Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

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.

It is not divorce, it is something very different. Jesus doesn't speak of annulments either. The Church provides ways to honor the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the same time minister pastorally and compassionately to people who find themselves in painful situations. Do you think this is against the teachings of Jesus Christ? Do you really think Jesus Christ would say something like, "sorry, I know you are unhappy and it is dangerous to remain in the relationship but you have to stay marriage." You know you mentioned recently that in your experience Catholics are not usually fundamentalists or extreme. I find that atheists are often the most fundamentalists when it comes to something they think they can latch unto to show a contradiction. Life is not black and white there needs to be exceptions and reasonable solutions to problems so that people can be loved and compassionately cared for. If you think that is against the teaching of Jesus then again I must point out that your problem is again you do not know Jesus.

Quote: FrGamble

It is not divorce, it is something very different. Jesus doesn't speak of annulments either. The Church provides ways to honor the true teaching of Jesus Christ and the same time minister pastorally and compassionately to people who find themselves in painful situations. Do you think this is against the teachings of Jesus Christ? Do you really think Jesus Christ would say something like, "sorry, I know you are unhappy and it is dangerous to remain in the relationship but you have to stay marriage."

I wouldn't expect Jesus to say it, but I would expect the church to say it

Quote:

You know you mentioned recently that in your experience Catholics are not usually fundamentalists or extreme. I find that atheists are often the most fundamentalists when it comes to something they think they can latch unto to show a contradiction.

Does it make it any less inconsistent or contradictory if an extremist points out the truth?

Quote:

Life is not black and white there needs to be exceptions and reasonable solutions to problems so that people can be loved and compassionately cared for. If you think that is against the teaching of Jesus then again I must point out that your problem is again you do not know Jesus.

A problem is on one hand the church will make exceptions, on the other hand they will claim something is infallible and can have no exceptions. They pick and choose which is which.

Quote: rxwine

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.

Was it that our bodies point to the complementarity of male and female?

Quote:

And arguing why evil exists and god is not responsible is fantastical as well.

Is it that you think God should not have allowed us to use our freedom to chose evil?

Quote:

The glossing over of the Bibles' inconsistencies while giving it deified meaning and importance.

Do you think that a healthy understanding of the Bible without being a fundamentalist is not being true to the Bible and that we should take every word literally?

Quote:

That miracles exist vs. absence of miracles.

Do you deny the evidence that there are many things that cannot be explained naturally.

Quote:

Probably any argument you've made against condoms is the crown jewel of nuttiness.

Is it really the crown jewel of nuttiness to question the use of condoms in the midst of a marriage when there are other ways to plan your family that does not require the use of a barrier method? I can see you thinking, like Dalex that it is not convincing to you, but the crown jewel of nuttiness? Why do you say that?

I hope you do tell your Catholic teens that if they do sin and have premarital sex, just go ahead and add the sinful condom to the mix, and that your issues with condoms haven't confused them in exposing themselves not just to pregnancy but disease, and even dangerous diseases.

I wonder how Catholics reconcile the idea that people are "imperfect" with the prohibition on divorce. Does it occur to them that "imperfect" people might make mistakes getting married and then be forced to stay locked in a lifelong relationship both despise?

Consider something else, too. Lifespans at the start of the Common era were shorter. Death in childbirth was incredibly common. Death in battle was far more likely, as wars, rebellions, raids, etc. were also rather common. Therefore marriages lasted shorter times because people had shorter lives on the one hand, and many marriages ended due to the death of a spouse on the other hand.

Today people live longer and accidental deaths are far less common. This means a bad marriage might have to be kept together for several decades, rather than one or two, and being widowed is rather rare except late in life.

Fortunately it seems most Catholics obey the capricious rule against divorce as much as that against contraceptives.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how Catholics reconcile the idea that people are "imperfect" with the prohibition on divorce..

As with everything, follow the money when
it comes to divorce. The Church banned
marriage for priests because the priests
were leaving their property to their wife
and kids when they died, and not the Church.

They outlawed divorce not because god loves
it so much, but because a divorced mans
family, more often than not, became a burden
on the Church's resources after he left. They
ended up having to care for the wife and kiddies
because the man was gone. They effectively
put a stop to that by making divorce almost
as bad as murdering somebody.

I was talking with my wife, and this occurred to me. I'll call it:

The road to women in the priesthood: a case of suppressed history?

Http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html

Http://www.crivoice.org/WT-apostle.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_disciples_of_Jesus

Since I don't like to link without adding my own thoughts and opinions:

We were talking about picking and choosing, as I was in this thread, and she pointed out people were picking and choosing which stories, documents, and books were put in to "the bible" from the very beginning.

Other websites have claimed that the books weren't chosen just by senior church leaders through prayer and reflection, but rather which texts and beliefs were popular with the PEOPLE of the early church and society.

Speaking of suppression and revisions, we have already seen evidence of revision through the centuries, with a few prophesies added in here and there, and whole sections added to books that were not present in older documents that have been subsequently found.

Not to feed the conspiracy theorists too much, but who knows what the Vatican has hidden in their vaults, and what they may have destroyed? It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy - just the right well-places person with access and his own ideas of the way things are supposed to be.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how Catholics reconcile the idea that people are "imperfect" with the prohibition on divorce. Does it occur to them that "imperfect" people might make mistakes getting married and then be forced to stay locked in a lifelong relationship both despise?

Of course it does, that is why no one should be forced to or choose to stay locked in a relationship both despise or even one despises. Remember that marriage is a covenant of love between a man and woman that is meant to be a mutual blessing and a help to each of them. If it is not that then it is not marriage. The Church actually wants to help people heal from these broken relationships through a process called annulment. It looks at what was missing or was never present in the relationship that led to the separation and sadness. It declares that the Sacrament of Marriage as they and God desire it was never truly present.

Quote: Evenbob

As with everything, follow the money when
it comes to divorce. The Church banned
marriage for priests because the priests
were leaving their property to their wife
and kids when they died, and not the Church.

Nope. Spiritually it is a way to foster a deeper relationship and dependence on Christ and to imitate the Lord. Practically it is a way to be more available to the people of God. Priesthood is not a 9-5 job, it is a 24/7 vocation of service. It also practically put an end to the abuse of simony.

Quote:

They outlawed divorce not because god loves
it so much, but because a divorced mans
family, more often than not, became a burden
on the Church's resources after he left. They
ended up having to care for the wife and kiddies
because the man was gone. They effectively
put a stop to that by making divorce almost
as bad as murdering somebody.

This is just a bunch of baloney. The Church has always looked after widows and their children, it is a essential ministry. They are not a burden but an example of people in need that the Church exists to serve. The world often forgot about widows because they didn't care about women, not so the Church. If a woman became a de facto widow, because the man left then the Church was the one place she could look to for help. Also there is no way that divorce is as bad as murdering somebody, that is just stupid. You do know that a person who is divorced or separated from their spouse is not in sin don't you? They are welcome to the sacraments and a full member of the Church.

Quote: Dalex64

Speaking of suppression and revisions, we have already seen evidence of revision through the centuries, with a few prophesies added in here and there, and whole sections added to books that were not present in older documents that have been subsequently found.

Not to feed the conspiracy theorists too much, but who knows what the Vatican has hidden in their vaults, and what they may have destroyed? It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy - just the right well-places person with access and his own ideas of the way things are supposed to be.

The Bible is by leaps and bounds the most attested ancient manuscript that exists. The Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, etc. manuscripts are all over the world and the Bible is quoted through countless sources in various places and times. There is no controlling that and there is no additions or subtractions to the Bible, at least until you get to the Protestant Reformation.