R
RebeccaJ
Guest
How far are you willing to take this logic? Is there a point where a non-marriage called marriage can be criticized without calling said criticism “stupid”?
- Status
D
distracted
Guest
dry up?? no comprendo
use reasoning skills??
Don’t have any…
but i have enough to “reason” that i won’t be addressing you anymore because you are rude…
D
distracted
Guest
i would tell poster that i think it is stupid to call someone stupid just for expressing his/her opinion… Why can’t people on these forums act like, well, like thye are older than 14 or something??
D
distracted
Guest
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Rebecca,
Since Catholics take their religious marriage ceremonies to be more important and binding than civil marriages, how about not criticizing others for doing the same thing? In other words, if you don’t throw stones from a glass house, I will be less likely to call your criticisms “stupid”. Is that good enough for you?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
A Catholic marriage is legal and moral, a polygamous marriage is not. I suppose the LDS criticism of LEGAL gay marriage is stupid as well. I’m listening while your glass house shatters
B
BDawg
Guest
A polygamous marriage is legal, as long as it is not solemnized with a civil ceremony. In the eyes of the law, they are just “shacked up.”
So why would my arguments imply that the LDS criticism of legalizing gay marriage is stupid? I said it is stupid for Catholics to criticize people for having their own, personal religious view of marriage, while ignoring what the state sees as a legitimate marriage. Why is it stupid? Because Catholics do essentially the same thing. Similarly, I think it would be stupid of me to criticize gays for having their own, personal religious marriage ceremonies, while ignoring what the state sees as a legitimate marriage. I think it is perfectly legitimate, on the other hand, to criticize their efforts to change what the state sees as a legitimate marriage contract. That’s something the community has to decide, one way or another, and I see no reason why religious groups shouldn’t give their 2 cents on the issue.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The Catholic Church does not ignore what the state sees as marriage. Every marriage the Catholic Church performs is legal and binding in every country in the world. A Catholic marriage is performed, in public, legal requirements are adhered to.
The FLDS are performing illegal, polygamous marriages, in some cases with underage children. These marriages are not legally binding in the US and many other countries in the world.
There is nothing stupid about criticizing what is illegal and immoral.
The LDS comparison is because your church criticizes gay marriage for moral reasons. If your church believes that once something that was immoral becomes moral by way of civil law, then by all means, show me where that is your doctrine.
I
ibkc
Guest
Then there is no legal marriage, is there? Either a marriage is legal - that is, recognized by law - or it is not. Can’t have it both ways.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Rebecca,
I didn’t say it was wrong to criticize FLDS marriages…but not all criticisms are equal.
Criticism 1: FLDS shouldn’t call their marriages “marriages,” because they are not legally binding.
I think this criticism is stupid, for the reasons I outlined above.
Criticism 2: FLDS marriages are illegal.
How? Nobody goes after gays for performing their own personal little marriage ceremonies that aren’t legally binding. As long as they don’t file multiple marriage licenses with the state, what can the state do?
Criticism 3: FLDS marriages are immoral.
I think this criticism is reasonable, since you think all polygamy is immoral.
Criticism 4: The FLDS even marry off underage girls, which is both illegal and immoral.
I think this criticism is also reasonable, and I happen to agree with it.
It’s possible to make a bad argument in favor of a true conclusion, you know. I think the FLDS ought to be prosecuted for marrying off underage girls. That’s child abuse. But even though I think they ought to get prosecuted, that doesn’t imply that I’m going to jump on the bandwagon for every stupid argument anyone throws up against them.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Again, how far are you going to take this? People perform all sorts of “marriages”. I think it is stupid that people marry their pets. Call me throwing rocks, but that’s the way I see it.
This is only the FLDS getting around the law, as prior to anti-polygamy laws they did file multiple marriage licenses. So they stopped filing licenses, they are still doing the marriages. Unethical at the best, and clearly a violation of LDS beliefs (i assume the FLDS stick to the code) that you adhere to the law of the land. But of course, I guess it’s ok as long as you can find a legal loophole.
Clearly they know their polygamous practices are illegal or they wouldn’t be so insular and secretive.
At any rate, the state didn’t go after them for polygamous marriages.
Well, you can judge all you like what you think is “stupid”, but that argument in itself holds no ground other then “I said so”.
The Catholic stance re: marriage is the same, across the board, polygamous or not. If you call adhering to one’s beliefs stupid, then so be it.
M
majick275
Guest
agreed
M
majick275
Guest
read the catechism. the beatific vision is heaven
M
majick275
Guest
no one but i was only addressing final states and you mentioned purgatory. i was letting you know why i didn’t include it originally
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I believe it is more accurate to say that we receive different rewards in heaven according to our deeds in the flesh, as the bible says over and over. There is no indication in the bible that the saved are separated into heavenly ghettos and are prevented from interacting with one another.
Besides, the saints are saints because they lived lives of heroic virtue, not because all of their opinions were correct. BTW, can you cite a source where a saint or doctor of the church posited different levels of heaven?
Paul
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Rebecca,
When did I say adhering to one’s beliefs is stupid? And when did I call anything “stupid” without giving reasons for my assertion? I’m having trouble understanding your line of argument, here.
T
teancum79
Guest
post final judgment we won’t be in “paradise or prison they are temporary”
M
majick275
Guest
i understand that as well. so i had 7 categories in the LDS afterlife. i mentioned teh temporary ones in mormonism because LDs theology doesn’t really have a static “end state”. it has an endless progression of “cycles” as eternal increase will result in new earths with their own paradises and spirit prisons.
D
distracted
Guest
you are missing one very important point: The Catholic Church is not just another church with “religious views of marriage” that differ from others’ (though that is the case). The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established on Earth… He only established ONE… not 33,000 (& counting)… Truth does not change because of denominational choice… Truth and God never change.
D
distracted
Guest
interesting taht today the scripture readings had to do with houses crumbling to the ground… Jesus said that the man who builds his house on a rock (Peter, the Head of the Church is called Rock by Christ)… is wise… the man who builds his house on sand cannot withstand the storms and floods tht come…
to me this passage means that one must have the means to fight Satan… who is more powerful than we humans… or Satan will overcome that person…
The weapons to fight the devil come from the Catholic Church (rosary, Mass, confession, sacraments… the Real Presence)… Even with all those, it is NOT easy to get into Heaven, directly or indirectly…
It is a dangerous, VERY dangerous thing to believe otherwise (St. Matthew 7:21, etc…).
- Status