Serious Faith/Religion Thread

[Sil]

I think something that's important to consider when interpreting your respective religious texts is that they were often written with period-specific guidance in-mind, and although now several hundreds to thousands of years in the future many of these texts are still followed, the importance is recognising what should be maintained and what should be changed.

Many religious texts explicitly mention homosexual relations (often between men) as a bad thing, and that sex & marriage are important unions under God. This was during a time when the global population was a mere fraction of what it is now, and medicine was still mostly anecdotal or kept quite secluded to what groups and communities just knew. Children and population were important as the average family were bound to lose a couple children and quite possibly die some time between their 40s to 60s, though that depends on where in the world you're looking and what timeframes. I digress, though.

These elements were important back then not because God hated gay people or saw homosexuality as evil, even if your respective religious text and religious deity may put it in a way that sounds like that. There was an understandable element back then where having more people was important, so if you were a Jew or a Christian back nearly 2,000 years ago (when the world really was a different place and we were progressing through only the beginnings of recorded history, then it's likely that even in civilisations and towns that the populations weren't so high and death was a common occurrence. What better way to counteract this, than to guide people with faith to see actions that do not populate as bad and actions that do populate as good?

Now, these are historic values founded and treated in historic times. In the modern era, population is something that for the most part is negligible and people are more focused on different elements rather than the previous heavily-community focused approach of a lot of humanity. Engaging in homosexual activity isn't something that could genuinely cause difficulties on a very real level; you not seeking to produce a child or children won't cause your family to dreadfully suffer, or the local community to be lacking labour in survival. So, when appreciating and interpreting historic and religious texts like the Bible and the Torah for instance, there will be historic elements that you as a Christian need to interpret for yourself and decide whether you want to continue following tenants that were designed for an older time or not.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are some historic elements of religious text that genuinely do have fair and important usage even now. Usually these are the restrictions to diet, restrictions to what people can wear, and especially in Judaism's case the whole thing where you cannot do any labour on the Sabbath; historically, they were important and useful, and into the modern day many still see them as very useful. What I want to make clear is that just because the tenant of that religion was more designed for ancient times, doesn't mean it has to be followed nor does it have to be ignored.

You are the one who decides what you do with your faith, and you are the one who interprets the religious text in your own way. If you want to be very idiosyncratic over your interpretations, then go for it, and if you want to base your interpretations off of a specific denomination, schism, or even individual people you know, then go for it too. Just seek out that which makes you happy, and that is truly what your respective God actually wants in the end for you

 

[Warwick]

and mostly the “Love and same sex attraction one”, it is a thing of ‘Sure we accept you,’ but also what you’re doing is wrong.

Yeah, so in short - that’s the view of the Catholic Church. We are not created to tolerate. Tolerance is for the other, and you are not the other. You are a person just like me.

However, when it starts to go onto sex, THEN when one purpose is ‘violated’ - even if the other is fulfilled - it’s something that “disintegrates something inside of yourself”.

That’s not what it says. It states that even when a loving couple in Holy Matrimony have intercourse with no intention of pregnancy, the act still serves to further cement their bond and bring them together as a couple. This is, in the eyes and teachings of the Church, only the case for those living in the state of Grace, and in Holy Matrimony.

Especially with comments as this, I also find it antithetical that someone can hate an action but not hate the person committing that action. Serial-killing is no-no, and I see serial killers as the same. Rape, theft, fall under the same category. And perhaps this is just a personal view, and so it would not make any sense to discuss that as it’s my own personal outlook on life, I’m not sure what the religious views may be on it.

We are not qualified to decide who does and does not deserve God’s mercy. As such, it is our duty to hate the sin, and not the sinner. Perhaps that makes more sense.

But, the fact that my “sin” is being a homosexual, having sex and ENJOYING it (which, to me, is a purpose, otherwise why does it feel good, through the lens of creationism or otherwise) - that is something that disintegrates me. It is something that will forever tear a part of me out. Even just with the purposes that priest gave, it is a bonding thing. I’ve been with my same partner for coming on 5 years, he’s the only person I’ve ever been with, and I love him eternally, and we fuck to feel good, to bond, and to be close to one another.

