Well, time to hang my head in shame then, as I take great pride in my hobby of reading Byzantine history.
Advertisement
by Czechanada » Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:09 am
by Living Stones » Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:26 am
Talvezout wrote:Is it morally permissible to not vote?
by Efraim-Judah » Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:44 am
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:So as I sit here in the library surrounded by books on Christian Eschatology, I realize I think it's time I took a hiatus from NSG. I will will still pop in once and a while, but not nearly as much. I have a lot to work on, and I should probably focus on that.
Don't let efraim run wild while I'm gone
by The Princes of the Universe » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:13 am
The Archregimancy wrote:My nameday saint is another important early theologian related to Arianism, though one just pre-dating the Cappadocian Fathers/Three Holy Hierarchs.
That doesn't really give anything away about my identity, incidentally; that's not how my name is shown on my passport.
by Kannap » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:13 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
by United Isles of the Commonwealth » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:21 pm
by Athenasius » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:30 pm
Southern Bardarus wrote:Athenasius wrote:I am Bulgarian... I was baptised in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, my son was baptised in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, my siblings were and my parents were. I have never hear of a tax for it; anywhere in Bulgaria...
65 levs in order to get baptized m8, i live in Rousse and every Bulgarian Orthodox church here told me this.
by Nordengrund » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:47 pm
Kannap wrote:Why must it feel so hard to even think about the decision to switch churches?
Like, joining a church near my college was just easy because it was too far away from home to stick with my home church on Sundays.
But I am currently thinking about whether or not I want to stay with my current hometown church during breaks when I am at home or if I want to jump to a church across town.
by Living Stones » Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:39 pm
United Isles of the Commonwealth wrote:I'm a roman Catholic who is currently studying for confirmation, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Gay Marriage. It's interesting to see a range of opinions from a group of people
by Menassa » Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:56 pm
United Isles of the Commonwealth wrote:I'm a roman Catholic who is currently studying for confirmation, and I was wondering what you guys thought of Gay Marriage. It's interesting to see a range of opinions from a group of people
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:28 pm
Constantinopolis wrote:Besides, a priest is supposed to be apolitical in his public life, and I really couldn't do that. Perhaps later, after I have nothing more to say or do with regard to political matters.
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:39 pm
Talvezout wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:You could vote for candidate A.
Abortion is not the only moral issue in the world, nor is it the only matter of life and death. You are certainly not obligated to vote for the anti-abortion candidate if that candidate would, for example, let poor children die from lack of access to health care, or send drones to murder children (among others) in foreign countries.
People tend to forget that a lot of political issues are matters of life and death - even seemingly boring stuff about the allocation of government spending.
Besides, in some countries (such as the US), abortion isn't a matter of legislative or executive policy anyway. It's a matter decided by the judiciary. When the candidates are running for an office that has no power to do anything about abortion anyway, it doesn't matter where they stand on it.Nordengrund wrote:
My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?[/
I recall hearing about a guy on the radio who said the abortion issue is so important to him that he will vote for a pro-life candidate no matter what even if he disagrees with them on everything else.Efraim-Judah wrote:One has no obligation to vote. One however does have an obligation to uphold God's law and to uphold the teachings of Messiah.
Do what you will, do it for the glory of God.
Thanks for the quick responses guys
I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.
According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.
Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.
Or do I take the third option and just not vote?
Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:51 pm
by Czechanada » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:54 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.
nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
by The Alexanderians » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:02 pm
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
by Luminesa » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:40 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Talvezout wrote:
Thanks for the quick responses guys
I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.
According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.
Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.
Or do I take the third option and just not vote?
Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.
I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.
by Nordengrund » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:52 pm
Talvezout wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:You could vote for candidate A.
Abortion is not the only moral issue in the world, nor is it the only matter of life and death. You are certainly not obligated to vote for the anti-abortion candidate if that candidate would, for example, let poor children die from lack of access to health care, or send drones to murder children (among others) in foreign countries.
People tend to forget that a lot of political issues are matters of life and death - even seemingly boring stuff about the allocation of government spending.
