Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:That is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

It is possible that your experience is not representative of the Church worldwide.

Polonius wrote:I don't' know anything about the Church in Australia, but in Cleveland, it's a pretty lengthy process.

There is also an appointed person whose job it is to advocate on behalf of the marriage. So he investigates and argues to the tribunal about why the marriage is valid, and should be kept.

While things have loosened up, particularly with the concept of people being psychologically capable of intent, actual annulments still require some serious effort to gain.

Maybe it is different in different countries. The cases I've seen was really one meeting, and a tick box form. I've seen so many because in one family it was all three sisters who got divorced, within about two years of each other.

Their mother, who actually teaches theology at a college, was telling us the story, to talk about the mechanistic nature of the church.

sebster wrote:That is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

I have never been to Australia. I only know what I saw in the tribunal at Detroit, with my roommate at the time, who worked for the tribunal as the defender of the bond -- i.e., the party that advocates for the validity of the marriage. But even that is beside the point: an action taken in violation of canon law is not itself reflective or explanatory of canon law.

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:Manchu, the Catholic church, as much as it would like to, does not have time travel powers.

Pretty sure if they did they'd go back and undo that Crusades thing. The PR isn't really working out anymore

Couldn't resist XD

It would definitely simplify my family's history with Rome if they did.

I find it interesting that people are discussing the sacrament of marriage. The Church is being slow about it because countries where same sex marriage is accepted are actually quite few (only 10 world wide) and in fact, carries the death penalty in some countries. The Church tends to adopt the view of the majority of the nations wherein Catholics reside.

The current 'rules' for marriage are largely derived from late Roman law (having little to do with Christianity at all), and were originally enforced by the Church primarily on the nobility as a means to influence politics. They largely ignored regulating marriage among the lower classes, which consisted solely of a verbal agreement between two people, which the church then recorded to help avoid inbreeding. Records exist, for example, of the Church recording the marriage of commoner men as late as 1061. The church enforcing their marriage rules on non-nobles largely lays at the feet of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Church's attempts to counter it during the 16th century, when regulation of marriage was expanded.

sebster wrote:Tell people they're still married in the eyes of God and can't get a Catholic divorce.

sebster, we've got first order issues here: there is no such thing as a Catholic divorce.

Now, if you want to argue that the proper "donation" to the right person can make a process a lot easier... that's a different kettle of fish.

Everybody wins in an annulment: the diocese gets some cash, and the priest gets the cash for doing a new wedding.

BaronIveagh wrote:The Church tends to adopt the view of the majority of the nations wherein Catholics reside.

This is utterly wrong, especially on the issue of gay marriage.

The current 'rules' for marriage are largely derived from late Roman law (having little to do with Christianity at all), and were originally enforced by the Church primarily on the nobility as a means to influence politics.

Please avail yourself of an actual copy of the code.

dogma wrote:I knew a UU girl in college that spent lots of her free time to develop a convincing argument that I was mistaken, categorically, in claiming that I did not believe in any kind of higher power. She was a smart, if obnoxious girl, so I think she was genuinely trying to defend her own belief that everyone believes in some sort of higher power, even if they don't realize it.

This type of person is annoying, if only for their vehemence, but I think they're the minority. I think most people that load atheism with religious baggage do so because they aren't accustomed to thinking about theism as something that is divorced from religion. For them its not "atheism v. theism" its "atheism v. religion" so they see a category that is comparable to religion. This isn't really all their fault, though, because for the most vocal atheists it really is "atheism v. religion." Hell, I'm probably one of the most religiously sympathetic atheists you'll ever meet, and that was how I saw the debate not very long ago.

Then, of course, there are other, smaller, groups of people who see atheism as a religion because, ultimately, they break everything down to religion. I think GG fits here.

I think in a lot of cases it's a response to that rather smug atheist assumption that what they believe is rational, and scientifically based, while religion is not*. The reflexive response is to say 'yours is just a religion too'. Which is kind of correct, but does more harm than good. And I think it's an argument that people who are genuninely inspired by faith wouldn't like to make if they really got down to thinking about it, because there is so much more to religion than that belief, because faith really matters.

