thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Careful, you're moving into rational territory there… ;) I think this is an important point—discriminating against a group, regardless of whether you accept the lifestyle or not, does not make them go away. There is an obligation under the very meaning of being human to be accepting of all persons. You can choose to rise to meet that obligation or you can turn the other way and pretend they don't exist; either way, society will move forward with or without you. Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Careful, you're moving into rational territory there… ;) I think this is an important point—discriminating against a group, regardless of whether you accept the lifestyle or not, does not make them go away. There is an obligation under the very meaning of being human to be accepting of all persons. You can choose to rise to meet that obligation or you can turn the other way and pretend they don't exist; either way, society will move forward with or without you. Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Careful, you're moving into rational territory there… ;) I think this is an important point—discriminating against a group, regardless of whether you accept the lifestyle or not, does not make them go away. There is an obligation under the very meaning of being human to be accepting of all persons. You can choose to rise to meet that obligation or you can turn the other way and pretend they don't exist; either way, society will move forward with or without you. Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 Okay, I'm glad I'm not the only one having problems posting to Phatmass/loading the forum...LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 28, 2013 Author Share Posted March 28, 2013 Who is this obligation to? What is the compelling reason for it? Just because at this time in history in the United States a significant block of people has determined that we should be accepting of all persons, of which you add accepting of what they do to this acceptance, of what authority is the obligation? To whom and why if there is no God. Why is it any more wrong for me to just go for what I think is correct? What is there beyond government that justifies this compelling higher obligation that you claim exists between men? Why is someone's rejection of it invalid? Why is your definition of this compelling obligation and what it entails the correct one? I think it's just common decency... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I think it's just common decency... Of course it is if there is a God. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done. If there is no God and we just happened then why is common decency anything is my point? BTW don't get me wrong either and try make a point that atheists have morality. The book of Romans tells us they do. Rom 2 says God put his laws on all men's hearts. That is why it is common decency. Edited March 28, 2013 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) BTW don't get me wrong either and try make a point that atheists have morality. The book of Romans tells us they do. Rom 2 says God put his laws on all men's hearts. That is why it is common decency. Yes, and we are to love our neighbor, be they saints or sinners. The neighbor must always be treated with dignity and honor. Because like us they are made in the image of God. What we must never do is sacrifice the honor of God for the respect of man, by being derelict in our duty to care for and convert not only hearts and souls to Christ but the culture as well. This means we must walk in the footsteps of Christ, which can be bloody and hard. But still we must treat sinners as Christ did, as being sick in need of a physician. Giving approval to or standing aside as society approves of a illness that endangers souls is no way to treat the patients. Edited March 28, 2013 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Yes, and we are to love our neighbor, be they saints or sinners. The neighbor must always be treated with dignity and honor. Because like us they are made in the image of God. What we must never do is sacrifice the honor of God for the respect of man, by being derelict in our duty to care for and convert not only hearts and souls to Christ but the culture as well. This means we must walk in the footsteps of Christ, which can be bloody and hard. But still we must treat sinners as Christ did, as being sick in need of a physician. Giving approval to or standing aside as society approves of a illness that endangers souls is no way to treat the patients. CCC 2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Of course it is if there is a God. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done. If there is no God and we just happened then why is common decency anything is my point? BTW don't get me wrong either and try make a point that atheists have morality. The book of Romans tells us they do. Rom 2 says God put his laws on all men's hearts. That is why it is common decency. Really, I am under no obligation to anyone but myself. However, I choose to be decent, to be kind, to love. I don't need a god to tell me to do that. If the only reason you are a good person is because your god tells you, then I contend that it is I who is moral because I don't need incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Article here. I have a bunch of thoughts about this. First, how can clergy ever be 100% sure that a Catholic like Biden shouldn't receive? What if he had a "eureka" moment the night before and went to confession before Mass? Furthermore, Biden's said that he's pro-life but as a politician he doesn't want to impose his faith on others. Assuming that he considers abortion a theological rather than humanitarian issue, what's everyone's thoughts on this? That the Joe Biden at St. Patrick's was Biden the man, the Catholic, there to practice his faith, not Biden the politician? For example, at work I've found myself in positions where I've had to been neutral, where I've had to "mute" my Catholic mind - this is when I've been consulted by patients with mental illness and or substance abuse, not co-workers. When a young man opened up about a date he had that evening with a gentleman that seemed like the right person, or when a young woman confided that she had unprotected sex, took Plan B, and what now? These are the kinds of situations where I'm put in a difficult position. As a Catholic, I'm not to advocate a homosexual relationship or contraception/abortifacients, but as a mental health professional, I'm to be as open-minded and accepting as possible. I'm not about to refer someone to Planned Parenthood, but it's also not my place to tell them that premarital sex and contraception are immoral. Is it possible that Biden is a legitimate Catholic who's trying to separate his faith life from his professional career? Especially a career that's meant to listen to and welcome everyone's perspectives and opinions, even when so many of them conflict? It seems that's been my approach with all the gay marriage talk right now. As a Catholic, I won't support it and I'll vote against it. But other than my personal religious reasons, is it really right to impose my religious beliefs on people who don't share them - especially since marriage is both secular and religious, so long as religious institutions aren't forced to perform these kinds of ceremonies, how is it okay for my religious beliefs to influence a secular issue. I'm really not sure what I think about it, it's just been on my mind. Who cares? lol. he doesn't want to rock the boat! it sounds like he is ashamed of his faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) Edited March 29, 2013 by Debra Little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) Edited March 29, 2013 by Debra Little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 If you think the redefinition of an institution as ubiquitous as marriage "won't affect straight people at all," then you need to take a breath for a moment. A recalibration of that nature changes everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now