Church before state.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
By "behind", I mean that we were living in a old conservative systems.

I think (it's my point of view, and only mine) that philosophy is of a greater help when we have to decide great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.

Oh, and sorry. I am limitate in my respons, because I have difficulty to really say what I mean. I usually speak french, so... And sorry about my ortograph too.

Just because something is new or widely accepted does not mean that its good or the correct corse of action. I mean, many world leaders rejected Communism even when it was a new and fledgling ideology...are non-communist countries behind?

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.

One of these things is not like the others . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One of these things is not like the others . . .

I wonder if he/she will be able to figure that one out. 😆

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One of these things is not like the others . . .

I would say they all are...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Just because something is new or widely accepted does not mean that its good or the correct corse of action. I mean, many world leaders rejected Communism even when it was a new and fledgling ideology...are non-communist countries behind?

New idea isn't always good, I agree.

But most of them. ^^

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
New idea isn't always good, I agree.

But most of them. ^^

Eugenics?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I would say they all are...

Two involve deciding life and death . . . there is pretty much no moral system in which that's is equaled by guy banging each other.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Two involve deciding life and death . . . there is pretty much no moral system in which that's is equaled by guy banging each other.

No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

Not the point. Gay marriage isn't on the level of declaring war or deciding on the death penalty.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

I get it. No offense but that is not a very good system, although it's done pretty well over all.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

Maybe I'm in the error, but I would NEVER let anybody, even the Pope himself, decide for me, and my destiny.

The Popes made mistakes in the past.
Can we blame them? They are just human, like us.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No doesn't have to be "equaled" but then again, the Death Penalty being a moral decision doesn't mean other more simple moral choices are any less "moral".

This argument is simple:

Pope is infalliable on moral matters.
Pope defines what matters are moral.
Pope is therefore infallible on all matters he deems to be moral.
Pope is therefore infalliable on everything should he deem himself to be.

(According to Catholic Theology that is)

What if the pope does something totally insane? Like has a vision of Jesus telling him to kill all the Muslims. Then he proclaims that all Christians must kill all the Muslims in the world. Would you run out and kill a Muslim?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not the point. Gay marriage isn't on the level of declaring war or deciding on the death penalty.

Sometimes, allowing the little things to pass leads to the weakening of the entire position and thus, the bigger things can pass too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I get it. No offense but that is not a very good system, although it's done pretty well over all.

See, it wouldn't be a very good system if it was just what the Pope said on split decisions. However Catholic's believe that his ex cathedra statements are done with the full backing of God and thus cannot be in error...therefore the idea of a Pope becoming a dictator is unfeasible. If a Catholic questions the Pope's infallibility they are questioning Roman Primacy and are thus in danger of schism. Its not based on loopholes and lawyers as I think I mistakenly implied above, its based on biblical analysis and Christian Tradition. The only check on the Pope's power is the belief that he only uses it if God wills it.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Maybe I'm in the error, but I would NEVER let anybody, even the Pope himself, decide for me, and my destiny.

The Popes made mistakes in the past.
Can we blame them? They are just human, like us.

Maybe you are in error, maybe your not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if the pope does something totally insane? Like has a vision of Jesus telling him to kill all the Muslims. Then he proclaims that all Christians must kill all the Muslims in the world. Would you run out and kill a Muslim?

If the Pope, again, declared the need for a crusade on muslims then I suppose I would accept that it was the right thing to do- however I probably wouldnt do it myself, too much of a coward. However, thats an extreme example...what if he didn't go insane but say, ordered all Catholics NOT to take part in the genocide of a people in a state. Would that be wrong?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Sometimes, allowing the little things to pass leads to the weakening of the entire position and thus, the bigger things can pass too.

Gay marriage isn't go to cause a massive pro-war movement or the institutionalized worship of Satan.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The only check on the Pope's power is the belief that he only uses it if God wills it.

But the only one that gets to talk to God in the Catholic tradition is the Pope so that isn't a check at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gay marriage isn't go to cause a massive pro-war movement or the institutionalized worship of Satan.

There are many many people who would disagree.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the only one that gets to talk to God in the Catholic tradition is the Pope so that isn't a check at all.

Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...If the Pope, again, declared the need for a crusade on muslims then I suppose I would accept that it was the right thing to do- however I probably wouldnt do it myself, too much of a coward. However, thats an extreme example...what if he didn't go insane but say, ordered all Catholics NOT to take part in the genocide of a people in a state. Would that be wrong?

And in WWII the pope failed on that one.

The problem with past popes is that they used the Bible to justify their dictaturial actions. However, I do not beleive that such things could be possible nowadays. Before, the Pope had an army to make evryone respect his will. What GMG is suggesting is on another matter. If one man leads, wouldn't it be less confusing than many with killer differences? I would gladly lend some freedom in order for the world to work as best it can.

There is only one perfect servitude, and it is God ruling the humans. Since God hjas left us to decide how we were to act, wouldn't the best option be to serve God's first human servant on this Earth?

Of course, it is impossible now. The world is much too divided.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There are many many people who would disagree.

And I would respectfully consider them morons.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

Meh.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Everyone gets to talk to God in Catholic Tradition. However, the faith in God is what makes Catholics believe that the Pope will always make the correct ex cathedra teaching.

wasn't one of the core arguments made by Luther that the church was corrupt specifically because individuals needed to have their relationship with God mediated by a priest?

or was this more with relation to forgiveness and the like, rather than just normal communication?

I guess this is all hedged by the fact that most people were illiterate and the Bible was written in Latin until the invention of the printing press, meaning it was essentially moot if a person had direct communication if all the access was in a different language which only the priest spoke.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And in WWII the pope failed on that one.

Failed...or secretly succeeded in his agenda?

Originally posted by inimalist
wasn't one of the core arguments made by Luther that the church was corrupt specifically because individuals needed to have their relationship with God mediated by a priest?

or was this more with relation to forgiveness and the like, rather than just normal communication?

I guess this is all hedged by the fact that most people were illiterate and the Bible was written in Latin until the invention of the printing press, meaning it was essentially moot if a person had direct communication if all the access was in a different language which only the priest spoke.

The people were uneducated and probably couldn't understand what the Bible meant anyway- even if they could read it. However, Luther didn't like what he saw as the trimmings of Christianity and wanted rid of the sacraments, including confession.

I don't feel reading the first 5 pages. What's the debate about? Where are we in this pursuit of truth?