Parlay, if you are capable of having a conversation without bigotry, hate speech, stereotyping, and personal attacks on someone you know nothing about, then I challenge you to go back and answer the questions I asked without any of that. Otherwise, I wish you all the best, but you offer nothing of further interest.
May 15, 2014 at 7:16 p.m.
You are an interesting dude.
1) I "do not have the right to evangelize"? Holy crap, when did they kill the 1st amendment? I must have missed that. Of course I have a right to evangelize, just as you have the right to spew venom and hatred. Help me understand in what sense we do not have this right.
2) I don't have the right to "condemn others for their lifestyle"? Why do you have that right and we don't? In what sense is the place where you draw a moral line in the sand more valid than ours?
3) I'm confused...is Obama super-intelligent (your words) or a Christian "simpleton" (your word) like me?
4) Are you sure your "amusement park of joy" isn't nothing more than a bit of gas?
You seem somewhat intelligent, but your struggles with basic logic and your hostility and name calling are baffling and render any type of debate useless.
Like it or not, I'll be praying for you brother. And defending your same rights that you want to deny to us. I'm off to spend my time doing something useful, like evangelizing.
May 14, 2014 at 12:48 p.m.
Robert, Robert, Robert,
I was being sarcastic. I was poking fun at Parlay's lack of logic, summing up his arguments. Definitely not agreeing with him.
Parlay, I hope you find some peace. The OT angry God arguments have been debated (and easily refuted) since the time of Marcion and Irenaeus. For every famous person you quote speaking against Christianity, I can quote several speaking for it.
Point is, smarter folks than us have debated the same points for years. You simply can't prove or disprove Christianity by intellectual effort alone.
But one thing is clear...you can't possibly be experiencing true joy in your heart when you write the things you do.
May God truly bless you.
May 13, 2014 at 6:53 p.m.
Parlay, I finally get your point:
(1) All Christians are idiots(2) Obama claims to be Christian
Obama must be an idiot.
May 13, 2014 at 12:23 p.m.
Wow Boardman Jeff...not a tough decision figuring out which one of you I'd rather have as a neighbor.
Thanks for being honest and showing the true, wonderful tolerance of the left.
May 4, 2014 at 11:09 a.m.
Tonne, I was using "you" in the general sense and not directed to you specifically in my point about not believing in Christ. I apologize if you thought I was referring to you specifically. I was making the point that anyone is free to choose Christ as their Savior, and anyone is free to choose to be Catholic. If they choose not to choose Christ, they cannot choose to be Catholic.
The point is that the Church throughout its history has taught that the moral truths dictated by the Magisterium are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are true.
Everyone has the free will to choose what to do in any moral decision. If, with their conscience well-informed of Church teaching, they choose to do otherwise they will be judged accordingly. It is not my place to judge nor to speculate how far the mercy of our loving God will go.
jls5795...wow. You say you are not passing judgement on us Catholics, then call us all naive, illiterate and stupid. Hate to see what you would say if you were passing judgement!
The Church, like any human institution, has some bad people in its history. That reflects on the people, not the truth of its teachings.
I for one would far rather subscribe to the teachings of my Church than to subscribe to a moral relativism where each person determines for themselves what is moral. We don't value our Church ahead of objective truths - our Church teaches us what is true.
February 15, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
Education Voter, in good faith I must point out that your statements about primacy of conscience are not correct.
You may not have read the articles you referenced but the first one states clearly that "conscience is not the final arbiter of what is morally right, nor has the Church ever taught that it is."
Tonne, you start out correctly but then I think you stray a bit. True, all moral decisions are matters for the individual conscience, and that is not limited to abortion. If I decide to kill or rob someone, the same is true.
The choice of whether or not to believe in Christ as your Savior is also a personal choice, You are fully within your rights if you choose not to believe in Christ, but if so, you are most certainly not Catholic.
The Church has made it abundantly clear that there is no circumstance where abortion is the correct moral choice. The fact that many "Catholics" practice birth control and abortion is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it is okay for each individual Catholic to decide for themselves whether to follow Church moral teachings. You can choose to be one of those who act against the teaching, but you can't pass it off as being in line with Church teaching because your conscience told you to do it.
February 11, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
The only hypocrisy here is all of you who claim to be Catholic but do not follow the clear teachings of the Church.
You are moral relativists practicing situational ethics, and are simply not Catholic. When you are a Catholic you do NOT have the right to make your own moral choices regardless of church teachings.
You say that the Church has no right to pick and choose which laws to follow. First, that is patently false. The Church has always taught that unjust laws that go against natural law need not be obeyed. Should the Church in China support "one child" laws?
But more importantly, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, YOU do not have the right to pick and choose which moral teachings you will follow.
So, set aside the religious aspects of this, our president does not have the right to impose this. No one is being denied access to these things, just free access. These are elective things - the morning after pill is not health care. Where in our constitution or anywhere else has anyone been guaranteed free access to this stuff?
Furthermore, your claim that there are serious situations where a woman needs to have an abortion is false. There is no medical condition that requires the active aborting of a baby.
Finally where is your concern for women when it comes to the fact that contraceptives kill many women each year due to increased risk of cancer, heart attacks, stroke, etc.? Read what Dr. Martin Luther King's niece Alveda writes on this subject.
February 11, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
JennyChan, I win the bet!
You simply can't answer direct questions. I didn't ask you what your view of morality is. Read my questions again, and answer them. If you can't then stop posting responses to mine.
June 23, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.
HellBells, read carefully. I did not list atheists...I listed people and cultures that don't believe murder is wrong. We all know that great evil has been done by people claiming to follow belief systems that forbid it. Couldn't agree with you more.
EpicFail, could you point me to one post by JChan here that was written in the spirit of "harmony and reciprocation"? I never said one thing about her needing to justify her morality. Not one. I simply asked her to justify why her morality was "better" than someone who thinks murder is okay. What is the standard for making that comparison?
As I said before, I can only see two answers. Either her morality and Hitler's are equal because everyone decides their own morals; or hers is better because some "majority" believes it.
If the first one is the answer, you forfeit the right to judge anyone else's morals or deem one set of morals "better".
If you go with majority rules version, your morality is situational and changes over time. That's fine. The most recent Gallup poll now claims that the majority of people consider themselves pro-life. By your own definition then, abortion is immoral.
HB, EF, and JC, you all keep taking the discussion back to religion and religious hyprocrites. Your hatred for all things religious is obvious, and frankly, not one bit interesting or relevant to the issue I am discussing. It is a smokescreen because you are either unable or unwilling to answer the simple questions in the context they were asked.
So if you are going to respond, try to keep religion out of the response, since I am not making a religious point here. I'm not attacking anyone - I enjoy the debate and I am interested in your answers as long as they are focused on the topic.
So again I ask, by what basis are your morals "right" and Hitler's "wrong"? Or are they both equally "right"?
And again I ask, is it only a life when it can "breath and function on it's own", or is it when it can "breath and function on it's own without problems"?
See? Not one reference to religion in my questions! Not one iota of judgement about atheism vs. religion! Nothing right wing or left wing!
JChan, the challenge is laid down. I'm betting you can't/won't answer my questions. And I'm betting you won't post without some rant about the right wing or priests or something that is not relevant to the topic in my post at all.
June 23, 2009 at 8:52 a.m.