banning immorality

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty, ty very much

[Fidei Defensor]

If everyone took care to properly form their consciences, then there would be no problem in seeing what is immoral.

[Guest T-Bone]

The KKK doesn't see killing blacks as immoral; Islamic terrorists don't see killing innocent women and children as immoral; in the Vietnam Conflict, Sergents didn't see ordvering thier men to torch villages as immoral; the Nazis didn't see performing grotesque medical experiments on people as immoral...

[dspen2005]

that is why we, ourselves, need to be informed; so that we can inform others on the proper morality in situations

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The KKK doesn't see killing blacks as immoral; Islamic terrorists don't see killing innocent women and children as immoral; in the Vietnam Conflict, Sergents didn't see ordvering thier men to torch villages as immoral; the Nazis didn't see performing grotesque medical experiments on people as immoral...[/quote]
Do you see a difference between killing someone and other sexual immoral acts in terms of which is more or less obviously immoral? Like, it may be objectively reasonably, albeit objectively wrong, to think fornication is okay. However, it may not be objectively reasonably, and still of course still objectively wrong, to kill someone? I'm guess most of you can't see a difference.

can some people tell me the various reasons why you all aren't voting much?

Edited October 4, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jiggle Billy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 4 2005, 05:59 PM']can some people tell me the various reasons why you all aren't voting much?
[right][snapback]746089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because the question is confusing.

[DancesforLove]

If I don't agree that something is immoral I wouldn't mind being informed of a friends opinion that is was wrong. But its not their place to stop me, if everyone stops each other from doing anything wrong or bad then you aren't living for yourself you're living everyone elses life.
Its up to each of us to be presented with the knowledge of what is right and wrong from different views and it is our job to make the decision and learn from our mistake.
You can never confess your sins or repent unless you have made a mistake and you will never be of any use to another persons well being if you have no experience in the matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:12 PM']If I don't agree that something is immoral I wouldn't mind being informed of a friends opinion that is was wrong. But its not their place to stop me, if everyone stops each other from doing anything wrong or bad then you aren't living for yourself you're living everyone elses life.
Its up to each of us to be presented with the knowledge of what is right and wrong from different views and it is our job to make the decision and learn from our mistake.
You can never confess your sins or repent unless you have made a mistake and you will never be of any use to another persons well being if you have no experience in the matter.
[right][snapback]746326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Total incoherent nonsense! (See my post in the abortion thread)
We are commanded by Christ to admonish the sinner.
And are you saying that we cannot do anything against a sin unless we have committed the sin ourselves.

As Christians, we must not only look out for our own spiritual welfare, but try to prevent others from doing evil, too.

[zunshynn]

I picked yes, but let me explain. I have God in my life, I have the Church, I have my faith, and all of the awesome things that came from it all because someone dared to tell me that I was wrong, that I was sinning. I didn't know I was, but it stirred change within me, and although I didn't like it, she was right, and I'm better for it now. I'm willing to bet Hell would be quite a bit more painful than being told you're wrong.

[DancesforLove]

Read the bible my friend,
"Let he who has no sins cast the first stone"
I've yet to see the scripture that says
"Let he who is most arrogant open thy mouth"
Admonish: To reprove gently but earnestly.
To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

Admonish does not have a definition that says you should stop someone from doing something you should counsel and guide.
If you do more than guide and offer experience then it is the blind leading the blind.
I said nothing about standing aside and doing nothing to help. But there is a thin line between guiding and shoving.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Do you see a difference between killing someone and other sexual immoral acts in terms of which is more or less obviously immoral? Like, it may be objectively reasonably, albeit objectively wrong, to think fornication is okay. However, it may not be objectively reasonably, and still of course still objectively wrong, to kill someone? I'm guess most of you can't see a difference. [/quote]

Because I had the clarity to state that so concisely, I think I'll just added to add on to this the logical extension, the way I see it.

Since I think some immoral things are objectively reasonable to think they are moral, and because it is moral to consider others' beliefs when possible, I think the weight of allowing others to act on their own moral beliefs outweighs me stopping them, again in light of the objectively reasonble uncertainty.

