I read Barbara Curtis' "Mommy Life" blog nearly every day (although I rarely comment there or anywhere lately). This week she wrote a post about a divorced mom with five kids.
This mom says that she's been a "baby Christian" for fifteen years and had seen little or no growth in her life. The letter that Barbara posted from the mom said that she's Roman Catholic, but did not say if she had been in that church her entire Christian life. Her youngest child is four years old and her husband abandoned her when she was pregnant with that child.
Barbara's advice included looking outside the Roman Catholic church for food and roots.
I would join her in that advice (I'd love it if that single mom were to find this post and contact this single mom).
The reason is simple - support for single moms.
If a divorce person came to me and asked about churches, I would not recommend a church that condemns all divorce. This divorced mom has had a rough walk already and it's going to get tougher. It doesn't sound as though she had a husband who "washed her in the Word" (a Godly husband leading her).
I certainly would not recommend being (staying or finding) a church (any church) that will hold a divorce against her for the rest of her life.
The Roman Catholic church is not the only church that holds a "divorce debt" against a person for life. This is not about the Roman Catholic church and whether they have right or wrong doctrine. This is about divorced parents (or divorced non-parents) looking for forgiveness in a church (and there are many churches) that holds that debt against them.
Part of a research paper I wrote included, "How the Church Sees Singles". It can be HARD for a single person to find a church where they fit in. I would offer this advice to single people: Don't be afraid to look for a church that will accept you and support you where your life has put you.
For the single mom that wrote this letter to Barbara Curtis - she's divorced. Strike one. If she dates, strike two. If she finds her "someone", well...the church that she is currently in will not (I believe) marry that couple. In the church that she is in, she has no hope...NO HOPE...to find love and her "happily ever after".
After fifteen years of "no growth", this single mom needs to find a church where she will not only grow, she needs a place where she (and her children) can flourish - be accepted, loved and cared for. Why would anybody discourage this?
Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, is quoted in a speech to President Ronald Reagan:
I have learned the danger of indifference, the crime of indifference. For the opposite of love, I have learned is not hate, but indifference. Jews were killed by the enemy but betrayed by their so-called allies, who found political reasons to justify their indifference or passivity. What have I learned? When there is obvious injustice and principles are violated – when human lives and dignity are at stake – when your allies find reasons to justify their silence or indifference, neutrality is a sin.
There are too many churches who are either indifferent towards divorced moms, or worse. If a single mom is in one of these churches, I'd encourage her to get out. It doesn't matter what denomination we're talking about.
Carrie
Carrie: I’m trying to understand what your concept of marriage is, first. If you want to engage me in this discussion, I’m going to ask you to drop the Catholic obsession also.
I don't want to engage you, I just wanted to explain myself. You can have this discussion with Ellen so it is not two against one.
But I do want to acknowledge what your friends like to call "poisoning the well". I am not "obsessed" with Catholicism either (as you also accused Ellen).
I cannot find the words "sacramental marriage" anywhere in the Bible. I can however find those words in the Catholic catechism. Therefore I maintain that your arguements appear to be from Catholic doctrine and not from the Bible.
Prove me wrong on that point instead of calling ME "obsessed with Catholic doctrine".
Tony
Carrie said: I cannot find the words “sacramental marriage” anywhere in the Bible.
That's fair enough. I can't find the words "Sola Scriptura" anywhere in the Bible either. Not to start that discussion again, but merely to point out that not finding specific words in the Bible does not disprove the existance of specific Biblical concepts.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, the word "sacrament" is defined at it's most basic level:
Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace.
This is the definition I'd like to use when discussing the term sacrament and sacramental. God showers the grace on the couple. Their spoken vows before God and family are the outward sign of the devine reality.
Can we agree on the basic definition of "sacrament". And regardless of whether you use that particular word, can you agree that God's grace, freely given, has outward signs?
This means that there are some sacraments that transcend differing Christian denominations, and marriage is, I believe, the one in which we can agree on many more of the points than the others. Baptism comes a close second (since the Catholic church recognizes valid Protestant baptisms with appropriate form and intent; we also recognize validly instituted Protestant marriages).
