> a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time
> dogma : a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts
looks like Francis is wrong, and not a Catholic nor a pope
You just can’t do it like that, because you woke up grumpy that particular morning
That should be fine though, that’s freedom of association, why force people to work together who don’t want to do so?
Yeah I often see people discussing minimum wages and living wages, this was a different concept I stumbled upon for people to think about, which makes sense for society to consider because if workers have families they’re not simply trying to earn a “living wage” (enough for them) but also enough for kids and/or spouse, etc.
family wage: enough to support a whole family by one breadwinner (traditionally thought of as an individual male; even with dual breadwinners you could still have an idea of how much a “family wage” would be that pays for the costs of the whole family)
living wage: enough to support an individual
minimum legal wage: legally allowed minimum to pay per hour (I don’t know how common it has been for a minimum wage to be enough to raise a family)
I do think it’s good to create a healthy culture that respects workers, but I don’t understand why being able to fire an employee is a bad thing
Imagine you’re not allowed to fire people you don’t like who you think are doing a bad job at work
if you try “leftists (or liberals) more likely to be mentally ill” in a search engine you see things like:
American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives, a trend that mental-health experts suspect is at least partly explained by liberals’ tendency to spend more time worrying about stress-inducing topics like racial injustice, income inequality, gun violence, and climate change.
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals
Removed by mod
skating’s pretty frugal as well (rollerskates or skateboards)
If your answer to “how do we figure out what is moral” is to just throw up your hands and amorally accept the same system that burned witches at the stake, then I don’t see how we are even on the same planet, morally speaking.
Your system, not prescribing any morals, allows for people to believe it is moral to burn whoever they want at the stake for whatever reason, which would be arguably worse, no?
We know what is moral because we know how we like to be treated. We’ve agreed as a society what is acceptable or not. We have certain minimum rights that we accept in our social contact. There is no need for magic to explain any of this.
You know this is no solution to the problem: one person may like to be treated differently than another, different societies decide what is acceptable or not, the rights aren’t guaranteed by social contract.
Of course atheists have caused death
This is your answer for Catholics and Catholicism though, it’s not all Catholics that have done this
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
How would this process go? I decide one thing is moral, you decide another thing is moral which is different; it doesn’t seem possible for the two to work out. Say one person believes abortion is immoral, another decides it is moral: how is this conflict resolved, in your view?
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
There hasn’t been agreement on if capital punishment should be the punishment for certain crimes or not, but the authority to decide has been accepted as being allowed. The person who spreads heresy was thought to be perhaps worse than one who takes life, as they threaten damage that doesn’t end. Consider the danger of “misinformation” today: say a person said that eating any dirt might be healthy, and this led to much illness. This is the problem of “heresy”: hence, some considered this to be like taking lives, and that it should be punished as such. Others argued for toleration and combating false teaching with simply discussing the truth.
There have been atheists that have caused much death, like the Communist movements in the 20th century (Communism aims to create a society free of religion).
handicapped spots
if they’re not being used, maybe they don’t need to exist?
I’ve seen people say it’s kind of weird people want the “handicapped” to be both treated equally and have special parking spots?
Very old arguement that has no merit
It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy
Such as? Don’t the non-religious have no basis for morality?
The moral principles are held to still stand today, just as you might still read something by a scientist like Newton on physics from some time ago, which may have some validity; moral principles like that it is “wrong to steal” are still as true today as thousands of years ago, just as the formula for the area of a circle hasn’t changed throughout the centuries
Marriage is the sacred bond between a husband and wife which may allow for the biological production of children, as God created people male or female “in the image of God”
It’s therefore impossible for two people of the same gender to marry as it is outside of the divinely constituted institution of marriage, and the encyclical discusses at length the beauty of the matrimonial union
Higher-ups in the Church would therefore of course not sanction unnatural unions and would insist upon relationships that satisfy the mutual longing of man and woman
it’s no big deal if if doesn’t functionally prevent anyone from getting in and out and if it’s just a quick move
“press X to doubt”
not entirely sure why either, could be bots or I tried to post in gaming communities and maybe it’s not thought to be a (video) game so then those posters followed over here
the sun: it was me lol