Why is it wrong to change your views?

[Radrook]

What you wrote makes sense, except that it is my understanding that Catholics are duty bound to agree with the positions of the Magisterium of the Church, who have thought long and hard on these subjects and have detailed their logic in the Catechism.

How does one determine the benefit/cost ratio in terms of numbers of people to the questions of abortion, gay marriage, doctor assisted suicide, etc.? For instance, the Church believes that abortion is murder and allowing it undermines the value of human life. Others believe that abortion doesn't involve human life as the fetus isn't human and, besides, it increases the odds that unwanted children won't be mistreated and become irresponsible adults, and worse, etc. So, how does one determine b/c ratio?

Besides, if one goes against the position of the Catholic Church, how can one still be a Catholic?

Viewing fallible men as if they were infallible sources of truth as, Catholic and certain other denominations propose is a serious folly which has often led to a noncritical acceptance non-biblical and even to anti-biblical ideas which insidiously besmirch the character of God.

Being disfellowshipped or officially excommunicated if the member differs with such opinions, of course, is a very convenient and powerful deterrent to any type of disagreement or effort at shedding proper light on the ideas being touted as infallibly certain.


.

 

[The Brown Brink]

What you wrote makes sense, except that it is my understanding that Catholics are duty bound to agree with the positions of the Magisterium of the Church, who have thought long and hard on these subjects and have detailed their logic in the Catechism.

How does one determine the benefit/cost ratio in terms of numbers of people to the questions of abortion, gay marriage, doctor assisted suicide, etc.? For instance, the Church believes that abortion is murder and allowing it undermines the value of human life. Others believe that abortion doesn't involve human life as the fetus isn't human and, besides, it increases the odds that unwanted children won't be mistreated and become irresponsible adults, and worse, etc. So, how does one determine b/c ratio?

Besides, if one goes against the position of the Catholic Church, how can one still be a Catholic?

Oh, I guess I don't worry about being Catholic...

I determine the benefit/cost ratio of a behavior by the consequences I perceive are "likely" to happen because of that behavior.
I use my own perceptions, based on the collection of information I have gathered and continue to gather, daily.
And I use my God-given conscience.

It is the best I can do.

And that's what Jesus wants:
The best we can do.

 

[lambkisses]

White Women Drive Me Crazy
This article is a prime example of why the progressive/liberal agenda is inherently unsustainable. This article is written by a woman of color essentially lambasting white women (not just conservative white women but white women as a whole) fir their perceived role in the disenfranchisement of minorities and in particular minority women. The bread and butter of Progressivism is to fight against the supposed patriarchy, judeao Christian bias and white supremacy entrenched in conservative circles. However, the often times more serious points of contention between the various progressive factions are conveniently ignored (only a fool will tell you that an alliance between feminists and Muslims can be any more than a short term marriage of convenience ). The ugly truth is that the various factions within progressivism want radically different things, many of which cannot co-exist (in the case of feminists: self determination with regards to one's own body and in the case of Muslims: the perogrative to enforce extreme modesty directives).
Even when we are not speaking of radically different end games, progressives tend to be extremely visceral to even one another if their ideas of progressive orthodoxy do not completely align. Take again the example if the article. The author, a woman of color vehemently denounces white women and claims the "innocence of white women" to be a tool of white supremecy. Where as the truth is, we as a society (and I mean we as all us westerners of every color) perhaps live more privilegedly than in any other era since the flood of Noah. It is just an asumption by I am certain the author of the article is not concerned about where her next meal is coming from. And in truth she is most likely not even truly scared (despite what she and her ilk would like you to believe) that she will be attacked or abused based on the color of her skin. As such she still finds the need to find greviance not just with"society" but also within her own social movement.

 

[The Brown Brink]

White Women Drive Me Crazy
This article is a prime example of why the progressive/liberal agenda is inherently unsustainable. This article is written by a woman of color essentially lambasting white women (not just conservative white women but white women as a whole) fir their perceived role in the disenfranchisement of minorities and in particular minority women. The bread and butter of Progressivism is to fight against the supposed patriarchy, judeao Christian bias and white supremacy entrenched in conservative circles. However, the often times more serious points of contention between the various progressive factions are conveniently ignored (only a fool will tell you that an alliance between feminists and Muslims can be any more than a short term marriage of convenience ). The ugly truth is that the various factions within progressivism want radically different things, many of which cannot co-exist (in the case of feminists: self determination with regards to one's own body and in the case of Muslims: the perogrative to enforce extreme modesty directives).
Even when we are not speaking of radically different end games, progressives tend to be extremely visceral to even one another if their ideas of progressive orthodoxy do not completely align. Take again the example if the article. The author, a woman of color vehemently denounces white women and claims the "innocence of white women" to be a tool of white supremecy. Where as the truth is, we as a society (and I mean we as all us westerners of every color) perhaps live more privilegedly than in any other era since the flood of Noah. It is just an asumption by I am certain the author of the article is not concerned about where her next meal is coming from. And in truth she is most likely not even truly scared (despite what she and her ilk would like you to believe) that she will be attacked or abused based on the color of her skin. As such she still finds the need to find greviance not just with"society" but also within her own social movement.

Progressivism is a general term.
It advocates social reform to maintain the equilibrium of a society.

It just so happens that, often, it is the conservatives who need to be reformed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

White Women Drive Me Crazy
This article is a prime example of why the progressive/liberal agenda is inherently unsustainable. This article is written by a woman of color essentially lambasting white women (not just conservative white women but white women as a whole) fir their perceived role in the disenfranchisement of minorities and in particular minority women. The bread and butter of Progressivism is to fight against the supposed patriarchy, judeao Christian bias and white supremacy entrenched in conservative circles. However, the often times more serious points of contention between the various progressive factions are conveniently ignored (only a fool will tell you that an alliance between feminists and Muslims can be any more than a short term marriage of convenience ). The ugly truth is that the various factions within progressivism want radically different things, many of which cannot co-exist (in the case of feminists: self determination with regards to one's own body and in the case of Muslims: the perogrative to enforce extreme modesty directives).
Even when we are not speaking of radically different end games, progressives tend to be extremely visceral to even one another if their ideas of progressive orthodoxy do not completely align. Take again the example if the article. The author, a woman of color vehemently denounces white women and claims the "innocence of white women" to be a tool of white supremecy. Where as the truth is, we as a society (and I mean we as all us westerners of every color) perhaps live more privilegedly than in any other era since the flood of Noah. It is just an asumption by I am certain the author of the article is not concerned about where her next meal is coming from. And in truth she is most likely not even truly scared (despite what she and her ilk would like you to believe) that she will be attacked or abused based on the color of her skin. As such she still finds the need to find greviance not just with"society" but also within her own social movement.

You will find divisions in all sides. You will also find that people are often treated unfairly, sometimes just because of race. And calling attention to unfair treatment because of race is not a wrong thing to do.