Tony
“Sacramental marriage” is a tradition of man.
Depends on how you define it. Does your denomination acknowledge outward signs or God's grace, and what do you call it?
“Civil marriage” is regulated in Scripture.
Really? How do you define "civil marriage"? I define it as a marriage approved of by the state. Gays can get married in Massachussets. Is that regulated biblicly?
I can find no point in the Bible does it says that a marriage “rite” is needed, or that the church need be involved.
Does your denomination perform marriage ceremonies? And if so, why?
Ellen
Tony:
you said yesterday, Sacramental marriage: A marriage covenant blessed by God, lasting until the death of one of the spouses.
Civil marriage: A marriage contract approved by the state. May or may not also be a covenant blessed by God.
Show me in the Bible where any marriage (defined by God, not man) was labeled not blessed by God (because of the form of the marriage, not the people involved).
I still need a Biblical basis for making a distinction. In the Bible a marriage was a marriage - for life; there are Biblical reasons to divorce that do not need an "annulment" in order to remarry.
Depends on how you define it. Does your denomination acknowledge outward signs or God’s grace, and what do you call it?
The question is not whether or not we recognize sacrament, the question is whether or not marriage falls under that definition. You've offered a very broad definition. I've also found a more suitable one; a sacrament for the New Testament church was 1) instituted by Christ 2) belongs to the church.
Marriage was not instituted by Christ and does not belong solely to the church.
Really? How do you define “civil marriage”? I define it as a marriage approved of by the state. Gays can get married in Massachussets. Is that regulated biblicly?
We are to obey the laws of the land until they contradict Scripture. Obviously, same-sex marriage contradicts Scripture so a person who accepts Scripture as their authority does not have to recognize gay marriages.
I define "civil" in terms of history, in which anything that was not of the church was "civil".
For centuries, all it took to be "married" was for a man and a woman to move in together and "be married".
Your own church council of Toledo (499 AD) recognized the validity of "natural marriages". Our tradition of the father of the bride "giving her in marriage" is a remnant of "natural marriage", in which it was a family affair, not an affair of the church.
Does your denomination perform marriage ceremonies? And if so, why?
Yes. Tradition (lower case t). That simple. A marriage is not any more or any less valid because the church was not (or was) involved.
My sister was married in a courthouse by a judge. Her marriage is not any less valid than mine was (we were married in a church by my father-in-law, a minister).
Tradition is not binding on us, so it's a neat and beautiful tradition, but does not make a marriage more valid.
Ellen
Tony, I wanted to make another note: I keep putting "civil marriage" in quotes because I don't find a Biblical basis for a marriage being "sacramental" or not. Either it is a marriage or it is not.
Either there is a Biblical reason for divorce (in which case no annulment is needed) or there is not (in which case the annulment should not be granted anyway).
Either way, I don't find a Biblical loophole for a marriage to be found to never have existed ("sacramentally).
Carrie
I can’t find the words “Sola Scriptura” anywhere in the Bible either. Not to start that discussion again, but merely to point out that not finding specific words in the Bible does not disprove the existance of specific Biblical concepts.
I agree.
But I cannot find the concept of sacramental versus civil marriage in the Bible either.
Tony
Show me in the Bible where any marriage (defined by God, not man) was labeled not blessed by God (because of the form of the marriage, not the people involved).
By "form", do you mean some deficiency in the ceremony? If so, the form (at least in the Catholic rite) is not a requirement for a valid marriage. That is why the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant marriages as being sacramental and needing a declaration of nullity for those divorced who wish to re-marry in the Catholic Church.
I still need a Biblical basis for making a distinction. In the Bible a marriage was a marriage - for life; there are Biblical reasons to divorce that do not need an “annulment” in order to remarry.
So are you going into the Old Testament for biblical reasons to divorce? Jesus eliminated those.
Mark 2:4-9 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
And it looks like the only reason for divorce is fornication, adultery, lewd behavior depending on the version you go to. The NAB (Catholic Bible) says differently, but I said I'd use your translation, so I'll stick with it.
Other than that, there don't appear to be any reasons for divorce according to Jesus anyway.