Just because something is enjoyable doesn’t make it good for you, nor morally good. That’s not a difficult concept to understand. Once again, those precepts were under the context of a couple in holy matrimony, and while I’m glad you have someone that is close to you, unfortunately as stated previously, in the eyes of the Church, you are committing sin. We would treat you no differently of course, you are a Child of God as far as we are concerned. However, expecting people to change their views because “my sin makes me feel good”, isn’t going to go very far with theological debate. Listen closely to Father Mike’s analogy of a man who feels drawn to cheat on his wife for example.

However, this disintegrates me. Parts of me at the very least. We can lift each other up, but when genital contact happens it’s bad because…. The old book said we should only have sex to reproduce? Does that undo the good we do for one another?

I understand, however, that these are neither of your words, and I am not demanding a defence of them at all. More something that, if you can explain then great, but if not something to reflect on, just to see how it sits.

I’m not sure what you mean by “disintegrates” you, but in regards to sex, yes. That is a problem in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Bible (and by extension the Catholic Church) do not profess that you should only have sex to reproduce. You can have as much sex as you want, following marriage. That is the rule of the Catholic Church, and it’s a fairly simple one.

I will defend Fr. Mike’s words to the best of my ability, because I agree with them. They are the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Catholicism isn’t like non-denominational Christianity or Protestantism, where each faith leader may profess different rules or interpret the bible differently. It is prescriptive, and we live our life in accordance with its teachings.

Mostly when it comes for this purpose it may be helpful. I’m not entirely sure what this would entail for you (since apologetics to me is just, a fancy word for saying sorry? I’m assuming there’s more to it as you have to/want to take a course on it) but it may be a helpful reference to being up in your class, with your spiritual leader, however it does function.

Apologetics is not just a fancy word for saying sorry. It is reasoned arguments relating to organised religion based on historical accuracy and discourse. It’s a formal course as an adult, and something all Catholics must do throughout some point of their lives, be it in childhood from their parents, or as an adult with your Priest or church acolytes.

I can tell that you’re having trouble comprehending why someone would think the way we do. Know that it is not out of hatred. It is not out of wanting to be better than someone else, or to single others out. It is due to faith, and experiencing the world around us in God’s light, and vowing to live for him.

 

[Warwick]

I think something that's important to consider when interpreting your respective religious texts is that they were often written with period-specific guidance in-mind, and although now several hundreds to thousands of years in the future many of these texts are still followed, the importance is recognising what should be maintained and what should be changed.

Many religious texts explicitly mention homosexual relations (often between men) as a bad thing, and that sex & marriage are important unions under God. This was during a time when the global population was a mere fraction of what it is now, and medicine was still mostly anecdotal or kept quite secluded to what groups and communities just knew. Children and population were important as the average family were bound to lose a couple children and quite possibly die some time between their 40s to 60s, though that depends on where in the world you're looking and what timeframes. I digress, though.

These elements were important back then not because God hated gay people or saw homosexuality as evil, even if your respective religious text and religious deity may put it in a way that sounds like that. There was an understandable element back then where having more people was important, so if you were a Jew or a Christian back nearly 2,000 years ago (when the world really was a different place and we were progressing through only the beginnings of recorded history, then it's likely that even in civilisations and towns that the populations weren't so high and death was a common occurrence. What better way to counteract this, than to guide people with faith to see actions that do not populate as bad and actions that do populate as good?

