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

25-05-2015 06:41PM

hinault wrote: »

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

I'd like to see the Church weed out the apostates within it's own ranks, and McVerry and Kennedy would top that list.

Whatever "good work" they do is obliterated by their failure to accept the marriage teaching of Jesus Christ.
Catholics should be lobbying the hierarchy for the removal of clergy who fail to publicly endorse the teaching of the church.
Both McVerry and Kennedy, and all the rest of the clergy who called for a YES vote should be dismissed from their ministry.

I would whole heartedly and fully support this. Who'd be left?

hinault · 25-05-2015 07:37PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

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

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

myfreespirit · 25-05-2015 09:33PM

hinault wrote: »

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

Every citizen of the Republic is bound to adhere to the rightful laws of the land - there are not if's, but's or maybe's about it. You cannot choose which laws to obey and which laws you will choose to break. Although quite how you intend not to adhere to that law escapes me...

The attitude expressed is symptomatic of (admittedly now changed) Church attitudes to child abuse, where the priests and hierachy appeared to believe that canon law was superior to state law, so they did not need to report any of the abuse to the authorities; indeed they appeared to believe they could, like this poster, ignore the law of the land and carry on regardless.

We live in a democratic lawful society, where we are required to adhere to the states laws.
Of course, this does not affect anybody's religious belief in the slightest, they are quite free to practice whatever religious norms they like.

ravima · 25-05-2015 09:39PM

Whatever ya think, this letter is not Christian. A Christian would pray for the writer, that God in his goodness, would heal their wounded personality. God love 'em.

At a basic level, Christians love the sinner, but hate the sin. The human person is the primacy.

Alf Veedersane · 25-05-2015 09:54PM

hinault wrote: »

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Whose moral standards do you apply?

hinault · 25-05-2015 09:56PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Whose moral standards do you apply?

The Catechism.

Alf Veedersane wrote:

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

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Alf Veedersane · 25-05-2015 10:04PM

hinault wrote: »

The Catechism.

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Yours is the catechism.

hinault · 25-05-2015 10:07PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Yours is the catechism.

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

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Is there any chance that you're going to answer this question.

Alf Veedersane · 25-05-2015 10:20PM

hinault wrote: »

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Is there any chance that you're going to answer this question.

Ok, I didn't think I'd have to explain it but different beliefs have a different arbiter of what's morally right and what's morally wrong.

Yours is the catechism. That's fine.

But the catechism isn't the arbiter of morality for everyone.

A final thought: Jesus said "Love one another. As I have loved you so you must love one another".

hinault · 25-05-2015 10:33PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Ok, I didn't think I'd have to explain it but different beliefs have a different arbiter of what's morally right and what's morally wrong.

Another moral relativist.

coolbeans · 25-05-2015 10:37PM

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

marienbad · 25-05-2015 10:37PM

hinault wrote: »

Another moral relativist.

Is there any other kind ?

Alf Veedersane · 25-05-2015 10:42PM

hinault wrote: »

Another moral relativist.

So there are no other religions?

Alf Veedersane · 25-05-2015 10:48PM

coolbeans wrote: »

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

I don't have an issue with the beliefs. I don't agree with them at all but that's beside the point.

I just have an issue with - though maybe it's how it comes across in text format - the tenor of the posts.

Though the cynic in me thinks that there are people who call themselves Catholic that turn a blind eye to other elements such as set before marriage amongst others (in general rather than related to this thread)

hinault · 25-05-2015 10:52PM

coolbeans wrote: »

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

I try as much as possible to follow the rules and policies of the Church.

But like every single one of us, I'm a sinner. I'm human. I make mistakes and I commit sin.
And without God's mercy I cannot be saved from myself.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

jungleman · 25-05-2015 11:35PM

hinault wrote: »

I try as much as possible to follow the rules and policies of the Church.

But like every single one of us, I'm a sinner. I'm human. I make mistakes and I commit sin.
And without God's mercy I cannot be saved from myself.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

On the subject of the Yes vote, what do you see as the greater sin:

The fact that gay people have gay sex and are now legally able to get married

or

Religious members who would prefer to ignore equality and would rather that gay people have less rights than straight people? Which would surely be against Catholic teachings?

hinault · 25-05-2015 11:42PM

jungleman wrote: »

On the subject of the Yes vote, what do you see as the greater sin:
The fact that gay people have gay sex and are now legally able to get married

or
Religious members who would prefer to ignore equality and would rather that gay people have less rights than straight people? Which would surely be against Catholic teachings?