The question is not whether or not we recognize sacrament, the question is whether or not marriage falls under that definition. You’ve offered a very broad definition. I’ve also found a more suitable one; a sacrament for the New Testament church was 1) instituted by Christ 2) belongs to the church.
Marriage was not instituted by Christ and does not belong solely to the church.
That is the defnintion of an outward sign of God's grace, but if you use the word "sacrament" to mean something else, I'll be happy to use whatever term you use for "an outward sign of God's grace".
We are to obey the laws of the land until they contradict Scripture. Obviously, same-sex marriage contradicts Scripture so a person who accepts Scripture as their authority does not have to recognize gay marriages.
I define “civil” in terms of history, in which anything that was not of the church was “civil”.
For centuries, all it took to be “married” was for a man and a woman to move in together and “be married”.
Your own church council of Toledo (499 AD) recognized the validity of “natural marriages”. Our tradition of the father of the bride “giving her in marriage” is a remnant of “natural marriage”, in which it was a family affair, not an affair of the church.
I am using the term "civil" marriage to differentiate between a marriage recognized by the state, with one recognized by the church.
And "natural marriages" may or may not be valid. In the case of two men living together as man and wife, it obviously wouldn't be. If someone who severed one of these marriages wished to have their marriage solemnized in the Catholic Church, it would be quite reasonable to allow them to make sure that those presenting themselves for marriage, who wish it to be recognized by the Catholic church, be investigated.
Nobody has the right to be married in the Catholic Church. And this is really all that we're asking. That those who present themselves for marriage in the Catholic Church are free to be married, and those who present themselves for Catholic sacraments not be living in a state of mortal sin (an adulterous relationship).
Yes. Tradition (lower case t). That simple. A marriage is not any more or any less valid because the church was not (or was) involved.
My sister was married in a courthouse by a judge. Her marriage is not any less valid than mine was (we were married in a church by my father-in-law, a minister).
Tradition is not binding on us, so it’s a neat and beautiful tradition, but does not make a marriage more valid.
Nope, it doesn't. That's why it's up the the Marriage Tribunal to determine validity.
Either there is a Biblical reason for divorce (in which case no annulment is needed) or there is not (in which case the annulment should not be granted anyway).
Either way, I don’t find a Biblical loophole for a marriage to be found to never have existed (”sacramentally).
There isn't a Biblical loophole. You are either married now, or you never were. "What God hath joined, let no man tear asunder".
Here are the grounds for annulment for your reading pleasure. Let me know if your church would consider a marriage containing any of those as being an actual marriage.
Ellen
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
As far as what constitutes a "valid" marriage, we'll have to disagree. I find no Scripture that tells me that one marriage is valid and another is not. Either it's a marriage or it's not - and if it's not then the children are illegitimate.
I am using the term “civil” marriage to differentiate between a marriage recognized by the state, with one recognized by the church.
This is where I'm having the difficulty. I do not find in the Bible where these are two different things.
Sorry, I can't click out on the annulment link without leaving this page, but I did find a Roman Catholic site with a list of things...
"I wasn't ready"
"I was pregnant and under duress"
A commitment to marry is a commitment to marry. The Bible doesn't tell us that entering into a covenant/contract (which is what a marriage is) is a thing that can be decided by the church years after the fact.
I used the link that I found to write a post (I was wrong on the divorce thing) that is pre-posted for (I think) Tuesday - so I don't go dry on posting.
Ellen
Tony - one more thing...this is something like the third time I've had to approve one of your posts and I shouldn't have to do that - my settings are that once you post I shouldn't have to approve you again.
Do you use different computers that wordpress might see as different people (I did have to approve my own comments from work).
Not a big deal (or a deal at all) - I'm just curious.
Tony
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Then your church doesn't recognize divorces except for sexual immorality. Seems like a pretty big loophole to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing I'd have to do to get a divorce in your church is to screw around.
It seems to me that if I simply "stopped loving" loving my wife, all I'd have to do to get a "biblical divorce" is to find some other woman and commit adultery.
What am I missing here?