Your answer does make a lot of sense, it's my side vs your side, so we have to both be types of the same thing.



*I think the best answer to that really is "seriously Mr Atheist, stop being an donkey-cave".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I will agree that the Church does not care much about people civilly divorcing, civilly remarrying, and holding themselves out as married within the Church. that's mostly due to the Church having better things to do.

And good on them for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@sebster:

There is no such thing as divorce in Church law. The near universal availability of civil divorce in the Anglophonic world for hundreds of years has not changed that. This is because Catholic marriage is indisoluable. One often hears the phrase, "there is no power on Earth" that could grant a divorce of a valid marriage. That means even if the pope were to solemnly declare that we could all have divorces from now on, and even if he claimed to be infallibly teaching this, it would still be impossible. The same is true of homosexuals never being able to enter into sacramental marriage.

But there are mechanisms to deliver a result exactly equal to divorce, and from my experience those mechanisms are granted in each case, and without great inquiry. The effect of which is for the Catholic Church to allow Catholic marriages to end, and for those people to remarry within the church.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:That is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

I have never been to Australia. I only know what I saw in the tribunal at Detroit, with my roommate at the time, who worked for the tribunal as the defender of the bond -- i.e., the party that advocates for the validity of the marriage. But even that is beside the point: an action taken in violation of canon law is not itself reflective or explanatory of canon law.

That's putting the law above it's practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It is possible that your experience is not representative of the Church worldwide.

Absolutely. Though the lady who was telling me this lectures in religious studies, and while I might have misinterpreted the scope of her story, she was certainly talking about how the church will mechanically maintain a process, even though it's functionally meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:sebster, we've got first order issues here: there is no such thing as a Catholic divorce.

The statement 'you cannot get a Catholic divorce' and 'there is no such thing as Catholic divorce' is inane pedantry.

Manchu wrote:This is utterly wrong, especially on the issue of gay marriage.

Not much of a rebuttal there. Saying I'm wrong without offering any proof or even a suggestion of how so is hardly a position.

Manchu wrote:
Please avail yourself of an actual copy of the code.

You'll have to be specific as to which one.

"Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens (civis Romanus [a male roman citizen]) have conubium with Roman citizens (civis Romana[a female roman citizen]), but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves" - Ulpian

"...matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her." Treggiari, Roman Marriage p. 5

dogma wrote:

I didn't see the word "bigot" in that piece. I saw a lot of stuff about not liking that the CRM was being compared to the GRM, and especially gay marriage as a particular issue.

Check the first paragraph...."In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?"

If Blake is a bigot then why did he allow an openly gay minister to speak from the pulpit at his church in L.A.? He received a lot of criticism from his own church for allowing that.

See this is the problem....to call someone a bigot because they have a different viewpoint than you, and different belief then you is wrong. It's really seems more hysterics than anything else. To me it's a precariously disguised attempt at making people who view themselves as being good people, to feel false guilt.

GG

You guys sure are arguing hard about a lot of stuff that won't matter in a hundred years.

Religion won't survive the internet age.

Seaward wrote:You guys sure are arguing hard about a lot of stuff that won't matter in a hundred years.

Religion won't survive the internet age.

how many of us are likely to be still alive then?

True faith will conquer all. If It's survived over 3000 years it'll survive a bit longer.

Nom

generalgrog wrote:
Check the first paragraph...."In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?"

Fair enough, but the point wasn't that the word bigot isn't used correctly regarding opposition to gay marriage, the point was that gay rights aren't the same as black rights. At least that's my reading of it.

If the real point was that "bigot" cannot be used correctly to describe people opposed to homosexual marriage because homosexuality isn't an intrinsic characteristic of a person in the same way that being black is, then it was both bigoted (now on two levels) and poorly conceived.

generalgrog wrote:
If Blake is a bigot then why did he allow an openly gay minister to speak from the pulpit at his church in L.A.? He received a lot of criticism from his own church for allowing that.

