Since the other thread is said to be going off topic I decided to begin a new thread here: (Bombs away) or not. We can discuss similarities or differences but back it with facts not personal jibes.

Ahh an intelligent woman Where would you like to begin? Are there actually any differences? Isnt it all the same?

The key to debates like these is to have religious tolerance and sadly some people don't on either side. But I do see similiarities and I do see differences that is why we each practice our own respective religions.

One similiarity is that we do believe in the sanctity of marriage and am not talking about those who digress from the practice because there are people who do.

Dissimilarity: Christians cannot have more than one wife at a time.

Similiarity: A Catholic woman/man is suppose to only marry a Catholic man/woman in order for the marriage to be recognized by the Church and by the Church I mean Catholic church.

In Islam a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man. I have seen instances where they have but correct me if I am wrong that the practice of this is frowned upon.

Yeah but polygyny has its place. I know its sometimes difficult for westerners to grasp but it does serve a purpose and it really isnt as bad as it sometimes made out to be

Sim: Marriage is a way to procreate in a "honourable" way ( cant think of a better way)

Diff: Views on divorce

I think and my response was deleted in another post...that ploygamy had its place during Mohammad's time but not today and if I had to be forced to pick anywhere in the world where I see it as being "logical" would be in such countries as Iraq and Palestine due to the vast amount of men dying off.

Big difference.

Christianity does not allow temporary marriages, no matter what the circumstances.

What is with you and the temp marriages? They are not allowed in mainstream Islam in fact they have expressly been forbidden. Only a few ppl practice it. Just like some ppl have sex before marriage, some ppl have mistresses ,,,,, that doesnt make it the norm nor does it make it the beliefs of that religion

I think and my response was deleted in another post...that ploygamy had its place during Mohammad's time but not today and if I had to be forced to pick anywhere in the world where I see it as being "logical" would be in such countries as Iraq and Palestine due to the vast amount of men dying off.

I kinda agree with you but it also has other purposes and benefits. ;)

Book 8, Number 3251:
Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas 1847 and then forbade it.



Book of Nikah, Muslim

Hijabi,

Whatever your opinon is, the bottom line is that is is practiced in several Islamic countries.

It has been pronounced acceptable by Islamic Scholars like Tantawi and Qawardi.

It's practised in mainstream Islam in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq and God knows where else.

I call it prostitution, you're free to call it what the heck you like.

Take a look at this matrimonial ad some guy working in Saudi Arabia put up.

Date: Sunday, February 03, 2008

Category: Seeking Bride

Region: Riyadh

Description: I’m 33 year old Egyptian mature guy, live in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I need to marry a woman who is an open minded woman, well educated, good mentality and know well how to treat a man. I doest matter her nationality, her age (25 - 48) and her status (single - widow - divorced) but what is very important; is to be very honest, faithful and decent
I would like to marry a msyar for my own conditions, I’m married but my family isn’t here with me and I’m afraid about myself of falling in what ALLAH deny us. So I wish if she have the same situation just to feel that we both trying to keep us chaste

http://www.expatriates.com/cls/2406520.html

Dissimilarity: Christians cannot have more than one wife at a time.

Not true.
To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinical writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Also, King David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13).
The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife's sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18).
The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.
European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible.

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman, in his insightful book Polygamy Reconsidered: "Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy." Moreover, Jesus u hasn't spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stressed the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited (St.) Augustine: "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife". To this very day, African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church's ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-trad.html

So now we need to take your word and the word of one Fr. Hillman regarding Christian doctrine ?

:D

And you do realize the buddbuddy link you provided is a website that appears to cater to gay marriage ?

ROFL

Whatever your opinon is, the bottom line is that is is practiced in several Islamic countries.

Its Not her opinion.
The majority of Muslims beleives its not acceptible, very few part of sectors beleive in this Not the general rule, the main reason is that the marrige is not built for the purpose of good family life like Allah has quoted in his Holly Book:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ (21)

21] And among His Signs is this, that He created for you wives from among yourselves, that you may find repose in them, and He has put between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect.
Here In this verse Allah has showed whats marrige about . So we know Mut3a & misyaar are by Law ligally , a marrige which accepted by all parties (husband & wife, wally & dawry)_ not a mistress _but doesnt fulfill the family & close life..so Islamic Law prohobit it.

So now we need to take your word and the word of one Fr. Hillman regarding Christian doctrine ?

:D

And you do realize the buddbuddy link you provided is a website that appears to cater to gay marriage ?

ROFL

Is it or is it not true about the old testmony & new testmony? About King david & Solomon.?? May be you can clarify?

Christianity does not allow temporary marriages, no matter what the circumstances.

in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives the following command

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire unto her, that though would have her to be thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".

Please enlight me as am not good in translating the bible.

Please refer to the more than a million threads discussing Christianity.