Now, these are historic values founded and treated in historic times. In the modern era, population is something that for the most part is negligible and people are more focused on different elements rather than the previous heavily-community focused approach of a lot of humanity. Engaging in homosexual activity isn't something that could genuinely cause difficulties on a very real level; you not seeking to produce a child or children won't cause your family to dreadfully suffer, or the local community to be lacking labour in survival. So, when appreciating and interpreting historic and religious texts like the Bible and the Torah for instance, there will be historic elements that you as a Christian need to interpret for yourself and decide whether you want to continue following tenants that were designed for an older time or not.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are some historic elements of religious text that genuinely do have fair and important usage even now. Usually these are the restrictions to diet, restrictions to what people can wear, and especially in Judaism's case the whole thing where you cannot do any labour on the Sabbath; historically, they were important and useful, and into the modern day many still see them as very useful. What I want to make clear is that just because the tenant of that religion was more designed for ancient times, doesn't mean it has to be followed nor does it have to be ignored.

You are the one who decides what you do with your faith, and you are the one who interprets the religious text in your own way. If you want to be very idiosyncratic over your interpretations, then go for it, and if you want to base your interpretations off of a specific denomination, schism, or even individual people you know, then go for it too. Just seek out that which makes you happy, and that is truly what your respective God actually wants in the end for you

Yeah, no. Unfortunately this all just doesn’t stand up. Deciding to just ignore parts of your religious teachings because you don’t like it anymore is heresy and always has been, there’s no ifs or buts about it. As for the Homosexuality and low population argument, that’s nonsensical and with all due respect, not based in any kind of factual standing whatsoever. Were it the case that population was the only concern, the teachings would encourage rampant breeding, sex without the need for marriage, and hypergamy or polygamy - not monogamous relationships built in celibacy before marriage.

 

[Sil]

Yeah, no. Unfortunately this all just doesn’t stand up. Deciding to just ignore parts of your religious teachings because you don’t like it anymore is heresy and always has been, there’s no ifs or buts about it. As for the Homosexuality and low population argument, that’s nonsensical and with all due respect, not based in any kind of factual standing whatsoever. Were it the case that population was the only concern, the teachings would encourage rampant breeding, sex without the need for marriage, and hypergamy or polygamy - not monogamous relationships built in celibacy before marriage.

You are welcome to disagree but I still stand by my interpretation of my own faith, as is the right of every human being on this planet to do not as one established in law but established in the fact we all have the capacity to interpret and to think of our own will. If there are elements in the religious texts that you would prefer to not align with, ones that aren't devoutly core tenants of the religion (for example, the 10 Commandments), then even if one side may consider it heresy, that is why we have denominations and schisms. That is why we have Protestantism, Catholicism, and Church of England, each of whom are all Christian but each of whom also pick and choose what respective parts of the religion they wish to follow are.

The argument of homosexuality and population is not the sole argument, but it is an argument. The Church, and most religions I would hope, would not encourage baseless sex, because it is not purely about population; there are obvious tenants that come beyond just procreation and children, such as building good character and teaching important morals. Whilst I understand your point, it is coming across as if you have condensed my point into something hyperfocused and yet simultaneously blanketing, as if this is a point that I would apply broadly and near exclusively to the element of homosexuality in religion.

You and I are both wise enough to know this.

 

[Warwick]

You are welcome to disagree but I still stand by my interpretation of my own faith, as is the right of every human being on this planet to do not as one established in law but established in the fact we all have the capacity to interpret and to think of our own will. If there are elements in the religious texts that you would prefer to not align with, ones that aren't devoutly core tenants of the religion (for example, the 10 Commandments), then even if one side may consider it heresy, that is why we have denominations and schisms. That is why we have Protestantism, Catholicism, and Church of England, each of whom are all Christian but each of whom also pick and choose what respective parts of the religion they wish to follow are.

Unfortunately, however you dress it up, it’s still heretical. It’s not about “one side” claiming that the other is doing something wrong. It’s about a group of people breaking the established rules that have been put in place either by Scripture, the Apostles or the Vatican. Protestantism is schismatic, and arose from a Monarch wanting to divorce for no reason. Non-Denominational Christianity doesn’t even resemble Christianity in most cases, with light shows and guitars that make preaching look like a Coldplay concert and a pastor just called “Tim”. Only the Catholic Church and in accordance, our Orthodox brothers can say that we still follow the ways of the Apostles.