There are gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, so he/she may have been sympathetic to Blake's position.

Blake may have wanted to characterize his position as being not bigoted by bringing in said minister. Basically the "I have tons of black friends!" argument.

Then, of course, it could have been a case of wanting his flock to see the heathen speech of a homosexual.

I could go on.

generalgrog wrote:
See this is the problem....to call someone a bigot because they have a different viewpoint than you, and different belief then you is wrong. It's really seems more hysterics than anything else. To me it's a precariously disguised attempt at making people who view themselves as being good people, to feel false guilt.

Whether or not you view yourself as a good person is irrelevant to whether or not you are. I can be very happy and secure in my belief that black people aren't human, and that homosexual should be burned at the stake, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me, or that my views shouldn't be demonized.

It is a problem when words like "bigot" get throw around freely, but its just as much of a problem when people assume they aren't a bigot, or in possession of bigoted beliefs, simply because that is their belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote:This is utterly wrong, especially on the issue of gay marriage.

Not much of a rebuttal there. Saying I'm wrong without offering any proof or even a suggestion of how so is hardly a position.

Of course its a position, the position that you're wrong.

Also, asking for evidence without providing any of your own is lazy, and calls attention to your own deficiencies as much as your target.

nomsheep wrote:

Seaward wrote:You guys sure are arguing hard about a lot of stuff that won't matter in a hundred years.

Religion won't survive the internet age.

how many of us are likely to be still alive then?

True faith will conquer all. If It's survived over 3000 years it'll survive a bit longer.

Nom

That doesn't seem particularly likely. The only countries where faith is even holding its ground, rather than steadily declining, are developing nations.

Seaward wrote:

nomsheep wrote:

Seaward wrote:You guys sure are arguing hard about a lot of stuff that won't matter in a hundred years.

Religion won't survive the internet age.

how many of us are likely to be still alive then?

True faith will conquer all. If It's survived over 3000 years it'll survive a bit longer.

Nom

That doesn't seem particularly likely. The only countries where faith is even holding its ground, rather than steadily declining, are developing nations.

My faith holds steady and it appears as does many other posters on this forum.

Nom

True Faith is a good song, I'm sure someone will remember it, but I doubt it'll have any mainstream popularity centuries from now.

Joking (and great music) aside, I don't think religion will ever really die. The stories will be retold and change over time, and new religions may replace older ones (but please, let Scientology die). Although empirical knowledge and logical assumption will push against many of the ideas presented by contemporary religion, there will always be questions that some people can't help but fill in with mysticism, for better or worse.

Fafnir wrote:True Faith is a good song, I'm sure someone will remember it, but I doubt it'll have any mainstream popularity centuries from now.

Joking (and great music) aside, I don't think religion will ever really die. The stories will be retold and change over time, and new religions may replace older ones (but please, let Scientology die). Although empirical knowledge and logical assumption will push against many of the ideas presented by contemporary religion, there will always be questions that some people can't help but fill in with mysticism, for better or worse.

Probably not. Scientific inquiry has pushed the bounds of our knowledge far beyond what anyone would have conceived to be possible two thousand years ago. More and more people are becoming comfortable with, "We don't know yet," as an answer in place of filling in the gaps of our understanding of the world with supernatural explanations.

Athiests... smug bastards. Lol jks, but to be fair, it does take as much faith to belive in nothing as it does to belive in god(s)

I'm not saying that religion (especially organized religion) will not wane in popularity. But I do not think religion will die off, especially so soon.

The problem is not in the need for evidence, but rather the personal need or desire.

Poppabear wrote:Athiests... smug bastards. Lol jks, but to be fair, it does take as much faith to belive in nothing as it does to belive in god(s)

No. It really doesn't. You're doing a very bad job of understanding the definition of atheism.

I don't convince myself that there is no God. I am simply incapable of doing so with the evidence and circumstances presented before me. There is no faith, no creed to cling to.

I'm sure 38,000 years from now there are still going to be those philosophical, why was I made? Who made me? and what did they make me for? And science can't answer the why but it can answer the how. the way I look at creationism vs evolutionism is, evolutionism is the how, creationism is the why. I think as long as man philosophizes, religion will be here to stay in one form or another.