[Socrates]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:27 PM']Read the bible my friend,
"Let he who has no sins cast the first stone"
I've yet to see the scripture that says
"Let he who is most arrogant open thy mouth"
Admonish: To reprove gently but earnestly.
To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

Admonish does not have a definition that says you should stop someone from doing something you should counsel and guide.
If you do more than guide and offer experience then it is the blind leading the blind.
I said nothing about standing aside and doing nothing to help. But there is a thin line between guiding and shoving.
[right][snapback]746355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're the one who needs to read the Bible. Read all of it, and see if you can still speak such drivel. Christ and His apostles repeatedly condemned sins.

By your logic, there should be no laws, for no one should ever stop anyone from doing evil.

If someone was about murder a loved one, would you try to stop him, by force if necessary?

Your position is illogical and has no basis in the Bible or Catholic teaching.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Socrates

[DancesforLove]

I will try to be as respecful as I can.
But unless there is a Father before your name I'd be a little quieter about telling me about what my position is. You do not know me.
You are arguing with yourself, I agree with Catholic teachings and we both are saying the same thing.
We simply have two ways to help people. You have a more agressive way and I have a more understanding way.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:27 PM']Read the bible my friend,
"Let he who has no sins cast the first stone"
I've yet to see the scripture that says
"Let he who is most arrogant open thy mouth"
Admonish: To reprove gently but earnestly.
To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

Admonish does not have a definition that says you should stop someone from doing something you should counsel and guide.
If you do more than guide and offer experience then it is the blind leading the blind.
I said nothing about standing aside and doing nothing to help. But there is a thin line between guiding and shoving.
[right][snapback]746355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Try Ezekiel 33:7-9. It's pretty serious stuff:

"Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked, “O wicked one, you shall surely die, ”
and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way,
the wicked shall die for his guilt,
but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself."

According to dictionary.com, admonish means:
1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.
This is different than judging someone for their sins, which is for God and God alone. When Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he was talking about judgment, not admonishing our brothers and sisters in Christ. When you judge someone, not only do you decide if what they do is right or wrong, but you hold it against them.

Say you have a friend, and you and you're are on a hike together. Say your friend is walking towards a cliff, and she has no idea. Wouldn't you warn her about this? Wouldn't you say "Look out!" Or if your friend were to fall off that cliff, and they are severely injured but they keep saying "I'm ok, it's no big deal?" Wouldn't you get them to a doctor? This is what we're called to do... to look out for our brothers and sisters in Christ and help them recognize situations where they have fallen into sin so that they can experience God's mercy and healing.

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 4 2005, 10:35 PM']Since I think some immoral things are objectively reasonable to think they are moral, and because it is moral to consider others' beliefs when possible, I think the weight of allowing others to act on their own moral beliefs outweighs me stopping them, again in light of the objectively reasonble uncertainty.
[right][snapback]746378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The whole question really depends on whether morality is a personal preference, or something more.

Dairygirl, it seems to me (and I apologize if I am mistaken) that the understanding of morality laid out in the poll seems to be one very much in line with a modern relativistic viewpoint. In this viewpoint, morality really only exists in one's head. "Allowing others to act on their own moral beliefs" presumes this sort of system, in which a moral value is simply a "belief," the term "belief" here being used derogatively to describe an arbitrary preference.

If morals are indeed arbitrary, than moral coercion of all sorts would be wrong. This "moral coercion" would apply even to prevention and punishment of murder, for since your idea that murder is wrong is [i]your[/i] idea that murder is wrong, it would be coercive and presumptive to assume that it would be true for someone else.

This reasoning is sound--if the premise of morality as preference is accepted. Without a God, this is inevitable. But the Catholic moral system is not composed of preferences and options, but right and wrong. As such, there is no question of enforcing my "moral beliefs," but rather of enforcing morality. Since, in Catholicism (as well as in most religiously-based moral systems), morality exists apart from the individual, some moral beliefs, when they differ from the true moral values, are inherently wrong and ought to be suppressed.

This is why I chose the fourth option, becuase my understanding of morality eliminates the possibility of such a question.