As far as what constitutes a “valid” marriage, we’ll have to disagree. I find no Scripture that tells me that one marriage is valid and another is not. Either it’s a marriage or it’s not - and if it’s not then the children are illegitimate.
The first thing to understand - and this is very important - is that an annulment does not mean that a "physical" marriage didn't exist, nor that the children born out of such a union are illigitimate. After all, for that to happen, we'd have to go back in a time machine.
Sorry, I can’t click out on the annulment link without leaving this page, but I did find a Roman Catholic site with a list of things…
When I post a link, please be so kind as to use the link I provide, or at the very least provide a link to the text you quote. Don't say "a Roman Catholic site" said so and so, because just because a site says they're Roman Catholic, doesn't mean they are, or if they are, that they are correct.
In IE, you can right click and "open in a new window", or get Firefox; it's a much better browser. You can open new sites in "tabs".
A commitment to marry is a commitment to marry. The Bible doesn’t tell us that entering into a covenant/contract (which is what a marriage is) is a thing that can be decided by the church years after the fact.
Sure they can. It's a contract in civil marriage, and a covenant in sacramental marriage. A contract is an exchange of responsibilities, a covenant is an exchange of persons.
Even in contract law, it can be determined if a contract was legal and enforcable. The Marriage Tribunal can determine if a covenant was actually able to be entered into.
I'll give you an example of a covenant not able to be entered into:
A woman married a guy who is a long haul truck driver in good faith. After five years and three children, she finds out that he has a wife and a whole 'nother family in an ajoining state.
Is she married to him? Are her children illegitimate? I'd imagine both church and state would ajudicate that the marriage never happened because the man was not free to marry. It's no fault of the woman, but the guy perpetrated a fraud on her.
Do you use different computers that wordpress might see as different people (I did have to approve my own comments from work).
I post from two different computers, so there could be two different IP addresses (if that's what wordpress uses).
Ellen
What am I missing here?
What does the Bible say?
When I post a link, please be so kind as to use the link I provide, or at the very least provide a link to the text you quote.
I did - I just didn't do it while I was in the middle of writing the comment. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I'm in the middle of studying for a test in a class that is kicking my butt and I get hurried.
When I examine the list against Scripture, which of those reasons for "annulment" is in Scripture?
Show me in the Bible where an example of an annulment. Show me in the Bible where there is ever a difference between what you call civil and sacramental marriage.
Tony (I tried to copy the part that I'm answering to, but the whole paragraph is a link and it wouldn't let me.) I realize that the Roman Catholic church teaches that a marriage can be civilly existant (so that the children are legitimate) but sacramentally non-existant. What I'm asking you is to show me in the Bible where it tells us that can be.
Sure they can.
You're talking about the Roman Catholic church.
I've asked several times about where in the Bible such a distinction is made. I still have not seen a Biblical answer.
I’ll give you an example of a covenant not able to be entered into:
Why the legal end of it were not legal, why would the church need to give an annulment?
Tony
I’ll give you an example of a covenant not able to be entered into:
Why the legal end of it were not legal, why would the church need to give an annulment?
Does the state determine the doctrine of your church? Why would the state's blessing on a marriage (or declaring it invalid) have any bearing on God's blessing on a marriage?
Can any two people declare themselves married, and they automatically are?
Carrie
I’ll ask you to refrain from making bold sweeping statements like: “Tony, your definitions of everything come from Catholic doctrine, not necessarily the Bible.” like there is some sort of dichotomy between the two, and Catholic doctrine is never Scriptural, which is simply not true.
Tony,
We are still waiting for you to show how the Catholic doctrine on marriage is derived from the Bible. Where is the scriptural support for annulment and sacramental vs civil marriage?
Tony
Carrie: You don't accept that there is governmental construct called marriage that bestows rights and responsibilities on couples (not necessarily heterosexual couples) that is distinct from the covenant of marriage ordained by God?
I am really trying to be charitable here. But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I'm going to have to stop answering your questions.
I'm tired of playing your "gotcha" game. (Especially when you don't "got me"). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your comments.
Ellen
But if you insist on asking for specific Biblical references to concepts that are not necessarily Biblical (such as governmental laws set up by countries, governmants and municipalities that are not necessarily Christian) I’m going to have to stop answering your questions.
Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different "kinds" of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible?
The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage - the concept of "civil marriage" is Biblical.
The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not - is not in the Bible.
Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)?
Carrie
I’m tired of playing your “gotcha” game. (Especially when you don’t “got me”). If you are willing to discuss, specifically with me, the realities of the society in which we live, please carry on. Otherwise I’m going to ignore your comments
There is no “gotcha game” on my end. I accused you of espousing Catholic doctrine instead of biblical doctrine and you chastised me for it. But you still have yet to give scriptural support for your marriage doctrines.
See, I am frustrated by the fact that you call me “obsessed with Catholicism” b/c I inferred that your Catholic doctrines on marriage are not supported by the Scriptures, and yet you still haven’t given me any scriptural support. So can you explain to me how holding you accountable for your statements is now a “gotcha game”?
I don’t really care about society or government laws on marriage. All I care about is what God considers a marriage. You are allowing for dissolution of marriage (by annulment) of whatever is not a “sacramental marriage” or ordained by God. I do not see in scriptures where such an idea is presented.
You can ignore this comment, that is fine. I am not the one playing games by claiming to have biblical foundations for my church’s doctrine but yet never producing such support and then lashing out against anyone who tries to hold me accountable for my claims.
Tony
Tony, marriage was set up by God from the very beginning of time. If there was different “kinds” of marriage, why do we not find that in the Bible?
Because what the government calls "marriage" is not Biblical.
The civil Law in the Old Testament gave the Jews laws that regulated marriage - the concept of “civil marriage” is Biblical.
Because the OT Jews lived in a theocracy. There was no discernable difference between the concepts of religious or civil from a Biblical (Torah) standpoint. We don't live in a theocracy. Our governmental laws of marriage are not guided by the Bible, the Torah or (thankfully) the Koran.
The concept of a marriage being sacramental or not - is not in the Bible.
Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental. Just like I'd imagine all marriages in Iran follow Islamic law.
Will you, or will you not, give an example from the Bible of a marriage that is civil, but not sacramental (and that the Bible tells us so)?
I won't. Because in OT Palestine, because they were a theocracy, all marriages solemnized were deemed valid and bound by God.
That having been said. We don't live in a theocracy. As a matter of fact, our government is actively hostile to religion in general, Christianity in particular. There is no connect as there was in OT palestine with the state and the will of God.
Can you admit the fact that concept of civil (theocratic) marriage in OT Palestine doesn't necessarily jibe with our societal reality today?
phd4jesus
This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC? Bathsheba did become David’s wife prior to David’s repentance (2 Sam 11:27). What about those Patriarchs that married prior to the establishment of the nation of Israel? It seems to me that to be married was to “go into her” as is described for Jacob and Leah (Gen 29:23).
Because what the government calls “marriage” is not Biblical.
What does the Government call marriage that is different from God? (Please don’t use the example of MA because this is an exception to the rule). Whatever “ceremonies” occur during marriage (both in the past and presently) are not of God, but of man. I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage.
Carrie
Because to the OT Jewish government would never solemnize a non Biblical marriage. All civil marriages (since they were a theocracy) followed their religious law and were thus deemed sacramental.
Tony, I have to say. You absolutely fascinate me.
In every debate we have you are always arguing for what MAN has deemed, not necessarily God.
When we talked about the Bible you would say things like “the authority of the Bible is dependent on the men who determined it (the canon). To me that is an utterly ridiculous thing to say since the authority of the Bible comes from God alone.
Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time.
Adam and Eve were not Jewish and did not live in a theocracy so I’m not sure how your definition can account for them or anyone else pre-Israel. So you have to ask yourself, how did GOD define marriage and when or if did that definition ever change.
But this is what is so fascinating. You seem to think that God defines things according to man and therefore you look to man to make your definitions. As if God has somehow formed his truths around the comings and goings of men.
I look to God for the definitions and then try to figure out whether man has it right or wrong. I don’t know any other way to arrive at the truth.