Besides, in some countries (such as the US), abortion isn't a matter of legislative or executive policy anyway. It's a matter decided by the judiciary. When the candidates are running for an office that has no power to do anything about abortion anyway, it doesn't matter where they stand on it.Nordengrund wrote:
My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?[/
I recall hearing about a guy on the radio who said the abortion issue is so important to him that he will vote for a pro-life candidate no matter what even if he disagrees with them on everything else.Efraim-Judah wrote:One has no obligation to vote. One however does have an obligation to uphold God's law and to uphold the teachings of Messiah.
Do what you will, do it for the glory of God.
Thanks for the quick responses guys
I will admit that my question is coming from a Catholic perspective, so please bear with me.
According to the guide on how Catholics are to vote, voting for anyone who is pro-abortion, even if they support other policies that emulate Christ, is being complicit in mortal sin as abortion is a mortal sin.
Thus, I want to vote for the candidate who supports policies that I feel are best, but then I feel I need to vote for the candidate who I disagree with but is anti-abortion.
Or do I take the third option and just not vote?
Alas though, knowing me I'm probably just overthinking this.
by Constantinopolis » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:13 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:Besides, a priest is supposed to be apolitical in his public life, and I really couldn't do that. Perhaps later, after I have nothing more to say or do with regard to political matters.
Why exactly is that? Shouldn't a priest be obligated to advocate the most Christian of political positions?
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.
Luminesa wrote:The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:I was in the same boat, but ultimately I decided to vote based on other issues, largely because I think parties that claim to be pro-life are liars and are just trying to force pro-life people to vote for them. They won't do anything about abortion if they're elected.
Well you're voting for candidates, not parties. A good bit of the Republicans have good pro-life records, whereas most of the Democrats don't. TRUMP certainly won't do anything about abortion if he's elected, but Rubio or Cruz probably will.
by Coulee Croche » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:15 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.
nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
by Constantinopolis » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:25 pm
Nordengrund wrote:I am an independent only because my state has open primaries and I think it is pointless to declare yourself as a member of a party unless you plan to go into politics.
I lean Republican even though I am probably evenly split betwen both parties. While I sympathize with Dems on immigration, education, etc., I side with Republicans on social issues and foreign policy which is FAR more important to me.
Right now, abortions and ISIS are the greatest evils in the current times. Democrats don't seem to be willing to do anything about it. While we should protect the environment and provide social programs, our poor are better off than in most countries and I am sure ISIS is a bigger danger than global warming.
by Diopolis » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:28 pm
Talvezout wrote:Efraim-Judah wrote:Of course. Where is it written "you shall vote"?
My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?
by Talvezout » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:32 pm
Diopolis wrote:Talvezout wrote:
My main worry is that if it's an election where the two main candidates are A, who I agree with their policies but disagree on abortion, for example, or candidate ,B who I disagree with their policies but agree with on abortion; am I morally obligated to vote for candidate B, or is it morally permissible for me to abstain for voting? Will me not voting count as me allowing the abortion candidate to pass and vice versa?
This is actually a fairly complicated question(I am assuming based on your scenario that you are both a)Catholic and b)American. If you are not, then this is the teaching of at least certain members of the USCCB). On the one hand, abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time, and is probably the weightiest issue around. On the other hand, it's not the only issue. The party line from most of the American bishops(who are faced with your exact same dilemma) is that you may not vote for A unless there is a very compelling reason to vote against B(the only candidate for this election I think this applies to is Trump, but there may or may not be others) or unless there is an equally compelling reason to vote for A(depending on your views, this may or may not apply to Sanders. It certainly does not apply to Clinton.). Whether or not you're actually morally obligated to vote is a trickier question, because the bishops who answered this question assumed that anyone who asked it was planning on voting. My own two cents is that, as Catholics are obligated to obey civil authority, and civil authority tends to want you to vote, you are obligated to vote.
by Constantinopolis » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:35 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.
nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
by Diopolis » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:39 pm
The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Simply because it's a waste of money. It's like these million dollar salaries and mansions of evangelical leaders, its basically embezzling. The time for monuments is long past.
nonsense. great arching beautiful cathedrals should not be made a thing of the past. glorifying God is a worthy use of money.
by Coulee Croche » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:01 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bovad, Celritannia, Duvniask, Ethel mermania, Gudetamia, Hekp, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Luziyca, Myrensis, Ors Might, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Rusozak, Southland, Teclana, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valrifall, Vassenor, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement