Jump to content
^_^

With Muslim Brotherhood Set to Join Egypt Protests, Religion’s Role May Grow

 Share

94 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline

Did I say I am?

I have it good here. I am fortunate to live in this country as opposed to someone where the laws are inspired by a more repressive set of religious doctrine (for example, Saudi Arabia).

So, if religion is the root of all evil, then better the devil you know? :star:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you said that all existing legal systems (including English common law) are inspired (even in part) by religious doctrine, I would not disagree.

Nor would I, but then again they are not inconsistent with a very pragmatic and human response to human interaction either. That all morality is simply a function of a belief that 'something' other than other humans are judging our actions is a bit illogical, in my opinion.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Israel
Timeline

Where?

Posted Today, 10:24 AM

Madame Cleo, on 30 January 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Not true. Atheists do not come from a cookie cutter mould either. I might be interested in why people believe the things that they do but that does not mean I want to try to force anyone else to think in the way I do. What I do think is VERY important is to keep religion separate from both the judiciary and government. Secular government and justice has been the root of progress in the industrialized world in my opinion.

What do you propose when a religion comes packaged with its own system of justice? If a country is populated predominantly by members of that religion, isn't is inevitable that the system of justice they use will be inspired in most part by the system of justice prescribed by the majority faith?

In context of what you were responding to and your irreligious views, thats the way it came across to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In context of what you were responding to and your irreligious views, thats the way it came across to me.

I don't think AJ's views are irreligious.

I think from the standpoint of world history, his comment is spot on.

Our journey together on this earth has come to an end.

I will see you one day again, my love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you propose when a religion comes packaged with its own system of justice? If a country is populated predominantly by members of that religion, isn't is inevitable that the system of justice they use will be inspired in most part by the system of justice prescribed by the majority faith?

I propose separation of church and state always. Doesn't matter to me what the majority faith is or whether the majority believe in a higher power at all, the justice system should be based on the ideal that each human is born free and equal and no that does not mean that government has a responsibility to ensure every individual experience is the same, it means that the law should not be tailored to exclude people from access to justice.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline

But the Pope is infallible, so he can make it Catholic doctrine anytime, as much as any Imam can issue a fatwa doing the same thing for his followers. I find it interesting how an all powerful being can be bound by the words of men.

Just to clarify this common misconception (even among Catholics)

The Pope is not "infallible".

Certain rare teaching are, of which I think the last one was given, half a century ago.

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

Just to clarify this common misconception (even among Catholics)

The Pope is not "infallible".

Certain rare teaching are, of which I think the last one was given, half a century ago.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

For the current Pope, Benedict XVI:

Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009)

Spe salvi (November 30, 2007)

Deus caritas est (December 25, 2005)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline

Often people are confuse about the Popes teachings, opinions or something similar and the more rare...."infallibility" part of it.

I'm certainly no expert on the matter but read this and tell me what you glean.

Conditions for papal infallibility

Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"

2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")

3. "he defines"

4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"

5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or

an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous Church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly. In this case, the previous fallible teachings are immediately made void. Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching, including the infallible teachings of the Holy Bible or Holy Tradition. Also, due to the sensus fidelium, an infallible teaching cannot be subsequently contradicted by the Catholic Church, even if that subsequent teaching is in itself fallible.

In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI asserted during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."[11]

It is the opinion of the majority of Catholic theologians that the canonizations of a pope enter within the limits of infallible teaching. Therefore, it is considered certain by this majority of theologians, that such persons canonized are definitely in heaven with God. However, this opinion of infallibility of canonizations has never been definitively taught by the Magisterium. Other theologians, even those of earlier times, refer to this majority opinion, as a "pious opinion, but merely an opinion".[citation needed] Before the height of Middle Ages, saints were created not by the Bishop of Rome, but by the bishops of the local dioceses, confirming or rejecting the acclamation of the people calling for declaration of sanctity of a particular Christian person who died "in the odour of sanctity". In Catholic teaching, diocesan bishops do not in themselves possess the charism of infallibility (but do so when gathered in ecumenical council), leaving these early Church canonizations without certainty of infallibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

Often people are confuse about the Popes teachings, opinions or something similar and the more rare...."infallibility" part of it.

I'm certainly no expert on the matter but read this and tell me what you glean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Use my link. Wikipedia is not a definitive source on anything.

http://www.catholic....fallibility.asp

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Edited by Some Old Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

Use my link. Wikipedia is not a definitive source on anything.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Fixed the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you have been paying much attention to the christian evangelists. I think there are plenty who salivate over forcing people to conform to a narrow agenda.

MC,

Many here just see you as consistently being :ranting: angry :ranting: and UNRECEPTIVE to ANY alternative viewpoints that you dont subscribe to, so it's clearly all about YOU.

So we dont expect that you would ever acknowledge or give ANY recognition to any alternative viewpoints here, if they do not fit your own. :whistle:

God Bless, just dont think we dont see through it.

:reading:

Sign-on-a-church-af.jpgLogic-af.jpgwwiao.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many must be delusional, if you speak for the many in the perception of anger as regards the things I post. Fret not, I am neither angry nor unreceptive.

Not sure why you would want to deny the reality that some christian evangelists have a narrow agenda and wish to shoehorn folks into it, especially after their great success in creating horrific conditions for homosexuals in Uganda. I'm betting you no ####### all about it though, am I right?

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...