As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you believe every decision made by Gov should be checked against what is and is not allowed in Christianity and that our laws should be made accordingly?

How arrogant and selfish would that be for the vast numbers of people in this country who are not of that faith. No one is stopping you from being religious or having your views or living your life how you wish. All others are asking is for that same freedom. Its our country too.

As I said earlier I can't save people from themselves.
If people decide to legitimise sin then that is their call.

Legislating to legalise homosexual marriage legalises sin.

I doubt most folk even know what sin is these days.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Apparently not.

MOD NOTE

No need for this sort of post. Please keep to the topic.

Thanks for your attention.

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

As I said earlier I can't save people from themselves.
If people decide to legitimise sin then that is their call.

Legislating to legalise homosexual marriage legalises sin.

I doubt most folk even know what sin is these days.

What does the bible say about judging people?
What impeachment does someone else's action have on your soul?

I do not get this logic, you might think everyone is going to hell in a basket.. OK, but no-one wants your help, why do you think it's OK to try and force it on people?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

As I said earlier I can't save people from themselves.
If people decide to legitimise sin then that is their call.

Legislating to legalise homosexual marriage legalises sin.

I doubt most folk even know what sin is these days.

Its not your responsibility to save people Hinault. People need to be free to make their own decisions good and bad. Even God believes in that doesn't he? I don't believe in the idea of sin, its a concept designed to keep people living in fear and to hold them back. Gay people are not harming you, me or anyone else. Its only sex for crying out loud! You really need to let it go.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not your responsibility to save people Hinault. People need to be free to make their own decisions good and bad. Even God believes in that doesn't he? I don't believe in the idea of sin, its a concept designed to keep people living in fear and to hold them back. Gay people are not harming you, me or anyone else. Its only sex for crying out loud! You really need to let it go.

Those who are Catholic are required to communicate moral teaching, as well as living moral teaching.

Because you don't accept the reality of sin, that is your decision. You're entirely free to make that choice and to live with the consequences of that decision.

swampgas

hinault wrote: »

Those who are Catholic are required to communicate moral teaching, as well as living moral teaching.

Because you don't accept the reality of sin, that is your decision. You're entirely free to make that choice and to live with the consequences of that decision.

Catholics in Ireland are also required to obey the law of the land.

The problem with religion starts as soon as you think that your religion trumps the law when it comes to other people.

You can attempt to have your message heard, you don't get to demand that your own specific religious view of morality should be civil law.

Unless a Catholic theocracy is what you want - good luck with that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

JohnBee wrote: »

I found this very patronizing. It almost suggests that the outcome of the referendum, in his view, is that it represents the outcome of the best campaign. To me this is quite small minded of him.

I don't see your point. Surely, the Yes campaign are saying much the same thing, i.e. that there was a strong Yes because of their work. Presumably, Atlantic Philantropies will similarly be claiming the Yes vote is their doing.

http://www.98fm.com/Yes-Equality-Release-Campaign-Stats

Brian Sheehan and Gráinne Healy, Co-Directors of Yes Equality, say “Today we woke up, smiling, in a changed Ireland. A kinder, gentler, more accepting Ireland. This is thanks to the extraordinary work of Yes Equality groups all across the country who knocked on thousands of doors, had conversations and asked people for their vote. <...>

Just to be clear, my position is that the result couldn't be clearer. It's a strong Yes, delivered on a strong turnout - no-one could possibly detract from the legitimacy of that.

I just don't see why we'd be bothered about Iona's view of why they feel their campaign was weak, any more than we'd pay attention to the Yes campaign claiming that their work was strong. For all we know, the result might have been even stronger without a Yes campaign conducting a nationwide canvass.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Those who are Catholic are required to communicate moral teaching, as well as living moral teaching.

Because you don't accept the reality of sin, that is your decision. You're entirely free to make that choice and to live with the consequences of that decision.

That's all very well but you're forgetting a lot of religious people have gay family and friends. They put the interests of their loved ones ahead of their personal faith and I think that is crucial, it's harder to stick to the letter of your faith when that faith has such a low opinion of people you love be they gay, a single parent etc

hinault

swampgas wrote: »

Catholics in Ireland are also required to obey the law of the land.

Not in regard to issues of moral teaching.

swampgas wrote: »

Unless a Catholic theocracy is what you want - good luck with that.

A theocracy is the last thing that I want.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Not in regard to issues of moral teaching.

How do you work that one out?

Madd Finn

PopePalpatine wrote: »

His side gave as good as they got:

The content of this letter is poisonous but how do you know for certain that it was sent by a No voter? It could just as easily be a fake sent by somebody trying to discredit their opponent's point of view.