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

RecordStraight · 25-05-2015 11:44PM

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

hinault · 25-05-2015 11:53PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

Gospel of St Matthew Chapter 19
Gospel of St Mark

jungleman · 25-05-2015 11:59PM

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

Does it not bother you on a human level? Knowing that for years gay people have been dehumanised and criminalised, and that you would take the teachings of the church and apply them in a way which encourages segregation?

RecordStraight · 26-05-2015 12:00AM

hinault wrote: »

Gospel of St Matthew Chapter 19

I can't see it in the former. Here it is, quoted in its entirety:

1 And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, *and came into the confines of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 *And the Pharisees came to him tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 But he answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he *who made man in the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:

5 *For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say to him: *Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?

8 He saith to them: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 *And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he who shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not good to marry.

11 He said to them: All receive not this word, but they to whom it is given.

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can receive, let him receive it.

13 *Then were little children presented to him, that he should lay his hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said to them: *Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

15 And when he had laid his hands upon them, he departed thence.

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good Master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?

17 But he said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith to him: Which? And Jesus said: *Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth: what is yet wanting to me?

21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

25 And when the disciples had heard this, they wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?

28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundred-fold, and shall possess life everlasting.

30 *But many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.

Perhaps you can explain exactly where it says what you claim? If anything, this bit sounds like it strongly advocates gay relationships:

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can receive, let him receive it.

hinault · 26-05-2015 12:03AM

jungleman wrote: »

Does it not bother you on a human level? Knowing that for years gay people have been dehumanised and criminalised, and that you would take the teachings of the church and apply them in a way which encourages segregation?

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

hinault · 26-05-2015 12:04AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

I can't see it in the former. Here it is, quoted in its entirety:
Perhaps you can explain exactly where it says what you claim?

Verse 5.

RecordStraight · 26-05-2015 12:09AM

hinault wrote: »

Verse 5.

*For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

I interpret it differently, especially in the light of the verse I quoted.

How do you know your interpretation is the one intended by an infinitely loving God?

hinault · 26-05-2015 12:26AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

I interpret it differently, especially in the light of the verse I quoted.

What you interpret is of zero interest to me.

Gospel of St Mark chapter 10 verses 7-9 also explains Jesus teaching on marriage.

RecordStraight · 26-05-2015 12:29AM

hinault wrote: »

What you interpret is of zero interest to me.

Then what makes you think that your interpretation is of interest to anyone else?

hinault · 26-05-2015 12:31AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

Then what makes you think that your interpretation is of interest to anyone else?

Clearly it is of interest to you!

katydid · 26-05-2015 08:54AM

hinault wrote: »

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

That's your BELIEF. Nothing to do with the law of the land.

katydid · 26-05-2015 08:56AM

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

Where did he every say ONLY?

ShowMeTheCash · 26-05-2015 09:46AM

hinault wrote: »

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

You do discriminate your attitude narrow and your point of view very blinkered.
I already asked this question but you did not answer.

What study have you done on the origins and authenticity of the Gospels?
Who wrote them? When where they written?

I have met a lot of people like you, the Church is infallible and the bible to be taken literally.

You say you have zero interest in other peoples interpretation but take on board an interpretation given by the Church which when you looks at it is just another group of men with funny hat's!

People like you scare me a little you seem to have an inability to think for yourself but feel the need to champion views on society dream-pt up literally thousands of years ago.

I see you jumped from "You would not be adhering to that law" to "advocating" you then go on and say things like "enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin"

A mortal sin was something that Catholic church made up, it literally made it up and decided here is a list of things that god will not forgive and you will go to hell among them are divorce, contraception, masturbation, suicide etc etc...

This has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Have you ever actually looked at the history of the Catholic Church?

People with moderate intelligence eventually started to question this, as most of it simply did not add up.

People with mental health issues who are not accountable for their actions that commit suicide how does that work?

A woman who suffers physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband.. No divorce?

Aids stricken countries, no condoms?

You want to buy into absolute nonsense that is fine but most sensible people I think would consider you a fool with very foolish views..

I know you think your right and in the end you when in heaven you will be vindicated by pointing the finger or whatever it is you are trying to do on this thread.

Let me ask another question, what if you are wrong? And I know this might be challenging for you but perhaps just ponder that for a while.

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

Comments