Yet another religious rant... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/07/2013 08:30:35 AM · #202

Originally posted by Nullix:

Then it's pretty simple. Don't become Catholic. It is becoming harder and harder to be Catholic in the country, so why start now?

What does this translate into... "We are now being watched and no longer have free rein".

No one is stopping Catholics from celebrating their faith, practicing as they wish and educating their children in their own schools.

The current difficulties experienced by the church have a lot more to do with getting the faithful to adhere to the dogma (birth control is an example) and attracting new followers.

Just what is it that you consider is making life more difficult for church members?

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 08:30:56.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 08:52:21 AM · #203

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I think this story sums up all the criticism we have of the Catholic church, those of us outside can see the convenience with which they alter their stance to best suit their desired outcome, the Church has no integrity if you ask me.

I can understand why people believe in Christ, why they go to church, why they spread the gospel and feel compelled to defend it and want others to see live their live for Christ and be held to the morals that they hold themselves.

What i will never understand is the basis behind such devoutness to an organization that is clearly in it for their own interests, not the god or Christ they represent nor the congregation that supports them.

The Church as has always been about the Church, they make you need them over God. You need them to confess, you need them to commune, you need them to guide, you need them to approve, at what point do people realize they don't NEED the church, its their faith in god that's important and their belief in Christ's sacrifice, a church should never be more than a lamppost to help guide you on your way.

The Church has been for sometime now, a false idol, acceptance to the church has become more important to many than their relationship with God.

02/07/2013 08:55:30 AM · #204

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

As far as the twisted part, I see the effect it has had emotionally on my friend's kids.....and her as well. There really was no reason for him to marry in the church.......this is his third marriage, so it's pretty much a bunch of crap. Especially since this wife is also younger than his eldest child.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hehe. And you are blaming the church for the emotional state of your friend's kids? I think you have bigger fish to fry my friend.

Of course I'm not blaming the church for their emotional state. That's their father who is doing that by turning his back on them. Please don't put words in my mouth. I hold that system accountable for abetting his actions.

I'm saying that there's a serious flaw in a system that would allow this man, divorced already once before this family, to just make it all go away for a fee, despite his track record, and validating him turning his back on a couple decades of family as if it'd never existed.

If you can't or don't want to consider that perspective, that's up to you, but it doesn't make the point any less valid for those of us who won't give that kind of screwball antics a pass because a church says it's okay.

And again.......if the church has changed its mind and decided that those people they excommunicated were done so by mistake, then why should the wronged parties have to pay for their mistake?

If the church made the mistake, then the reinstatement should be free for anyone excommunicated before 1966.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 08:58:27 AM · #205

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm saying that there's a serious flaw in a system that would allow this man, divorced already once before this family, to just make it all go away for a fee, despite his track record, and validating him turning his back on a couple decades of family as if it'd never existed.

playing devil advocate here:

how is it any different than being forgiven by God for past sins? If they did it for free would it be acceptable?

02/07/2013 09:07:25 AM · #206

Originally posted by myqyl:

Umm, seriously? They don't exist because they were concieved while their parents weren't married?!?

But they were married......BY THE CHURCH. Just because it was "Cancelled, annulled, whatever" doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sorry, but those children were born to a married couple. The church can't just say "Poof!" and it never happened with children involved. It's a verifiable fact that they were born in wedlock.

Originally posted by myqyl:

Children do not have to be born to 2 married Catholic parents for Baptism either... I mean really... The Church believes that ALL children exist and they acknowledge that they are human children, and they acknowledge that about 9 months before most secular humanist do. We take Jesus's admonition to "Let the children come unto Me" VERY seriously.

My point with the baptism is simply that if the marriage never happened, then how could these children, born in wedlock of a marriage that didn't exist, can even have been born, much less baptized.

I realize I'm being pedantic about this, but I just can't wrap my comprehension around the selective decision of what did and what didn't happen.

02/07/2013 09:36:01 AM · #207

Originally posted by myqyl:

Umm, seriously? They don't exist because they were concieved while their parents weren't married?!? Perhaps you should read the Luke 1... Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary concieved, and I can assure you that Church believs He existed. This is absurd...

Okay.....then the children are illegitimate, right?

