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.
"Morality developed long before the concept of God".
So did logic, JennyChan. You should try it sometime!
Intelligent debate needs a common ground. I tried to find that common ground in logic, you know, like the "if a=b and b=c then a=c" kinda stuff. Problem was, when I asked "if a=b and b=c then what does a = ?", the response was that all Catholics should shut up because priests molested people.
Guess I shouldn't have expected more from someone who decides what is moral on "what most of the atheists I know think". Sigh.
June 22, 2009 at 9:13 p.m.
Boofers20, you are right, those are tough cases that I would pray no one would have to face.
Now how about case 3: Your daughter gets pregnant and her piece of trash boyfriend/husband pressures her into getting an abortion against her will.
Which one of the three do you think happens most often? Recent polls back up the notion that the majority of women felt pressured by their boyfriend/husband/family. Having a choice is not as liberating for women as it is intended to be.
June 22, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
JennyChan, every time you are asked a pointed question, you change the subject to molestation.
Why can't you answer simple questions? Is it because you don't base your beliefs on sound logic, you base them on feelings?
Keep your lack of logic out of my decisions!
June 22, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.
And JennyChan speaks and avoids the questions she can't answer yet again...
June 22, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.
HellsBells, history is full of people and cultures who have not agreed that murder is wrong...Hitler, Stalin, Muslim jihadists, suicide bombers, Darfur, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Somalia, Hussein, and on and on and on.
Now, most people of course think murder is wrong. But as I pointed out, it is far from unanimous.
So, here is my very simple point: Two atheists have a discussion.
Atheist 1: "Murder is wrong"Atheist 2: "Murdering my enemies is fine".
To say that Atheist 1's morals are "better" than Atheist 2's morals requires a baseline for comparison. There has to be a standard to compare against whenever you judge one thing better than the other. Atheist 1 thinks their moral stance is better; atheist 2 thinks theirs is.
If I say "the Boston Red Sox are better than the Cleveland Indians", the standard for comparison is assumed by most people to be the won-loss record.
So, what is the standard for comparison in the Atheist 1 vs. Atheist 2 argument? Only 2 possible answers: either there is no standard and no judgement of which is better is possible (my position), or the majority determines the standard.
June 22, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.