The argument of homosexuality and population is not the sole argument, but it is an argument. The Church, and most religions I would hope, would not encourage baseless sex, because it is not purely about population; there are obvious tenants that come beyond just procreation and children, such as building good character and teaching important morals. Whilst I understand your point, it is coming across as if you have condensed my point into something hyperfocused and yet simultaneously blanketing, as if this is a point that I would apply broadly and near exclusively to the element of homosexuality in religion.

I used that point because it was the only one you presented. Regardless, in a non-denominational or schismatic approach, where do you draw the line? Is sex okay before marriage? Is sex okay in polygamous arrangements? The answer to questions like this will differ from church to church, unless you are in a Catholic or Orthodox Church, where you know the answer is always: No.

 

[Deleted member 4609]

wtf thought i couldn't see the current affairs section

 

[Sil]

Unfortunately, however you dress it up, it’s still heretical. It’s not about “one side” claiming that the other is doing something wrong. It’s about a group of people breaking the established rules that have been put in place either by Scripture, the Apostles or the Vatican. Protestantism is schismatic, and arose from a Monarch wanting to divorce for no reason. Non-Denominational Christianity doesn’t even resemble Christianity in most cases, with light shows and guitars that make preaching look like a Coldplay concert and a pastor just called “Tim”. Only the Catholic Church and in accordance, our Orthodox brothers can say that we still follow the ways of the Apostles.

I am giving no denial that it is heresy. Because that is what it is. But I do encourage it, if that sort of approach is what will make you happy in the end, and fulfilled; not a joy that is short lived, but one you can continue life with and hold to yourself.

It may not resemble Christianity entirely, or even much at all, but that is why it is important as I mentioned to remember that you are the one who interprets your own faith and no one can take that from you. Others may disagree with you or your faith but regardless of it, it is yours to decide.

I used that point because it was the only one you presented. Regardless, in a non-denominational or schismatic approach, where do you draw the line? Is sex okay before marriage? Is sex okay in polygamous arrangements? The answer to questions like this will differ from church to church, unless you are in a Catholic or Orthodox Church, where you know the answer is always: No.

I’ll answer them individually.

1: Whilst it is most grandly more satisfactory when had with someone you love enough to spend a life committed to them, sex is a natural process and if one wishes to engage with it outside of that holy union then that is for them to choose. The sin is theirs to bare and theirs to learn to forgive themselves for, or choose not to if they so wish.

2: Personally, no. But that is because polygamy is one that can cause harm and upset to a person as that sort of bonding connection is one that humans simply do not work well with in most cases, leading to jealousy and hatred within. But, as said before, if one does engage in it, it is their sin to bare and for them to choose whether they seek forgiveness or not in the end.

The Catholic Church/Orthodox Church may say no, but you are not doing them fair justice by condensing their response to a single word. The Bible is one to be interpreted and understood, and although the Bible may dictate that it is wrong, it is again up to interpretation what wrong truly means; is it a sin considered as a constant ‘evil’ that hurts God, or is it a sin that causes harm to the self? Although it is taught that your body is a temple, are you not also a being of free will or are your actions predetermined? If you do have free will, why would God care about the sin itself, and not whether or not the person seeks forgiveness? Or if your actions are predetermined, why would he conduct you to sin?

Like I said, it’s a very broad concept and whilst the condensed response may be ‘no’, the whole point is to not condense responses and to explain why, rather than dictate what is.

 

[Warwick]

I am giving no denial that it is heresy. Because that is what it is. But I do encourage it, if that sort of approach is what will make you happy in the end, and fulfilled; not a joy that is short lived, but one you can continue life with and hold to yourself.

It may not resemble Christianity entirely, or even much at all, but that is why it is important as I mentioned to remember that you are the one who interprets your own faith and no one can take that from you. Others may disagree with you or your faith but regardless of it, it is yours to decide.

Life is not supposed to be easy, and you are created to do and to be good, not to feel good. If you experience not a second of joy in your life, but devote it to the Lord, then you have truly lived a saintly life. I am not the one that interprets my faith. I leave that to God.