I think that might have something to do with why my friend's kids are pissed, don't you?

Either the marriage happened, and they are the progeny of a properly married couple, or the marriage never existed, and therefore, either the children do not exist, and were not baptized, or they are illegitimate. It can't be both ways. Just because some guy in a funny hat says so, doesn't make it so. These kids exist, they were born when their parents were married, and baptized while their parents were married. Nothing cancels these facts. Anyone can stick their fingers in their ears and scream "Naa Naa Naa!" all they want, but it doesn't change a thing.

I can't believe that the church doesn't take into account the possible, and very likely, emotional distress this annulment can put on the children of an annulled marriage. So much for the church's concern for the children.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/07/2013 09:38:18 AM · #208

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by mike_311:

What Mike said.....

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2013 10:32:50 AM · #209

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

The Catholic blog-o-sphere is going crazy over that one. The lawyers are dropping that clam.

02/07/2013 10:58:42 AM · #210

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
\

Evangelicals, like myself, don't really think you are "born into" the faith. You make your own choices to be in or not.

I must be misreading this. If this is common belief, why drag kids to church... surely in time they will figure it out right? :o)

Ray

I think you misunderstand. Going to church or being born to Christian parents doesn't make you Christian in anything more than a nominal sense. I was just pointing out that being a nominal Christian means very little and certainly you could choose to not become more.

02/07/2013 11:08:52 AM · #211

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

]
Of course I'm not blaming the church for their emotional state. That's their father who is doing that by turning his back on them. Please don't put words in my mouth. I hold that system accountable for abetting his actions.

I'm saying that there's a serious flaw in a system that would allow this man, divorced already once before this family, to just make it all go away for a fee, despite his track record, and validating him turning his back on a couple decades of family as if it'd never existed.

Sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. I took that interpretation when you said, "As far as the twisted part, I see the effect it has had emotionally on my friend's kids." "It" seemed to mean the actions of the church not your friends actions.

What you see as flaw, I see as redemption. I'm pretty sure there's no winning with the DPC crowd. If the church said, "sorry bud, you made your bed, you lie in it." I can imagine the DPC rant storm denouncing that as well...

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/07/2013 11:14:25 AM · #212

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What you see as flaw, I see as redemption. I'm pretty sure there's no winning with the DPC crowd. If the church said, "sorry bud, you made your bed, you lie in it." I can imagine the DPC rant storm denouncing that as well...

Again, don't put words in our mouths. Many of us are believers in the decency and honesty of self-accountibility. I make mistakes, and am prepared to accept and try to atone for my mistakes. I sure don't look for some way to stroke a check and pretend they never happened.

You see the turning your back on and disavowing your entire family as redemption? And the church's validation of that as a good thing?

Got it.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2013 11:39:28 AM · #213

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jason, here's the deal: The Holy Catholic Church has, since time out of mind, insisted that the sacrament of marriage is binding and eternal. Consequently, they do not allow Catholics to "divorce"; it would make a mockery of the sacrament in their eyes. This, as can be imagined, creates certain problems amongst the faithful, going back all the way to the beginning. Rather than modify the sacrament, so to speak, the Church decided to do an end-run around the problem by incorporating "annulments" to stand in for "divorces", as it were.

You're a big boy, you know all this already.

So the problem, from Jeb's (and others') point of view is that the Church, rather than saying "Okay, we acknowledge a mistake was made here, we dissolve the marriage, go forth and be happy!", instead has mousetrapped itself into the position of "Since a marriage is eternal in the eyes of God, and since clearly a "marriage" no longer exists here, then it never did exist; we wipe the slate clean!"

To a layman like me, or Jeb, that's a ridiculous position, almost as ridiculous as the Church's long-standing prohibition against contraception. And the annulments DO cause considerable grief amongst family members left behind, I've seen it first hand. The Church often seems more concerned with maintaining a facade of dogma than it does with easing the spiritual and secular journeys of its communicants.

