Originally posted by leonheartmm
3- yes, secularistic IDEOLOGIES do. {differentiate ideologies from implementation and perhaps see that the criteria that most relegiouns use for FAIR is always majorly biased in their favour and steps on the rights of others}
No they don't. Laws passed based on secular ideology (or any other) will always block or limit some part of someone's faith. Hell, even Libertarians would take a stance against a faith that requires human sacrifice or vicious holy wars in order to attain salvation.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they don't. Laws passed based on secular ideology (or any other) will always block or limit some part of someone's faith. Hell, even Libertarians would take a stance against a faith that requires human sacrifice or vicious holy wars in order to attain salvation.
yes, but only the part of relegious faith which steps on the rights of others and the society, which is a FAIR thing to do. the thing with beleiving in a relegion is that you cant really claim that any part of relegion is UNFAIR, and this leads to people claiming that anything that even hinders their practices{irrespective of what those practices may be} is unfair or biased. it isnt. its the practices which are unfair to begin with.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes, but only the part of relegious faith which steps on the rights of others and the society, which is a FAIR thing to do. the thing with beleiving in a relegion is that you cant really claim that any part of relegion is UNFAIR, and this leads to people claiming that anything that even hinders their practices{irrespective of what those practices may be} is unfair or biased. it isnt. its the practices which are unfair to begin with.
Forcing ones morals on others is not "fair" no matter how you try to rationalize it. Limiting one group while allowing another to flourish is very much unfair.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Forcing ones morals on others is not "fair" no matter how you try to rationalize it. Limiting one group while allowing another to flourish is very much unfair.
i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,
Just about everyone thinks their way is just. Simply because you like yours doesn't mean it has any sort of generality or fairness.
Re: Church before state.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavAs a Protestant, I realize my perspective on Papal authority and infallibility will be somewhat different from that of the average RC, but I suspect the biblical principle remains the same. Christians should be loyal to God first, and their nation second. While some Catholics might equate loyalty to the Pope with loyalty to God, I suspect Benedict himself would specify God as his prime allegiance, and I see no logical reason why any RC couldn't follow suite.
The question is:Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavI agree. All true Roman Catholics are required (by the Church) to acknowledge Papal authority and succession, or they aren't Catholic. Thus my rejection of Papal authority is contingent to my Protestant convictions.
In my opinion, you're not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavAgain, even from a Catholic perspective, the Pope's authority is not his own. One might therefore choose to say, "I would put the decrees of God before that of the House of Commons or the Queen". After all, within the confines of RC theology, Papal infallibility is not universal and not all "decrees" are rendered ex cathedra.
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
[NOTE: The above statements are not an endorsement of Roman Catholic theology.]
A little historical knowledge if it has not been stated. I didn't read back.
The reason of this separation of "Church and State," is because there were a huge amount of Baptists that wanted to make a national religion. It was voted down. Of course there are some protestant groups that twist these views. I know because I used to be a part of that group and received all the propaganda.
It has always been the same though out history. It has always been some religion in conflict with the State/Kingdom/Science and so on. The same can be said between the Christian religion and science...Remember the Christian church threw Galileo into jail and Columbus was also worried because he stated that the world was not flat. Columbus, if he had not left was concerned that he might be persecuted.
Re: Church before state.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?
In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
Were I a catholic, I would, because I would believe that what comes from the Pope comes from God, but since I am not I don't. However, if the Heads of State come up with a law that goes against my belief as a Christian (Which I base off what I believe to be the word of God) I will not follow it, and perhaps even fight sgainst it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont agree at all. if my morals say "i am ruler of the world and all men are below me and my rightful slaves" then is it UNFAIR for others to hinder me in my pursuits of this ideal? NO! the IDEAL of mine is whats unfair in my oppinion, the laws are there to serve every1 equally and this doesnt go in perfectly with relegions who always want special benefeits/tax exempts/ability to preach and openly oppose etc/and yet dont want there to be any kind of LEGAL opposition to their actions because they think that the relegion is always JUST,
Fairness is based on your perspective. It wasn't fair to Hitler when we stopped him from conquering Europe. But it also wasn't fair to europe when Hitler tried to conquer it. IT wasn't fair to the Americans when the british started to tax them rediculus amounts for everything. It wasn't, however, fair to the British when the americans revolted and claimed independence. It wasn't fair to the slaves that they were forced to work on the Plantations. Howecer, it wasn't fair to the Plantation owners when they had to free them either.
I don't think it is fair that people are trying to stop me from teaching about the one that I believe to be Lord and Savior of our world, even though it does tread on a few toes. But it appears that you see it as unfair that I can openly teach about him BECAUSE it treads on a few toes.
to answer the question ( IMO) NO saint peter may have been chosen but following ANY ONE MAN these days against the laws of your country not a good thing as far as I remember from sunday school...(as long as following those country laws arent making you break a commandment)
And by the way future catholic leaders changed the sabbath day from Sat to Sun thus ordering people to break a commandment...(that is discussion for another thread though)so no I wouldnt follow the pope versus my country but Im U.S. citizen and bush sux too so all just my opinion...lol
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
to answer the question ( IMO) NO saint peter may have been chosen but following ANY ONE MAN these days against the laws of your country not a good thing as far as I remember from sunday school...(as long as following those country laws arent making you break a commandment)
And by the way future catholic leaders changed the sabbath day from Sat to Sun thus ordering people to break a commandment...(that is discussion for another thread though)so no I wouldnt follow the pope versus my country but Im U.S. citizen and bush sux too so all just my opinion...lol
The Pope didn't change it, the Bible says a few times that the apostles gathered on "the Lords day" to break bread i.e. Eucharist. The Lord's Day is a Sunday.
The last supper was not the sabbath day...Jesus did not say to change the sabbath to his last supper day????Im confused by that last statement...perhaps they meant they were gathering on there lord Jesus last supper day to celebrate his life ...that needs research but Ive never ever heard or seen where Jesus told the apostles or anyone else they could change the day of rest he said he did not come to change the law...it was a commandment...and also the roman catholic church did admit to changing the day..digging up those publications would take a little time but I have researched that in the past so has one of my catholic friends they were shocked