KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352506224' post='2507448'] Why would that be necessary? [/quote] Why is it necessary to obey Mother Church?
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352506479' post='2507451'] Why is it necessary to obey Mother Church? [/quote] Why do you think we need a list of things which may be legal? I wasn't aware we operated like this, now.
Ice_nine Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352477004' post='2507185'] There maybe an exemption for medical use but any other use is abuse and the Church says no and says it should not be made legal. So again what Apo said... [/quote] With all due respect, your making leaps that just aren't there. Particularly, I see no where that the church condemns the use of "drugs" where nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, kava and other perfectly acceptable intoxicants cannot fall under the umbrella of "drugs." So the church, despite what you think, has not drawn a line between acceptable and unacceptable substances and yet, the substances listed enjoy some magical moral protection? Please show me where this distinction is! Please. Why do some substances get a pass? Because the US lawmakers 70 years ago decided, for nonsensical reasons mind you, decided cannabis was bad? Help me see where the distinction is! But some psychoactive substances are apparently oki-dokie, show me where the church says which ones. Unless you are willing to say that using alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine (which can kill you pretty easily if you have it in its pure form) is gravely sinful. Ok, not alcohol because apparently that's super magical.
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352506712' post='2507455'] Why do you think we need a list of things which may be legal? I wasn't aware we operated like this, now. [/quote] Why not submit to the Church when she says it should be legalized? Why play 20 questions? Is it fun?
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352506922' post='2507460'] Why not submit to the Church when she says it should be legalized? Why play 20 questions? Is it fun? [/quote] Are you confusing decriminalization with approval? Again?
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1352506899' post='2507458'] With all due respect, your making leaps that just aren't there. Particularly, I see no where that the church condemns the use of "drugs" where nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, kava and other perfectly acceptable intoxicants cannot fall under the umbrella of "drugs." So the church, despite what you think, has not drawn a line between acceptable and unacceptable substances and yet, the substances listed enjoy some magical moral protection? Please show me where this distinction is! Please. Why do some substances get a pass? Because the US lawmakers 70 years ago decided, for nonsensical reasons mind you, decided cannabis was bad? Help me see where the distinction is! But some psychoactive substances are apparently oki-dokie, show me where the church says which ones. Unless you are willing to say that using alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine (which can kill you pretty easily if you have it in its pure form) is gravely sinful. Ok, not alcohol because apparently that's super magical. [/quote] Apo has already provided the Church's teaching on the matter of legalizing pot. She's against it. End of fracking story when it comes to that.
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 He provided a quote from the pontifical council.
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352507069' post='2507463'] Are you confusing decriminalization with approval? Again? [/quote] Are you accusing the Church of this? Would you like me to provide numerous documents where she states decriminalisation of unethical practices is giving approval of the practice by the government? Because I can..
Ice_nine Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352507230' post='2507466'] Apo has already provided the Church's teaching on the matter of legalizing pot. She's against it. End of fracking story when it comes to that. [/quote] You know, I'm getting this sneaking suspicion that you don't really know what you're talking about. I've read what Apo posted. Nothing he posted addressed my question, particularly where the church draws distinctions between which substances are moral and which ones are not. But feel free to show me where these distinctions are drawn and I'll be happy.
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352507468' post='2507468'] He provided a quote from the pontifical council. [/quote] Why rationalize the Church's teaching away like that? Why not just submit and obey?
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1352507551' post='2507472'] You know, I'm getting this sneaking suspicion that you don't really know what you're talking about. I've read what Apo posted. Nothing he posted addressed my question, particularly where the church draws distinctions between which substances are moral and which ones are not. But feel free to show me where these distinctions are drawn and I'll be happy. [/quote] Think what you will. There's just some times you just got to submit to Church teaching rather than question it.
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Apotheoun' timestamp='1352325985' post='2506047'] That is correct, because the federal government has declared cannabis to be a controlled substance. [/quote] An act for which it completely lacked authority.
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352507603' post='2507475'] Why rationalize the Church's teaching away like that? Why not just submit and obey? [/quote] I'm not rationalizing anything away. I go with [i]Libertas[/i]. Some evils will have to be tolerated in order to avoid greater ones. It has never been the position of the Church that all evils must be punished through legislation. Oh looky, I've read church documents, too. I've already been informed that my refusal to pleasure our wise overlords isn't Catholic.
Ice_nine Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352507468' post='2507468'] He provided a quote from the pontifical council. [/quote] are you saying this in response to me?
Anomaly Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Is the only concern to be able to act as selfishly as possible? Limited by known direct harm to others, but all else is okay?
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352508115' post='2507480'] I'm not rationalizing anything away. I go with [i]Libertas[/i]. Some evils will have to be tolerated in order to avoid greater ones. It has never been the position of the Church that all evils must be punished through legislation. Oh looky, I've read church documents, too. I've already been informed that my refusal to pleasure our wise overlords isn't Catholic. [/quote] You read? Why no questions? How do you reconcile your anti-statism with documents like Libertias anyway? And where do you draw the line on the legality of drug abuse? Or should any and all forms be decriminalised?
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1352508168' post='2507482'] are you saying this in response to me? [/quote] Sure, why not?
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352509195' post='2507489'] How do you reconcile your anti-statism with documents like Libertias anyway? [/quote] I don't need to. They're not at odds.
KnightofChrist Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352509714' post='2507496'] I don't need to. They're not at odds. [/quote] Are you sure? Why doesn't it question the right of the state to exist, or call into question the ability for a person to be in places of power in a state? Sure it condemns unjust practices of the state, but why doesn't it or any related and similar documents go as far as the anti-statism I've read from you?
Winchester Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352510235' post='2507501'] Are you sure? Why doesn't it question the right of the state to exist, or call into question the ability for a person to be in places of power in a state? Sure it condemns unjust practices of the state, but why doesn't it or any related and similar documents go as far as the anti-statism I've read from you? [/quote] I am sure. I think it's your bias. You support the modern state and the modern notions of taxation. It used to be that "sovereigns" could not raise taxes without consent of the ruled. We're never going to agree. I've been in your spot. This process took years, although I'd long ago rejected the modern state in favor of feudal monarchism. My final rejection of the kings God told us we didn't want only recently occurred.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now