I shan’t respond to the other replies you made, as it’ll get cyclical and tiresome - in short, I disagree with the idea that it’s absolutely fine just flounder around and come up with your own conclusions as to what God wants of you.

The Bible is one to be interpreted and understood

Understood? Absolutely.

Interpreted? Undoubtedly; just not by you.

 

[Sil]

Life is not supposed to be easy, and you are created to do and to be good, not to feel good. If you experience not a second of joy in your life, but devote it to the Lord, then you have truly lived a saintly life. I am not the one that interprets my faith. I leave that to God.

I shan’t respond to the other replies you made, as it’ll get cyclical and tiresome - in short, I disagree with the idea that it’s absolutely fine just flounder around and come up with your own conclusions as to what God wants of you.

You may disagree, but what is important is do you accept that this is what people will do if they wish and will you support their choice to do so?

Understood? Absolutely.

Interpreted? Undoubtedly; just not by you.

Then, by whom?

If you encounter a situation that you do not know how to respond in a accurately faithful way, and cannot access for example a member of the clergy or whomever you believe should be the ones to interpret it for others, then what do you do?

 

[Goatson]

Yeah, no. Unfortunately this all just doesn’t stand up. Deciding to just ignore parts of your religious teachings because you don’t like it anymore is heresy and always has been, there’s no ifs or buts about it.

Religion is interpretation, always has been, that's why there's so many variations of the same faiths. If an interpretation is, for example, "this line is bollocks and contradicted by line x and y" then that is an interpretation that is as valid as any other. Being zealous about specific interpretations such as Eastern Orthodoxy vs Methodism is straight up medieval.

Again I draw reference to Judaism where the second largest branch today, Reform Judaism, straight up exists because a lot of modern Rabbis learned in the entire Tanakh all agreed that the Tanakh is so dated it doesn't hold up to modern day morals and that some passages should be interpreted differently thusly, resulting in this beautiful passage from the Wikipedia.

Spoiler: image

Protestantism is schismatic, and arose from a Monarch wanting to divorce for no reason.

Complete aside but it just threw me for a loop since it's such an incredibly biased take and I'm grown up around Protestant beliefs. Anglican Protestantism, yes, but the arguably first form, Lutheranism (which is the largest form in all of Northern Europe except the UK), arose from refusing the Papacy as the voice of the Church and instead viewing the Bible and only the Bible as the only foundation on which Christianity should stand on. Again, interpretation.

wtf thought i couldn't see the current affairs section

nebulous try not to argue about real life things challenge (impossible)

 

[NightLock]

I’m not sure what you mean by “disintegrates” you

Dude that is literally the line that was used in the video. Hence my use of it.

That’s not what it says. It states that even when a loving couple in Holy Matrimony have intercourse with no intention of pregnancy, the act still serves to further cement their bond and bring them together as a couple. This is, in the eyes and teachings of the Church, only the case for those living in the state of Grace, and in Holy Matrimony.

But that’s the POINT. He referenced bonding and procreation. And either of those at a time is good. But when it comes to homosexuality, THEN it’s suddenly bad that it isn’t fulfilling both of those and only then does he being up the point about contraception ALSO being bad, and it feels like a bit of a backpedal to excuse it.

As an aside, the whole “contraception vs non-contraception” divorce rates is such a straw man. If a practicing Christian is not taking contraception, it’s because of their belief and religious views on it, so I got a feeling they’d see divorce as much of a no-no as contraception. The same root cause, not one aspect impacting another aspect.

 

[Shapok]

You may disagree, but what is important is do you accept that this is what people will do if they wish and will you support their choice to do so?

People are free to sin, doesn't mean I'll support them in their sin. ???

If you encounter a situation that you do not know how to respond in a accurately faithful way, and cannot access for example a member of the clergy or whomever you believe should be the ones to interpret it for others, then what do you do?

