made illegal. Anyone advocating that these things be legalized would be in a tiny minority. Abortion, on the other hand, has 18-21% over the last 40+ years saying it should always / mostly be illegal. No consensus, not illegal.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You are not exactly doing the “opposite,” except perhaps coming at it from the opposite direction – i.e., making one’s individual conscience, no matter how ill-formed, the grounds for morality so that if that individual conscience removes abortion from its sphere of morality, you are good with that.
You may want to read this a few times…
So, it’s not my “personal opinion” that matters; it is the personal opinion of Jesus Christ that does.
Again, you need to take up your personal opinion with him. I think he has the final say in the matter AND the final judgement. At that point, neither your opinion nor mine will matter.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, it is you who are promoting a WHO decides agenda, so apparently you are advocating for a dictatorship by your own lights.HarryStotle:
Ah, but that’s the question!!! WHO decides what’s “good for the community”? Sounds like a dictatorship to me. You seem to have an unhealthy, undemocratic view of the ability of ordinary people to rule themselves. And I don’t see any “immediate wants and desires” in any of this. It’s not like this question just popped up. It’s been around 40+ years. And in those 40+ years, public opinion has been pretty consistent.
I wasn’t advocating a WHO as the arbiter, I was advocating HOW the matter ought to be arbitrated: by taking the time to clearly determine and prioritize what is good for society and then build laws to promote that good. Sure, everyone can be involved in the process, but their involvement is governed by the first principle and sound reasoning, not mere whim or rule by the dictatorial whims of the majority.
The difference is that my method requires solid rational justification, yours has no such governing principle. Yours is, in fact, the dictatorship of the WHO, with the WHO being defined as the WHO with the largest corpus, biggest megaphone or most threatening fist – speaking of dictatorship. Mine is simply the most well-reasoned and compelling perspective, even if it isn’t a consensus. After all, “the mob” can be talked into doing the most heinous things by those with a mind and will to do so.
My “perspective” isn’t unhealthy, by the way, it is actually quite realistic and tempered by years of experience. You seem very idealistic, naive and young.
Last edited:
- Status