Hello everybody

[Flubber]

Albert posts lots of threads asking for help with his love life. I'm rather more circumspect. Feel free to speculate, if you want, it doesn't bother me.

Oh the albie Sure guy?? ok -- I didn't recall prior names

Ben I have no reason to speculate-- I asked a question-- you declined to answer as is your right and I see no reason to speculate

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep. We'd still be married, we just wouldn't live together anymore.

[kentonio]

Yep. We'd still be married, we just wouldn't live together anymore.

Wouldn't that then be an empty and meaningless 'promise'?

[Nikolai]

Yep. We'd still be married, we just wouldn't live together anymore.

So then you are opposed to people marrying more than once, no matter the reason for the split up? I can understand the biblical fundation for it, although it's hard to swallow.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wouldn't that then be an empty and meaningless 'promise'?

How so?

[kentonio]

How so?

If the promise is to 'love, cherish, obey' etc until death do you part, and you end up living seperately living different lives then how is that promise fulfilled?

[Ben Kenobi]

So then you are opposed to people marrying more than once, no matter the reason for the split up? I can understand the biblical fundation for it, although it's hard to swallow.

This is for Catholics, and Catholics only. The bible explicitly teaches that marital infidelity is an acceptable rationale for divorce. So I would expect that most protestants would follow this understanding, of discouraging divorce, but permitting it under certain circumstances. It's still valid Christian marriage, but somewhat different from the idea of marriage as a sacrament.

[Flubber]

Yep. We'd still be married, we just wouldn't live together anymore.

THats where I see the marriage as a meaningless institution if you are maintaining it for the sake of not ending it--- no contact-- nothing remains except the legal and religious sham with nothing of substance remaining.

Why is this better ? What is wrong with two people( who may individually be good people) finding new partners and going on to happiness and having families and doing all the things you wanted marriage to be about in the first place.

Under your model-- If someone makes a mistake then their entire life may be ruined. I do advocate marriage being a serious and thoughtful thing but no matter how much or how long you evaluate a prospective partner, you really cannot be sure of them. and for a person that would be a good and loving father . . . to deny themselves children and family because of an error-- wow-- I just don't see the benefit to the couple, society-- anyone . .. .

[Ben Kenobi]

If the promise is to 'love, cherish, obey' etc until death do you part, and you end up living seperately living different lives then how is that promise fulfilled?

Well, Catholics do this one:

to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part

So it's a bit different. I've been to several Catholic weddings, and they usually do this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thats where I see the marriage as a meaningless institution if you are maintaining it for the sake of not ending it--- no contact-- nothing remains except the legal and religious sham with nothing od substance remaining.

It is 'religious sham', which is why I wouldn't expect someone who wasn't Catholic to follow it. My grandmother chose this path for many, many years, and still follows it. And she isn't even Catholic. There is nothing aside from her cussedness that makes her keep her promise to herself, and I love her for that. She's a wonderful lady, but very sick right now.

Why is this better / What is wrong with two people( who may individually be good people) finding new partners and going on to happiness and having families and doing all the things you wnated marriage to be about in the first place.

Marriage as a sacrament, means you can't get unmarried - just as you can't get 'unbaptised'. The bond between you and your wife is still there, despite everything else, just as my baptism is there, even though I've not stepped foot in an Anglican church since my father passed on.

The division physically doesn't sever the spiritual bond that I have with my wife. The only thing that can do that is death. If I were to take up with someone else, this would not replace the bond, anymore so than getting rebaptised would sever my earlier bond to God. It might make me feel better, but it doesn't change the natures of the promises made to my wife and to God.

Under your model-- If someone makes a mistake then their entire life may be ruined. I do advocate marriage being a serious and thoughtful thing but no matter how much or how long you evaluate a prospective partner, you really cannot be sure of them. and for a person that would be a good and loving father . . . to deny themselves children and family because of an error-- wow-- I just don't see the benefit to the couple, society-- anyone . .. .

That's how serious promises are to God. I've only made one of them so far - my promise to my confirmation, and I see that as a requirement that I would hold and defend the faith for the rest of my life. There isn't an exception clause to that. I can't do it for 10 years and then stop it and then pick it up again.

If I'm not ready for that promise, then there is nothing preventing me from choosing not to undertake the promise. I chose to become Catholic and take that particular bond on, just as I would choose to undertake marriage with that one woman that I simply could not do without.

I know it's the right feeling, when that person is the other, and you feel more complete with them then you feel when you are by yourself, and when you are apart, you feel like you are cut apart.

[MRT144]

I guess it's obvious you've never had sex. I'm sure a couple of glasses of wine would allow me to have sex with my daughter without my knowledge.

the other interpretation is that they raped him, which while feasible, seems like an excuse to get away with having sex with your daughters.

[MRT144]

Most you could probably guess with a little bit of thought.

Must be a minor. Must be catholic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Surprised nobody got Catholic.

Yep, that's one of them.

[Nikolai]

This is for Catholics, and Catholics only. The bible explicitly teaches that marital infidelity is an acceptable rationale for divorce. So I would expect that most protestants would follow this understanding, of discouraging divorce, but permitting it under certain circumstances. It's still valid Christian marriage, but somewhat different from the idea of marriage as a sacrament.

The reason I ask, is because some friends of mine holds the view that once married, you can divorce, but not remarry. It seemed like you held the same view, and I was curious.

[giblets]

Yep. We'd still be married, we just wouldn't live together anymore.

Hahaha.... realistically, she would probably file for divorce.