When you don't know what you don't know, you should come back to that situation when you know more. There's no need to pretend you do know more, and in fact pretending to know is the worst thing you can do. Proverbs 10:19 says "In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise." Our Church Father Saint Ambrose of Milan talks about this verse in length, saying "Because of lack of prudence we fall into error. In fact, to give expression to our thoughts without duly weighing our words is in itself a grave sin." So, to answer the question of "what do you do": don't lie. Don't act as if you know what you do not. There is no need to search for immediate solutions to problems which have no immediate solutions.

Religion is interpretation

And tradition. If you only need interpretation why bother going to a Church, a Mosque or a Synagogue.

Complete aside but it just threw me for a loop since it's such an incredibly biased take and I'm grown up around Protestant beliefs. Anglican Protestantism, yes, but the arguably first form, Lutheranism (which is the largest form in all of Northern Europe except the UK), arose from refusing the Papacy as the voice of the Church and instead viewing the Bible and only the Bible as the only foundation on which Christianity should stand on. Again, interpretation.

Yes, they view the Bible as infallible only once they have removed the 7 books they disagree with. How can the Bible be infallible if we arbitrarily choose which part we keep and which we don't? You cannot argue this is "interpretation", it is removal of content to fit a new and created way of venerating, and therefore make it fallible. Anyway, let's not get into the Protestant being heretics debate it'll be way too long lol, I just wanted to share my thoughts on it.

But that’s the POINT. He referenced bonding and procreation. And either of those at a time is good. But when it comes to homosexuality, THEN it’s suddenly bad that it isn’t fulfilling both of those and only then does he being up the point about contraception ALSO being bad, and it feels like a bit of a backpedal to excuse it.

I shall bite the bullet even though some mods may ban me for what I'm about to say.

We know what God's will with sexuality is because we can look to the first who possessed it: the first humans, Adam and Eve. And we know that humans were created by God with two distinct modes of being, male or female (Genesis 1:27), so that they may be in close communion with each other. In fact, this exclusive bond between a single male and a single female is seen as perfect by God himself (Genesis 2:24), which is why as Christians we must remain within the framework given to us by God so that we may be righteous.

 

[Warwick]

@Shapok quite brilliantly responded to the posts above while I was asleep, so I feel as if he’s covered the things I would have said. The only thing I’ll add is:

As an aside, the whole “contraception vs non-contraception” divorce rates is such a straw man.

Absolutely incorrect. Contraception changes either the outcome of a relationship, or the physical attributes of a woman. Hormonal contraception destroys women’s bodies and frankly should be illegal. There’s a reason why we don’t have a male contraceptive pill, and it’s because if a pill with the same side effects were to be released to the public today, it would be rejected for being too destructive to their bodies.

Like it or don’t, Catholics that forgo contraception (as the Church teaches), have some of the lowest divorce rates in the world. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but what is important is do you accept that this is what people will do if they wish and will you support their choice to do so?

Your asking of me to “support” someone’s choices is no different than a call to tolerate sin, which I am not compelled to do. I would never treat someone differently based on sin alone, unless they intended to harm my family through sin (physically harming them, or corrupting them to sin), but that does not mean I have to support their choices at all.

It’s a common misconception that everyone is entitled for their every whim to be catered to at their every desire to be applauded and congratulated by everyone. That’s not the way life works, unfortunately.

 

[Sil]

When you don't know what you don't know, you should come back to that situation when you know more. There's no need to pretend you do know more, and in fact pretending to know is the worst thing you can do. Proverbs 10:19 says "In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise." Our Church Father Saint Ambrose of Milan talks about this verse in length, saying "Because of lack of prudence we fall into error. In fact, to give expression to our thoughts without duly weighing our words is in itself a grave sin." So, to answer the question of "what do you do": don't lie. Don't act as if you know what you do not. There is no need to search for immediate solutions to problems which have no immediate solutions.

I suppose it’s more one where there may be immediate situations that require those solutions, but the solutions conflict with the teachings of Christianity.

Say someone is terminally ill, and before they die they want to be married to a person. That person, however, doesn’t hold the same feelings towards them, but consequently also doesn’t want to upset them/invoke the ire of others by saying no. Though, they do not love them in the manner of marriage. This ill person is asking for them to stay with them, so the most contact with someone who does know what to do would be the priest overseeing the marriage if it goes ahead.