There's much to admire in the Holy Catholic Church; I have personally benefited from their sense of community and their schools, for example. But I can't help but believe that the institution itself has long since grown too big, too bureaucratic, too unaccountable.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

02/07/2013 11:53:20 AM · #214

Originally posted by myqyl:

.. It's just that after checking I have found my current belief to be Truth. It may be a truth you can't see or accept, but I'm really not trying to force it on you. I would like you to respect my right to believe, but understand and accept that might not be possible. I will continue to respect your right to not believe none the less.

One quick question though... Have you ever done a truely open minded "check" of your non-belief? Be careful if you decide to give it a try. It's how I got where I am...

God bless.

Don't take this to mean that I don't still like the persons, but I have a hard time viewing religion as anything but a mental disorder, like it's an accepted insanity.

I've mostly certainly ran every "check" I can on this, and I just can't find any justification for any sort of supernatural beliefs. I know that once many more things were explained in this way, and that today many of those things have been explained to my satisfaction by other means. I can't honestly find a single thing that has even been demonstrated to my satisfaction that is supernatural, or that requires a supreme being.

In fact, my check has pretty much been unilateral - and has ended with the question "What is more likely?" - it seems to me that all the evidence points to a single possible conclusion: There is no God, religion is a tool used to manipulate people, and that anyone who is mislead by these claims isn't to be reviled or even disliked, as it's understandable, after all, as humans our greatest fears are being alone, death, forces beyond our control, and the unexplained - religion takes care of all of those for us quite nicely, in fact, it does so in such a spectacularly effective fashion that it seems all but obvious to me that it's almost certainly a fabrication designed to take advantage of a variety of VERY deeply rooted psychological effects.

And as a final point, saying God Bless to an outspoken Atheist is a bit silly at best, but I do appreciate the intent. I wish very much the same to you.

02/07/2013 12:14:37 PM · #215

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What you see as flaw, I see as redemption. I'm pretty sure there's no winning with the DPC crowd. If the church said, "sorry bud, you made your bed, you lie in it." I can imagine the DPC rant storm denouncing that as well...

Jason, here's the deal: The Holy Catholic Church has, since time out of mind, insisted that the sacrament of marriage is binding and eternal. Consequently, they do not allow Catholics to "divorce"; it would make a mockery of the sacrament in their eyes. This, as can be imagined, creates certain problems amongst the faithful, going back all the way to the beginning. Rather than modify the sacrament, so to speak, the Church decided to do an end-run around the problem by incorporating "annulments" to stand in for "divorces", as it were.

You're a big boy, you know all this already.

So the problem, from Jeb's (and others') point of view is that the Church, rather than saying "Okay, we acknowledge a mistake was made here, we dissolve the marriage, go forth and be happy!", instead has mousetrapped itself into the position of "Since a marriage is eternal in the eyes of God, and since clearly a "marriage" no longer exists here, then it never did exist; we wipe the slate clean!"

To a layman like me, or Jeb, that's a ridiculous position, almost as ridiculous as the Church's long-standing prohibition against contraception. And the annulments DO cause considerable grief amongst family members left behind, I've seen it first hand. The Church often seems more concerned with maintaining a facade of dogma than it does with easing the spiritual and secular journeys of its communicants.

There's much to admire in the Holy Catholic Church; I have personally benefited from their sense of community and their schools, for example. But I can't help but believe that the institution itself has long since grown too big, too bureaucratic, too unaccountable.

Yes, I know Robert. I understand the doublespeak quality to it. It's easy to point out the flaws (the least of which is the "concrete" objection Jeb seems to be raising to the paradoxical view that something happened and didn't happen), but it's hard to point out the solution. The damage to those "left behind" is really done in the splitting of the marriage not in the declaration of annulment. If you suddenly call it "divorce", the same pain is there. If you declare that you can't have either divorce OR annulment the pain exists of either being trapped within your poor choices or not being able to return to the church. Do you catch my point? The situation seems given to pain no matter the solution and to denegrate the church for their proposed solution over the pain it causes seems weak. That's my take anyway. You know I'm not even Catholic. And you probably can guess that one of the reasons I'm not Catholic is along the exact lines of reasoning you give in your last sentence. I only wade into these arguments as a bulwark against unreasoned criticism of the Christian faith. Let the reasoned criticism seep through and may it effect change! But we both know when it comes to religion on DPC Rant reasoned arguments are few and far between.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 12:20:05 PM · #216

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by myqyl:
.. It's just that after checking I have found my current belief to be Truth. It may be a truth you can't see or accept, but I'm really not trying to force it on you. I would like you to respect my right to believe, but understand and accept that might not be possible. I will continue to respect your right to not believe none the less.

