<p>Threads about sex always get the most posts…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s certainly easy to pick out whose morals are flawed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sex + religion, what more could an Internet discussion ask for?</p>
<p>pics or ■■■■</p>
<p>WRONG. By definition, laws are NOT a system of morality. They are a system of rules, meant to bring order to a society.</p>
<p>Morals are kinds of laws in it’s own, morals are your own personal laws to help you distinguish between “right” and “wrong” basically. You form your morals from your own experiences. Not everyone shares the same experiences, therefore people are not going to share exactly the same morals. So there are no CORRECT morals since they’re different for everyone.</p>
<p>Baelor, thank you for showing us that you know little more about your beliefs than what can be written on a bumper sticker. People who truly understand their beliefs and the reasons behind them do not have to refer people to a website that is written by other people. </p>
<p>Good day thread.</p>
<p>
Good luck applying your morals to everyone. </p>
<p>
They sound pretty similar to me.</p>
<p>I don’t get how people who feel such an intense spiritual connection to God can take a legal document so seriously. Love is a spiritual experience. Marriage is a legal technicality. Nothing gets much colder or more technical than the bureaucracy. I mean if that document is important to you, that’s one thing, we all have our own standards, but to suggest that it is a required symbol of true love for everybody is (imho) crazy.</p>
<p>As Joni Mitchell put it, “We don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tied and true.”</p>
<p>Because they see marriage as a religious connection, not a civil connection.</p>
<p>Duh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On what is that order based? Why would a society with legalized murder be less orderly? Or a society without abortion? Or a society with a total welfare state?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a moronic statement. If I believe right and wrong apply to everyone, then clearly I am an absolutist. If I believe that something is universally true, I believe that it is CORRECT in terms of morality. Your saying it is not is no more convincing than my saying that it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other people who speak infallibly on moral issues. And you were asking me to write a treatise on morality and theology of the body. That’s clearly an unreasonable request. So I deferred to the masters. But thanks for your pathetic attempt to show that I am brainless. I’m glad you think it worked – it only diminishes your credibility, which is fine by me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The second is from the perspective of the creators of the law.</p>
<p>She was not asking you to write a treatise. You made a statement, romani asked a question about your beliefs, you gave her a website…</p>
<p>If you can’t be articulate and clear about your own beliefs and have to “defer to the masters” every time, you won’t get very far.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But wouldn’t that invalidate just about any detailed belief? If I were to argue against the theory of relativity here, I doubt there are many that could respond, yet they would still (rightly) believe in it.</p>
<p>Yes she did.</p>
<p>This:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>involves questions so deep that they require what would essentially be a very long analysis of the Bible and interpretations thereof, as well as the role of the Church and the Pope as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, etc.</p>
<p>So yes, that is exactly what she asked. And I am not going to write one out. So if you want good answers now, they’re right here: [Vatican:</a> the Holy See](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va%5DVatican:”>http://www.vatican.va). I’ve already read most of them, so I can vouch for their quality.</p>
<p>If you’ve read most of them, I would expect that you could say at least some things in your own words.</p>
<p>Just saying 
You’ll be asked your opinion more than a few times in your life, and not everyone has iPads.</p>
<p>I just need to add, this thread is funny. I love when people can’t answer questions. It’s really a funny thing to watch people squirm. :)</p>
<p>But there’s a difference between voicing one’s opinion and explaining the historical background. That’s not to say the historical background is relevant, but not having full knowledge of that background doesn’t invalidate one’s opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally, what most people are happy with, that is what that order is based on. More likely than not, unhappy people will cause problems in a society. Law is derived from social norms, which naturally comes from commonly accepted morals, but that is not always the case.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it’s hard to cater to the beliefs of every single person. The law is not going to make everybody happy, because guess what, not everyone is going to have the same beliefs and morals. But guess what, in some places if you can gather up enough unhappy people, you can change the law.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think I’m digressing.</p>
<p>
What kind of rhetoric is that? Are you even trying? If murder was legalized, people who are capable of murder would just kill whoever they wanted, whenever they pleased. Obviously you can imagine how that would get messy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s the key word, BELIEVE. Your beliefs may not match up with someone else’s beliefs, because you would have different experiences approaching a certain belief. You can’t impose your beliefs on people who don’t agree because IMO that’s like imposing your own personal experiences on someone else! Morality differs by individuals, there are commonly accepted morals, but that does not necessarily mean that those morals are absolutely correct.</p>
<p>Obviously – I have.</p>
<p>I can outline a few points here:</p>
<p>The OT was correct in the time period in which it was written. But the full covenant of God was fully manifested through Jesus Christ, which provided the aforementioned update to the moral code that had existed before – hence some of the Judaic laws became unnecessary or altered themselves. Jesus also operated within his own time period, but not in the same way as the Old Testament. We therefore have the NT as a more applicable code for morality.</p>
<p>Jesus Christ also entrusted his Church to St. Peter, and the successors of Peter are obviously the Papae, or Popes, who is head of the Church and with whom the bishops act in communion as the Magisterium. They are entrusted with the wellbeing of the entire world (think about the implications). The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God. </p>
<p>Everything else follows. This answer may seem tangential, but it is actually the most appropriate one – what God has told us about marriage is reflected in the teachings of the Church. The Church does not make its teachings true, it teaches what is true – a subtle distinction that is actually very important.</p>
<p>
That’s true.</p>
<p>I was just referring to the fact that he stated that he put the website out there as a more “eloquent” way of phrasing his beliefs, so I just assumed that he at least had some background knowledge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, let’s through around random terms like “happy” and hope that people can work with such an abstract concept. What is happiness? Is it different from contentment? How does the happiness of one person compare to that of another?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t. Because you never defined order. I’m confused as a result. Why would massive murder sprees be disorderly? What if total lawlessness is what I consider order, as men are totally free creatures for whom laws only create entropy as they interfere with natural order?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. It doesn’t. But I don’t care about what is commonly accepted. I care about what is right. Start thinking from that perspective and you will be better able to understand what I am saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I answered the question. I’m still waiting to see who is squirming on this forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so? Is murder morally wrong?</p>