In that situation, where there is clear conflict between faith and the reality of the situation and no access to someone who can interpret as @Warwick believes, is it truly right and good to stay silent and not act at all?

And tradition. If you only need interpretation why bother going to a Church, a Mosque or a Synagogue.

The locations of worship are not required for worship. But they are very helpful in bringing communities together and through proceeding with rituals such as marriage and baptism. It is tradition to attend church or the respective religious buildings, but it is tradition that can be followed more loosely rather than rigidly if one so wishes, or not followed at all

 

[Warwick]

I suppose it’s more one where there may be immediate situations that require those solutions, but the solutions conflict with the teachings of Christianity.

Say someone is terminally ill, and before they die they want to be married to a person. That person, however, doesn’t hold the same feelings towards them, but consequently also doesn’t want to upset them/invoke the ire of others by saying no. Though, they do not love them in the manner of marriage. This ill person is asking for them to stay with them, so the most contact with someone who does know what to do would be the priest overseeing the marriage if it goes ahead.

In that situation, where there is clear conflict between faith and the reality of the situation and no access to someone who can interpret as @Warwick believes, is it truly right and good to stay silent and not act at all?

The vows taken before God in marriage are quite clear.

"I, ___, take you, ___, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. I will love and honor you all the days of my life."

If you are not willing to love and honor that individual, you have entered into a marriage under false pretenses, and therefore your marriage is illegitimate and should face an annulment.

In that situation, where there is clear conflict between faith and the reality of the situation and no access to someone who can interpret as @Warwick believes, is it truly right and good to stay silent and not act at all?

There is always access to a person who can interpret Scripture. There's a reason a Priest is required to undertake years of training and additionally, devote his life to the vocation.

The locations of worship are not required for worship.

Incorrect if you're following the Apostolic sacraments.

It is tradition to attend church or the respective religious buildings, but it is tradition that can be followed more loosely rather than rigidly if one so wishes, or not followed at all

Again, if you're following Apostolic sacraments, incorrect.

 

[Sil]

The vows taken before God in marriage are quite clear.

"I, ___, take you, ___, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. I will love and honor you all the days of my life."

If you are not willing to love and honor that individual, you have entered into a marriage under false pretenses, and therefore your marriage is illegitimate and should face an annulment.

So you would in good faith go towards a terminally ill person who has asked for that kind of marriage before they go and say “I’m not going to marry you” rather than lie in order to make a dying person happy?

There is always access to a person who can interpret Scripture. There's a reason a Priest is required to undertake years of training and additionally, devote his life to the vocation.

There isn’t always access to one. Infact there are many real world cases where you are forbidden that access for particular reasons, like juries on deliberation or if you are quarantined with a dangerous/infections disease.

If you rely on only them to be permitted to be the ones who can interpret, then you are acting in zealotry and using them as a scapegoat for your actions. If you do not take control of your own actions, thoughts, and beliefs, then even if your life is saintly, what’s the point? Why live a servant and a slave when you have the free will to do whatever you wish?

 

[Warwick]

So you would in good faith go towards a terminally ill person who has asked for that kind of marriage before they go and say “I’m not going to marry you” rather than lie in order to make a dying person happy?

Firstly, you're being absolutely ridiculous. Secondly, yes, absolutely. I'm not going to marry someone that I don't love or have any physical attraction to, just because they're dying.

"One should not set themselves on fire to keep another warm."

There isn’t always access to one. Infact there are many real world cases where you are forbidden that access for particular reasons, like juries on deliberation or if you are quarantined with a dangerous/infections disease.

If you rely on only them to be permitted to be the ones who can interpret, then you are acting in zealotry and using them as a scapegoat for your actions. If you do not take control of your own actions, thoughts, and beliefs, then even if your life is saintly, what’s the point? Why live a servant and a slave when you have the free will to do whatever you wish?