I just hold it out as a possibility, that's all. I don't think it represents the broad view of those who opposed the referendum.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

Not a NSA agent

hinault wrote: »

I've no problem with the Church dismissing paedophiles and reporting them to the police either.

You have no problem with it from happening but are calling for public excommunication for any clergy who supported a civil matter. It's the strongest reaction Ive seen against the clergy on this forum and is a minor issue, if it even is one.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

That's all very well but you're forgetting a lot of religious people have gay family and friends. They put the interests of their loved ones ahead of their personal faith and I think that is crucial, it's harder to stick to the letter of your faith when that faith has such a low opinion of people you love be they gay, a single parent etc

Moral relativism.

Something is either morally right or morally wrong.
What your describe is moral relativism.

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

Those who are Catholic are required to communicate moral teaching, as well as living moral teaching.

Because you don't accept the reality of sin, that is your decision. You're entirely free to make that choice and to live with the consequences of that decision.

Does teaching also mean telling people what they can or cannot do?

I think even as Christian you make for a very bad one!
If you believe so vehemently I would be concerned that your judgement of others would in turn see you be judged unfavorably...

I on the other hand don't think you will be judged, i just consider you a dinosaur with a very blinkered way of thinking.

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

LOL - I don't know whether to laugh or even consider you serious.

You won't be adhering to that law.....

This really just shows how narrow minded you really are.

Allowing gay marriage, what exactly do you think you would be adhering too?

You think because they legalise it you now are going to be forced to go find a gay lover?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

That makes no sense.

For example, the state says homosexual activity is no longer a crime and homosexuals will no longer be punished by a prison sentence.

Unless you're going to start imprisoning homosexuals illegally, I'm not sure how you don't adhere to the law

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

Those who are Catholic are required to communicate moral teaching, as well as living moral teaching.

Because you don't accept the reality of sin, that is your decision. You're entirely free to make that choice and to live with the consequences of that decision.

Sin-free life thus far?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Moral relativism.

Something is either morally right or morally wrong.
What your describe is moral relativism.

That's up to each individual. They should live that way because they choose to live that way, not because the law has engineered it so.

hinault

SW wrote: »

That makes no sense.

For example, the state says homosexual activity is no longer a crime and homosexuals will no longer be punished by a prison sentence.

Unless you're going to start imprisoning homosexuals illegally, I'm not sure how you don't adhere to the law

Society legislates to legalise tax avoidance. Is tax avoidance morally right?

Because something isn't illegal doesn't make that action morally right.

Homosexual acts may not be illegal - that doesn't make homosexual acts morally right.
Clearly homosexual acts are morally wrong.

If society deemed that kleptomania was legal, would that be morally right?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

That's up to each individual

Moral relativism.

It follows then that there is no right or wrong, because each individual is permitted to apply his or her own moral standards to try to justify their behaviour.

Good luck with that.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Society legislates to legalise tax avoidance. Is tax avoidance morally right?

Because something isn't illegal doesn't make that action morally right.

Homosexual acts may not be illegal - that doesn't make homosexual acts morally right.
Clearly homosexual acts are morally wrong.

If society deemed that kleptomania was legal, would that be morally right?

Maybe it was the choice of the word 'adhere' I'm fixated on.

But if for example tax avoidance was legal, how do you not adhere to the law? If you don't pay tax, you're not breaking the law. But equally if you decide to 'donate' tax to the state, you're not breaking the law either.

hinault

SW wrote: »

Maybe it was the choice of the word 'adhere' I'm fixated on.

Perhaps.

Not a NSA agent

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Clearly? Care to expand?

A very old book says it so it must be.

The constitution is a fraction of the age and we still think that it messed up in places and needs fixing. Its as if the world doesnt stay static.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

Is there any chance you'll be converting and fecking off to the "Islamic State"?

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

Moral relativism.

It follows then that there is no right or wrong, because each individual is permitted to apply his or her own moral standards to try to justify their behaviour

It's always going to be relative because it depends on which particular arbiter of morality you decide to follow.

RecordStraight

Manach wrote: »

New Ireland: so forgiving and so sure of its moral superiority.

Are you sure you are the person to lecture others about their imagined moral superiority?

barretsimpson

hinault wrote: »

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

Nobody is asking you to.

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is there any chance you'll be converting and fecking off to the "Islamic State"?

MOD NOTE

Less of the personal comments please.

Thanks for your attention.

PopePalpatine

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are you sure you are the person to lecture others about their imagined moral superiority?

He'll make sure to whack you over the head with his hefty thesaurus.