Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
RobbyS - Now you are blaming the apostles and evangelists?
C'mon Robby, its quite a reach to accuse Havoc of blaming the apostles and evangelists. I realize you want to make a point about the Scriptures, but its obvious to all of us the deep reverence that Havoc has for the Apostles of Our Lord. Don't go too far, I'm just itching to use the "penalty flag" graphic angelo left me - especially on an RC in order to show I'm not biased in favor of "sacramental Christians"! :-)
God Bless.
But it is not agains the "natural law". There's a pretty big difference.
1
What chance is there of a divorce ever occuring?
0%
Why?
Early in our marriage we told each other that divorce would not be an option for either of us. Still married after almost 12 years.
-ksen
The use of tools and machines does not violate the natural law. I again ask you to show me a violation of the natural law which is not a sin.
SD
No regrets, ever.
Thanks for asking, God Bless.
Forgive me. I enlarged the text of your "proof" because I didn't see the word "sin". I give up. I still don't see it.
Name for me an "intrinsically evil act" that is not a sin. Or answer Havoc's challenge and name for me a violation of the natural law which is not a sin. You are hung up on the fact that a particular four letter word is not used, so much that you are missing the entire message.
What other than a sin could an evil act be?
It does; however, raise another question.It appears brother/sister sex isn't incest? Is it?
I guess not. It also doesn't mention beastiality, or necrophilia. I guess they are OK. And first cousins, 2nd cousins, and uncles and aunts. It's all OK.
Unless:
Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person.
a) This means something and children can not give consent. OR
b) You read the Catechism as a gudeline, and not as a lawyer looking for loopholes. This isn't the way to approach the study of chastity, or godliness.
SD
One. That is an answer to the question, but I will go on. It is my wife's second. She married in haste to escape her parents house and married a soldier right before (like days before) he went to Desert Storm. He came back "touched" and never treated her right, cheated on her, was abusive, etc. There was obviously no sincere committment on his part to a marriage.
When my wife an I were just friends, her ex wanted her cooperation in obtaining an annullment. She was not sure how to respond and I counselled her to go ahead and cooperate, cause you never know when you might need it. (She was not Catholic at the time.)
Little did I know at the time that the "you never know" would be for my own wedding.
What chance is there of a divorce ever occuring?
Zero, one should say, right?
Why?
Both her and I come from stable families where the parents are still together. So we dont' have a family history of cutting and running. Her earlier problem was truly a matter of youthful poor decision making. We are both committed to swim against the tide.
SD
I had a Greek girlfriend once. She had more hair on her chest than I did.How'd she stack up in the "querulous" department? : )
No, wait, there must be a sin somewhere there. Never mind.
-ksen
Have you found any Unitarian site that says "sin" with regard to incest? I'll settle for "evil" since I consider it stronger than just "sin".
One and only one...twenty years on March 6.
What chance is there of a divorce ever occuring?
0.00%.
Why?
It's never really been an option and in the last 10 years we've grown closer and closer every day. Now that I've let God in I can't even imagine the possiblity.
Could you provide me with sources for the later writings of St. Cyprian? I can only find writings of St. Cyprian that straight out support "The Chair of Peter" -
St Cyprian writes, A.D. 251, of certain heretics: "After all this, and having had a false bishop set up for them by heretics, they dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the Chair of Peter and the primatial Church, whence sacerdotal unity had its rise; nor do they consider that those are the Romans whose faith was celebrated by the praise of the apostle [cf. Rom. i, 81, to whom unfaith cannot have access." -- Ep. lix, 14.
"Christ founded a single Chair, thus establishing His own authority the source and hallmark of the unity of the Church. If a man does not hold fast to this one-ness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church was built, does he still believe he is in the Church? It is an error to believe that a man is in the Church if he abandons the See of Peter which is the foundation of the Church." - from his writing: Unity of the Catholic Church.
At your leisure, I would really appreciate it if you could point me to the writings you refer to as I like to have a full understanding of the Truth. Thanks in advance.
I blanked out the leters. It could be "fooding" or "fording."
I would like to point out that agitating someone is just as sinful as using profanity.
SD
One.
What chance is there of a divorce ever occuring?
Nope.
Why?
Because my wife and I both believe in the sanctity of marriage and value it deeply.
That, and we love each other very much. :o)
Hey ... that's hitting below the belt! ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.