Simple question?

Quote: rxwine

I'm going to stop making cracks about the Mormon underwear and the Fundamentalist snake handlers. I thought the Catholics were the less crazy ones, but obviously I was wrong about that.

No, I think Catholics are generally on the "less crazy" side of the religious spectrum, rather than "more crazy"

I know I rail against popularity as a measure of validity, but they do tend to attract and maintain a group of mostly normal people, rather than extremists.

That isn't to say that they don't have extremists, every group does, but for the most part I think thy are collectively normal people going about normal lives.

Quote: Dalex64

No, I think Catholics are generally on the "less crazy" side of the religious spectrum, rather than "more crazy"

I agree. Most Catholics are not fanatics,
heck, 90% of them don't even go to
church most of the time. I look at the
Church as this old woman in a rocking
chair, shawl around her shoulders,
toothless, watching reruns of Maude
and Murder She Wrote all day. Passing
gas occasionally. She was once very
strong, not so much anymore..

Quote: Dalex64

No, I think Catholics are generally on the "less crazy" side of the religious spectrum, rather than "more crazy"

Yes, I know what you're saying, but after arguing the fine points of this stuff with FrGamble and following some of the other points by you and others here, I've begin to feel I'm in the Monty Python cheese shop which has no cheese. He keeps saying there is cheese, but it turns out we are just having an argument and there is no cheese in his shop after all.

Quote: rxwine

He keeps saying there is cheese, but it turns out we are just having an argument and there is no cheese in his shop after all.

LOL! You got me with that one. The Church is the
master of illusion, they put David Copperfield to
shame. If you talk to them long enough, in a
serious manner, they will convince you that you're
the muddled one, not them. You have to be very
sound in your views or confusion will overtake
you and that's when they pounce.

I can't count the number of times FrG has said
to me he's glad that I'm starting to see there is a
god, or that the Church is right, or how pleased
he is I'm getting a glimmering of the 'truth'.

These are all tactics to sell you the cheese in the
back room that's not there at all. They do it because
it works on a lot of people. They cannot believe
that somebody is so naive that they would conclude
god doesn't exist. So they try and trick you by making
you doubt your conclusion. They have a thousand
years of practice at it, yet the Church is crumbling
slowing around them, like a termite ridden castle.

Quote: rxwine

I'm going to stop making cracks about the Mormon underwear and the Fundamentalist snake handlers. I thought the Catholics were the less crazy ones, but obviously I was wrong about that.

There's no "less crazy" in religion. You could be having a pleasant time talking to a religious person about anything, then suddenly utter crazy nonsense comes out of their mouths. You know, things like "We eat the body of a 2,000 year dead man every Sunday at Church."

Quote: Jesus

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege
On when divorce is permissible: Description from Corinthians, the opinions of Paul ("I, not the Lord") accepted as church doctrine and policy.

Contradiction. Inconsistency.

I have been thinking about how Paul's "advice" to not marry can be seen as not an instruction, but merely advice, and contemplating how other similar "advice" is adopted as policy.

Case 1: it is just advice that doesn't need to be followed
Case 2: it is an instruction establishing a policy

I was surprised to end up right back in the words of Paul in Corinthians to find such a case.

Quote: rxwine

Yes, I know what you're saying, but after arguing the fine points of this stuff with FrGamble and following some of the other points by you and others here, I've begin to feel I'm in the Monty Python cheese shop which has no cheese. He keeps saying there is cheese, but it turns out we are just having an argument and there is no cheese in his shop after all.

I'd be curious as to what I've said that has lead you to think these things?

Quote: Dalex64

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege
On when divorce is permissible: Description from Corinthians, the opinions of Paul ("I, not the Lord") accepted as church doctrine and policy.

Having argued many Pauline Privilege cases I can tell you that there is no contradictions or inconsistencies. It is a very strict process where many things have to be proven. You have to show that the non-Christian party is against the faith and will not allow the Christian to practice their faith. The separation must not be the fault of the Christian party and there has to be such animosity against the faith as to make it hostile for the Christian party with no reasonable hope of the conversion of the non-Christian party. What would be inconsistent is to force a man or woman to live in a relationship that is hostile to their faith. Would you rather a person be force to remain in an unhealthy and potentially dangerous situation?

Oh, it's the natural arguments, and what is reasonable to do with the human body and what isn't that turned the corner for me. And arguing why evil exists and god is not responsible is fantastical as well. The glossing over of the Bibles' inconsistencies while giving it deified meaning and importance. That miracles exist vs. absence of miracles.

Probably any argument you've made against condoms is the crown jewel of nuttiness. Actually, it may take me awhile to figure out what parts I've not had a problem with.

Quote: FrGamble

Having argued many Pauline Privilege cases I can tell you that there is no contradictions or inconsistencies. It is a very strict process where many things have to be proven. You have to show that the non-Christian party is against the faith and will not allow the Christian to practice their faith. The separation must not be the fault of the Christian party and there has to be such animosity against the faith as to make it hostile for the Christian party with no reasonable hope of the conversion of the non-Christian party. What would be inconsistent is to force a man or woman to live in a relationship that is hostile to their faith. Would you rather a person be force to remain in an unhealthy and potentially dangerous situation?

It is inconsistent with "What god hath put together let no man tear apart"

I'm in favor of divorce, and for more reasons than "hostile to one's faith"

It is striking to me that "hostile to the faith" is what is important, not the happiness of both people.

My point was not whether or not you should allow divorce under the pauline principle.

My point was that allowing divorce under the pauline principle contradicts the teaching of christ, from what I quoted above, and picking and choosing which advice to follow in Corinthians is, well, picking and choosing.