Philosophy will not die.

I can see silly debates that have already been proven with empirical evidence dying off (ie, evolution vs. creationism), but I see any notion of God surviving in philosophy.

I don't see religion dying off, but I can see a more deistic perspective becoming the more commonly held view in the future.

nomsheep wrote:

Seaward wrote:You guys sure are arguing hard about a lot of stuff that won't matter in a hundred years.

Religion won't survive the internet age.

how many of us are likely to be still alive then?

True faith will conquer all. If It's survived over 3000 years it'll survive a bit longer.

Shrug. Smallpox had a good long run too.

oops, spelt believe wrong. But back to the topic.

It's not about "Not having enough evidence to convince you", hell if faith was all about convincing, I wouldn't bother going to Church or nothing!

In your own mind, is takes a lot to believe there is nothing there (God) then to believe there is. You may think not, but the human works in a funny way.

And I do understand Atheism. Considering I've stuided faith for quite some time. There is no need to attack my intelegince.

@ ouze: yes but smallpox kills, personal faith not so much.

Nom

nomsheep wrote:@ ouze: yes but smallpox kills, personal faith not so much.

Depends on what you have faith in.

Poppabear wrote:oops, spelt believe wrong. But back to the topic.

It's not about "Not having enough evidence to convince you", hell if faith was all about convincing, I wouldn't bother going to Church or nothing!

In your own mind, is takes a lot to believe there is nothing there (God) then to believe there is. You may think not, but the human works in a funny way.

And I do understand Atheism. Considering I've stuided faith for quite some time. There is no need to attack my intelegince.

So you would say that you have faith that Vishnu and Shiva don't exist, that Brahman doesn't exist, that Mithras doesn't exist, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, that Horus does not exist, that Zeus doesn't exist, that Odin doesn't exist, and so on and so forth?

No, you simply have no reason to believe in their existence in the first place.

You may have studied your faith for quite some time, but that doesn't give you an extensive knowledge on all faiths, or the psychology of the belief of others. What seems so natural and easy for you is in no way so for others.

Fafnir wrote: but I see any notion of God surviving in philosophy.

I don't see religion dying off, but I can see a more deistic perspective becoming the more commonly held view in the future.

What more is religion than a philosophy to enable the understanding of circumstances man can't comprehend. Why did that bird smash into that window at 45 miles an hour and then I prayed for it to be healed and it got up and flew way? (story provided by a buddy of mine)

I believe in demons. I believe in demonic oppression, I don't believe in possession. (there is a difference) A long time ago if a person acted weird, it was the devil, now we know of mental illness and have classified many of those weird behaviors. Now a person sees a psychiatrist before they see a priest. Now the rite of exorcism is used vary rarely and only when doctors have ran out of answers. But, I believe that there are wicked incorporeal beasts out there that like to F with your emotions, to the point that you kill yourself or other people.

^ I can confirm I am one of these incorporeal beasts.

P.S leave cookies and milk out at midnight, we accept those as an alternative sacrifice.

broodstar wrote:
I believe in demons. I believe in demonic oppression, I don't believe in possession. (there is a difference) A long time ago if a person acted weird, it was the devil, now we know of mental illness and have classified many of those weird behaviors. Now a person sees a psychiatrist before they see a priest. Now the rite of exorcism is used vary rarely and only when doctors have ran out of answers. But, I believe that there are wicked incorporeal beasts out there that like to F with your emotions, to the point that you kill yourself or other people.

I strongly suggest you visit a psychiatrist because you are exhibiting a few classic simptons of paranoia and even mild delusion...

nomsheep wrote:@ ouze: yes but smallpox kills, personal faith not so much.

Nom

My point was in rebuttal to your post that "true faith would survive the internet age, because it's survived over 3,000 years". Smallpox is substantially older than 3,000 years old and has been eradicated.

The argument "since it's been around a long time, it will therefore be around forever" is not very compelling to me.