Tony
Here, on marriage, you are defining marriage by man’s traditions and government through history. But history and the ways of man are completely irrelevant as it is GOD who defines marriage and there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that his definition of marriage has changed with time.
No, Carrie, Ellen is defining civil marriage through Biblical history. Please do try and keep up.
We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Cahtolic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can't stick to one point.
You jump all over the place and are surpised when it doesn't make sense. You'd better go back to your "study bible".
Tony
Whoops, bad closing tag. Only the word "Ellen" ought to be bolded. Maybe Ellen can edit that for me. 😉
Tony
This has been an interesting discussion. Would an unrepentant Catholic man who had an adulterous relationship with a woman and murdered her husband (like King David did) be allowed to marry said woman in the RCC?
That example hardly ever happens (like "gay marriage" in MA.) so you can't use that as an example.
I don’t remember God requiring specific ceremonies to occur or hoops to be jumped through for a “valid” marriage.
I don't either. When have heard me say that they were?
Ellen
Tony, we can look to the New Testament, where all were under the juristiction of Roman law.
You cannot point out in Scripture where a marriage is not a marriage.
A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and there is no place in the Bible where you can point to and say differently.
A marriage is a marriage is a marriage.
There is no place in the Bible where a marriage is labeled "civil" but not "sacramental".
You are the one making the distinction, not me. You are the one that sees a difference that is not in the Bible.
I have asked many times for you to show a Biblical difference, but you cannot.
Ellen
Carrie, I think that where Tony is getting the governmental thing is from when he said that (something like, I'm not going to look for an exact quote) there was no civil marriage in the Bible. I pointed out where marriage was regulated by civil law (The Jews divided their law into "civil", "ceremonial" and "moral".)
It is the Roman Catholics that need to see some marriages as something less than a marriage in the eyes of God. For us, marriage has been from the beginning, in the eyes of God.
phd4jesus
That example hardly ever happens (like “gay marriage” in MA.) so you can’t use that as an example
It is a biblical example. It's David's story. Bathsheba was David's wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage?
It was God's will that the Israelites marry only other Israelites. Solomone didn't. He married many woman of peoples and nations that the Lord had commanded that Israel not associate with (1 Kings 11:1-2). Were these marriages sacramental or civil.
The issue here is that you are trying separate out what marriages are (i.e. sacramental v. civil) and it isn't there in the bible.
P.S. I also use a "study bible". Should I be insulted as well with your comment to Carrie?
Ellen
phd - it's just a dig that carried over from Carrie's blog. It can be easily ignored for what it is.
I will ask that any further points be made from Scripture.
phd4jesus
I remember the dig. It was just unnecessary.
Ellen
I know. And Tony knows that we know. That should be all that needs to be said.
Tony
It is a biblical example. It’s David’s story. Bathsheba was David’s wife. Is this an example of a Sacramental marriage or a civil marriage?
It's only one example out of hundreds of good marriages in the Bible. Because it's rare, by your own admission, you can't use it.
(Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes).
Ellen
Tony, unless you can give any Scriptural backing for the distinction that you need to make - and a Biblical basis for a marriage that was entered into never having existed in the eyes of God, you might want to drop this.
Where in Scripture do you find this doctrine?
Carrie
We are having a discussion, and you are launching off into anti-Catholic-land. You are impossible to have a discussion with because you can’t stick to one point.
Tony,
I looked through my comment and didn't see one mention of "Catholicism" so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
Second, the only theme in my comments here has been the biblical definition of marriage. In other words, what does God consider marriage. I don't see how I am "all over the place".
Lastly, your snip back tells me I may have offended you. I apologize as that was not my intention.
Ellen
It's also hard to discuss "annulment" and leave out the Roman Catholic church, is it not?
phd4jesus
Or maybe we can discuss MA marriage statutes
Sure. I was there during the whole proceding. Where do you want to start? Perhaps you could show me a biblical example of gay marriage.
There are a number of marriages in the bible, but my bible does not contain hundreds of examples. I have given you two examples of marriages in the bible and have asked you to indicate whether they are sacremental or civil marriages. Would you answer those two simple questions please.
Clearly what is needed here is what is God's definition of marriage.