One quick question though... Have you ever done a truely open minded "check" of your non-belief? Be careful if you decide to give it a try. It's how I got where I am...

God bless.

Don't take this to mean that I don't still like the persons, but I have a hard time viewing religion as anything but a mental disorder, like it's an accepted insanity.

I've mostly certainly ran every "check" I can on this, and I just can't find any justification for any sort of supernatural beliefs. I know that once many more things were explained in this way, and that today many of those things have been explained to my satisfaction by other means. I can't honestly find a single thing that has even been demonstrated to my satisfaction that is supernatural, or that requires a supreme being.

In fact, my check has pretty much been unilateral - and has ended with the question "What is more likely?" - it seems to me that all the evidence points to a single possible conclusion: There is no God, religion is a tool used to manipulate people, and that anyone who is mislead by these claims isn't to be reviled or even disliked, as it's understandable, after all, as humans our greatest fears are being alone, death, forces beyond our control, and the unexplained - religion takes care of all of those for us quite nicely, in fact, it does so in such a spectacularly effective fashion that it seems all but obvious to me that it's almost certainly a fabrication designed to take advantage of a variety of VERY deeply rooted psychological effects.

And as a final point, saying God Bless to an outspoken Atheist is a bit silly at best, but I do appreciate the intent. I wish very much the same to you.

even though I don't practice religion and enjoy to engage in debate over whether God exists or not or whether the Bible is true.I even enjoy poking fun, but I won't intentionally demean an individual for believing.

as an outsider its easy to say someone is crazy for believing, but you aren't them nor do you understand their upbringing or experiences or thought process that brought them to accept what they do.

Their reason for believing is legitimate, despite your inability to comprehend it.

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 12:20:50.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/07/2013 12:25:31 PM · #217

Awww, mike. I feel all warm and fuzzy. ;)

myqyl

Nikon D3100

02/07/2013 12:28:04 PM · #218

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Umm, seriously? They don't exist because they were concieved while their parents weren't married?!? Perhaps you should read the Luke 1... Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary concieved, and I can assure you that Church believs He existed. This is absurd...

Okay.....then the children are illegitimate, right?

I think that might have something to do with why my friend's kids are pissed, don't you?

Either the marriage happened, and they are the progeny of a properly married couple, or the marriage never existed, and therefore, either the children do not exist, and were not baptized, or they are illegitimate. It can't be both ways. Just because some guy in a funny hat says so, doesn't make it so. These kids exist, they were born when their parents were married, and baptized while their parents were married. Nothing cancels these facts. Anyone can stick their fingers in their ears and scream "Naa Naa Naa!" all they want, but it doesn't change a thing.

I can't believe that the church doesn't take into account the possible, and very likely, emotional distress this annulment can put on the children of an annulled marriage. So much for the church's concern for the children.

I can't answer any of your questions without asking questions I have no right to ask.

I can say this. No one gets an annulment "by just paying a fee". There has to be cause. My wife has had 2 annulments and had to show cause for each. I'm not a canon lawyer and can'r recite everything that is considered cause, but the fee is NOT central to the issue. It is a fee for investigating that the cause is valid.

I have no clue what your friends ex stated as the cause, and I have neither the right nor the desire to stick my nose in thier business. If you feel you have the right, perhaps you should ask your friend what cause was listed. But it is none of my business.

Also, there is a misconception here... Annulment does NOT mean that the "marraige" never happened. It means the sacrament of "Matramony" was never valid. The idea that the children are illegitamate in any way is absolutely absurd. The day your friend got married in the Church, she was simultaniously married by the "power invested in (the priest) by the State of (wherever)" and at the same time received what turned out to be an invalid Sacrament, Matramony. The divorce ended the legal marriage, but Matramony is not something that ends until one of the partners die or the Matramony is proven to be invalid for some cause.

If these children really do have an issue with this, please ask them to talk to thier local priest whom I'm sure will explain this in great detail. They were, are and will remain legitamite children...