That is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard. Implying that just because my Priest is better equipped to interpret the bible than myself, that I am somehow absolved of my actions, is ridiculous. Drop the loaded questions, drop the pretense that I am somehow forced to act. It's not a charitable argument, and it does not go unnoticed.

 

[Shapok]

I suppose it’s more one where there may be immediate situations that require those solutions, but the solutions conflict with the teachings of Christianity.

If a solution conflicts with the teachings then it cannot be regarded as a solution.

Say someone is terminally ill, and before they die they want to be married to a person. That person, however, doesn’t hold the same feelings towards them, but consequently also doesn’t want to upset them/invoke the ire of others by saying no. Though, they do not love them in the manner of marriage. This ill person is asking for them to stay with them, so the most contact with someone who does know what to do would be the priest overseeing the marriage if it goes ahead.

In that situation, where there is clear conflict between faith and the reality of the situation and no access to someone who can interpret as @Warwick believes, is it truly right and good to stay silent and not act at all?

You are twisting my words. I said it is better to remain silent when you don't know not what you speak of, not "remain silent when others force you into situations you do not want to be in."

For a marriage to take place both parties must agree, and if anyone is coerced into a marriage then that "marriage" can hardly be called such to begin with. Furthermore, why would this dying person wish to be married? Marriage is life: creating it, nurturing it, and caring for it. This dying person is acting on their passion when in fact they should be moreso focused on their peace. You don't need to have read the Bible to recognise this. You have been given common sense for a reason.

The locations of worship are not required for worship. But they are very helpful in bringing communities together and through proceeding with rituals such as marriage and baptism. It is tradition to attend church or the respective religious buildings, but it is tradition that can be followed more loosely rather than rigidly if one so wishes, or not followed at all

Really secular and lukewarm take but I am not surprised. Take your family. How can you possibly claim to love your family if you do not go to their home and visit them? I understand your admiration for absolute individual freedom, but people can be better than that. Freedom to choose does not make the wrong choice good.

If you truly love God then you will go visit Him. When you go to the Church you don't necessarily go there because there's a baptism, a marriage and whatnot (but I guess as a secular person that'd be your reasons), you go to the Church precisely because you love God. And this isn't even taking into account apostolic sacraments, just have common sense whilst practicing your faith. On top of all this it helps remind us, that whenever we stray, that we in fact do love God, and that without our visits perhaps we could not realise this to the same extent.

So you would in good faith go towards a terminally ill person who has asked for that kind of marriage before they go and say “I’m not going to marry you” rather than lie in order to make a dying person happy?

Well, from your point of view there's not much point in making them happy before they die anyway, is there? The brain activity's just going to stop and the chemical reactions which made them themselves will cease. The only reason you would do this as a non-believer would be to make YOURSELF feel better, not the dying person. As a Christian, you'd know they'd find peace in Heaven and therefore do not need your vain and earthly comfort.

There isn’t always access to one. Infact there are many real world cases where you are forbidden that access for particular reasons, like juries on deliberation or if you are quarantined with a dangerous/infections disease.

Please stop making up extremely convenient and precise scenarios to confirm your own beliefs. Find an article of whatever this is actually happening.

If you rely on only them to be permitted to be the ones who can interpret, then you are acting in zealotry and using them as a scapegoat for your actions. If you do not take control of your own actions, thoughts, and beliefs, then even if your life is saintly, what’s the point? Why live a servant and a slave when you have the free will to do whatever you wish?

Spoken like the Snake. Remarkable, truly.

 

[MaXenzie]

Spoken like the Snake. Remarkable, truly.

absolutely raw

 

[Sil]

I'll leave it here since debating this with two extraordinarily devout people isn't really going to get anyway for either of us.

All I'll say though is faith should not be all encompassing, and you should not delude yourself with zealotry. But, if that is what you must do in order to cope with the world and in order to carry on as a good person, then do as you wish. I simply wish to live the way I want, and even if I do not outright agree or support the ways you wish to, I will support your right and freedom to live in those ways (assuming none of them are genuinely harmful to others or are breaking the law)