oldiesman

I don't know about that... so I did a quick AI search: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has clearly stated that no woman is expected to stay in an abusive marriage and encourages these women to seek an annulment. However, studies on the experiences of battered, Christian women indicate that this is not always enough to free women from abusive marriages.May 23, 2024

Wow now there's a question I was never asked in my 68 years. Should I be concerned?

And if it's true, someone has done me a great service warning me to avoid it at all costs. It's been said that in the beatific vision, "we'll understand it all by and by". I certainly don't right now.

Raf I agree with what you're saying. To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality. We all have brains. It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

Lemme know if I am saying this correct: To the Christian, Christianity is objective To the Jew, Judaism is objective To the Atheist, Atheism is objective But to everyone collectively, universally; there is no objective moral truth...

Objective

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

Possessed... that's what we all thought. (I was 17 years old.) It was a horrible experience for all of us to watch... so glad you are well now!

I don't get that it's comforting but I think you are brave. I can't imagine an eternity of nothingness, or even worse an eternity of torture. Both scare the hell out of me.

Got it, thanks. I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then wouldn't numbers 1 and 2 be "subjective" as well?

I've never seen this one but it may be helpful, https://www.amazon.com/Literal-Translations-According-Victor-Wierwille/dp/1482768968#detailBullets_feature_div

Thank you for posting WordWolf. I think the paper is excellent; but was lacking some crucial reasons (perhaps even more compelling) why marriage should be treated as sacred and entirely inviolate. The following is from the catholic catechism. Maybe aspects of the following was said in the Christian Family teaching series or collateral readings at TWI but I don't remember: Marriage is a sacrament (a visible sign of an invisible grace) and treated as a sacred covenant between man and woman, established by Christ himself and intended for the good of the man and woman and for the procreation and education of children. So much more than only a social or legal agreement, it also signifies the union between Christ and the church wherein God's grace is present and active. It's also a covenant, a more profound and personal bond than only a contract. It involves a lifelong commitment of love, fidelity, and openness to children, imitating the relationship between Christ and the church. The couple's commitment to one another can be celebrated publicly by exchanging vows within a mass, by administering the sacrament to each other and through it, they receive more grace to live out the marital commitment as a sign of God's love in the world.

How should i know? You're asking the Ford to explain Henry.

You are correct. The catholic church doctrine won't change or change easily, but any one of us can go to the traditional mass and worship God and enjoy and cherish the experience in the process. That's where I'm at right now. They don't know that silent SIT is in play with one of their parishoners...

I believe there are many mysteries that mankind won't know about until the afterlife. I pray that Jesus has mercy on us all when the time comes for our own personal judgements.

All the more reason why we probably should rely almost solely on our own direct and vibrant faith in God rather than trusting in translators alone. I know that sounds kinda mushy. But the good thing is I think we are open to other possibilities now...

I think that'd entirely be up to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. They'd be the final judges on where we go for eternity. But you bring up an interesting argument about reliance ONLY on the scriptures!? I think it's an established fact here in GS that the scriptures don't always "fit like a hand in a glove" and there are many mysteries that we have been challenged with.

Thx for posting this WordWolf. Ahh the memories. Ralph D., Vince F. and John S. three men of honesty and integrity that I always liked and looked up to. Little story about John S. He and his wife, myself and another lady were going out to either dinner or a movie outside of Emporia grounds. I was wearing what I thought was an obscure cheap cologne called Russian Leather. Inside the car, John's wife couldn't stop commenting how pleasant and appealing it was. Sort of raving about it. I never forgot that! Another company bought them out and here it is, today. I have this and wear it on special occasions: https://www.amazon.com/ELSHA-RUSSIAN-LEATHER-COLOGNE/dp/B0BNWD2PRD

This was a prior question in response to the statement "In Essentials Unity, In Nonessentials Liberty, and In All Things Love." Was thinking it over ... here's my quick 2 cents. I would say mostly Yes. Because of these things: (1) Unity: Yes. Without unity, or a system of "forced" integration with love, what do you really have? There's either a mandate of likemindedness and conformity, which is one of the major essences of an organized religion; or division and confusion, right? You can go on and on about telling people they should live the way they want to live but regarding essentials that's not biblical Christianity, right? Add on the Corps commitment, and you've got assimilation x 2. or 3. "Deny Yourself and be Sold Out to the Program". (2) Liberty: Yes to nonessentials. You like colgate toothpaste and I like crest. You like blue dresses and I like yellow. Granted, there was less of that sort of thing in the Corps. (3) Love: Yes. Without it any religion is ultimately doomed.