This line of argument is just this side of plain silly...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2013 12:52:14 PM · #219

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The damage to those "left behind" is really done in the splitting of the marriage not in the declaration of annulment. If you suddenly call it "divorce", the same pain is there.

Yes and no, Jason. There's a very real sense in which the offspring of an annulled marriage often feel trivialized in a way that doesn't happen in a divorce. It may be splitting hairs, but to tell your kids "Mommy and Daddy are no longer married" has a different flavor to it than "Mommy and Daddy were never married", and that's what it reduces to in the end, really.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/07/2013 12:57:46 PM · #220

Originally posted by Cory:

I've mostly certainly ran every "check" I can on this, and I just can't find any justification for any sort of supernatural beliefs. I know that once many more things were explained in this way, and that today many of those things have been explained to my satisfaction by other means. I can't honestly find a single thing that has even been demonstrated to my satisfaction that is supernatural, or that requires a supreme being.

And as a final point, saying God Bless to an outspoken Atheist is a bit silly at best, but I do appreciate the intent. I wish very much the same to you.

Not trying to influance you here, but can you honestly say that the universe we see today is "most likely" the result of debris landing in lucky places after an explosion? For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result. If a tornado sweeps through a trailer park it is extremely unlikely that it will leave the Taj Mahal in it's wake... This being the case, how can you explain an explosion (Big Bang) resulting in a universe as profoundly ordered as the one we live in? Work out the math sometime on the probability of the moon landing in just the right orbit, with just the right mass to keep the earth's axis aligned in a way that allowed life to form. This is one tiny example of literally thousands of extremely unlikely events that had to occur for us to be able to type posts to this forum... And you say that random chance for a huge explosion is "likely" to have done all of this? You are either deluded or very bad at Math...

I use this example because all indications have led me to accept that the Big Bang is more fact then theroy. If you have an alternative explanation that does not begin with a chaotic explosion several billion years ago, then please ignore my question.

And yes, some consider it silly to say God bless to an outspoken Athiest. However, I've never been accused of being an especially serious person :) so...

May God bless and guide you on your journey ;-)

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/07/2013 01:01:10 PM · #221

Originally posted by mike_311:

Thanks for that Mike, but I took no offense. You should see what the conservative Catholics over at Catholic.com call me :) Athiests are a pleasure to deal with after a few months there :)

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/07/2013 01:01:12 PM · #222

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The damage to those "left behind" is really done in the splitting of the marriage not in the declaration of annulment. If you suddenly call it "divorce", the same pain is there.

Yes and no, Jason. There's a very real sense in which the offspring of an annulled marriage often feel trivialized in a way that doesn't happen in a divorce. It may be splitting hairs, but to tell your kids "Mommy and Daddy are no longer married" has a different flavor to it than "Mommy and Daddy were never married", and that's what it reduces to in the end, really.

It may be my own naievete, but I somehow don't see the conversation working out like that too often when talking to children. That would seem bizarre. I know you are a practical guy, so if we assume you speak the truth about the special pain of annulment what's your practical solution?

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2013 01:19:30 PM · #223

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The damage to those "left behind" is really done in the splitting of the marriage not in the declaration of annulment. If you suddenly call it "divorce", the same pain is there.

Yes and no, Jason. There's a very real sense in which the offspring of an annulled marriage often feel trivialized in a way that doesn't happen in a divorce. It may be splitting hairs, but to tell your kids "Mommy and Daddy are no longer married" has a different flavor to it than "Mommy and Daddy were never married", and that's what it reduces to in the end, really.

It may be my own naievete, but I somehow don't see the conversation working out like that too often when talking to children. That would seem bizarre. I know you are a practical guy, so if we assume you speak the truth about the special pain of annulment what's your practical solution?

Oh, of COURSE the "conversation" wouldn't go like that, LOL. That's just the underlying weight of it. There's something especially perverse about the Church declaring "this marriage never existed" to get around its own rules about divorce, and I've personally known people who harbored resentment about that well into adulthood.

My solution? Easy! Let the Catholic Church allow divorce! This whole annulment thing is just a convenient way around a doctrinal roadblock, and it smacks of hypocrisy.