Everything we do is based on what Jesus Christ gave us in New Testament.

in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives the following command

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire unto her, that though would have her to be thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".

Please enlight me as am not good in translating the bible.

Not a very "New Testamentish" passage, is it? :p

What I get out of it is that the point of the passage is that God is telling the Jews that there is an exception to the law forbidding them to marry pagans.

If they take a woman captive, they are permitted to marry her. But only if she undergoes ritual purification (you left out that passage)...in essence renouncing her paganism.

The passage also goes on to say that:

1. You have to allow her a period of a month for her to mourn her father and mother. (This shows that we are talking about unmarried women, not women taken from their husbands;

2. You can divorce her IF "she wishes it"...in other words, you can't just kick her out.

3. But you may under no circumstances sell her as a slave, because you took her as a wife in conditions in which she was a prisoner of war. It's an act of freeing, not one of ridding yourself of a burden.

There is in the passage of something you are ALLOWED to do, of a concession to human weakness. But fenced around with certain rights. And with no sign that God encourages anyone to do it.

But I think in the end, we Christians would apply to it the words Christ used about why God formerly allowed divorce at all.

"It was because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not so in the beginning."

And Christ restores the original law of indissolubility in marriage.

In any case, for whatever reason, such a practice is unheard of among either Jews or Christians.

I think and my response was deleted in another post...that ploygamy had its place during Mohammad's time but not today and if I had to be forced to pick anywhere in the world where I see it as being "logical" would be in such countries as Iraq and Palestine due to the vast amount of men dying off.

Marrying more than wife is one of the rights of men in Islam, that means it is valid all time and place not just during the prophet pbuh time. Don't forget that also polygamy was practiced before prophet Mohammed pbuh time as mentioned by um albanin.

Please refer to the more than a million threads discussing Christianity.

Everything we do is based on what Jesus Christ gave us in New Testament.

Who wrote the NT and why there are many versions of the Bible?

You're off topic.

As usual.

What a surprise.

But you might want to explain yourself in the other thread about why you follow man made laws.

Who wrote the NT and why there are many versions of the Bible?

God is the primary author of the New Testament and He inspired it's human authors to write what He wished them to write.

There is one received text of the New Testament, with variant passages. Most of the variant passages are unimportant for doctrinal reasons.

Jeff, the human authors you are talking about are not prophets, right?

They are apostles and evangelists. That's as good or better.

We don't usually call them "prophets". But if your definition of a prophet is someone to whom God spoke and entrusted a message for mankind, then they are prophets.

The Injeel was revealed to prophet Issa pbuh and not other people.

So the Muslims say.

But what does all this have to do with marianna's topic, my friend? She started this thread so that we wouldn't get off topic.

Do you think it would be better if we talked somewhere else on this?

so back to topic.

many muslims come to malta.
get a girl pregnant. her family then will have to agree to the marriage because no family wants a single mother as a daughter.
then they go to the imam.
he gets right of abode (law changed very recently)
baby is born.
he says his three talaqs and goes.

with the catholic mariage, there is less chance of deciet.

Wow ! That happens in Malta ? The laws have changed to allow it or to prevent it /

Wow ! That happens in Malta ? The laws have changed to allow it or to prevent it /
yes now people have to wait for five years to get their citizenship. marriage of convenience have gone down. you can fool a silly 16 yr old girl by telling her ana ahubbok but you can't fool the rest of us.

So the laws have been changed to PREVENT it, right ?

Thats a good thing.

Hopefully it will also preserve the culture of Malta.

Not a very "New Testamentish" passage, is it?
Everything we do is based on what Jesus Christ gave us in New Testament.
1) the same God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New Testament;
2) this same God is "unchanging" according to the Bible;
3) Jesus in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e. the Old Testament) in several places; and
4) without the Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.
??? any sense in the above?



If they take a woman captive, they are permitted to marry her. But only if she undergoes ritual purification (you left out that passage)...in essence renouncing her paganism........

....But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".
it didnt say if they didnt have delight in each other.... This was a reply of a short term marrige , which wudjab says it never existed...


going back to the debate? Is polygemy prohibited in christianty?? or its a new error that was introduced recently? Because at least till 2 centuries back, the christians , In america in Fact ( the fathers in church) were marrying more than one wife, in fact many...I even saw a movie about in history how united states stopped polygymy.??? was it or wasnt it there till recently??

unfortunatly the websites I collect from are not opening..will see if they do tomorrow.

You seem to be very confused.

I thought Jeff explained quite nicely the sacrament of marriage with Christians and in particular Catholics Um Albanin. Polygamy is not recognized in the USA and Mormons know this.

Not true.
To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinical writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Also, King David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13).
The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife's sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18).
The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.
European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible.

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman, in his insightful book Polygamy Reconsidered: "Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy." Moreover, Jesus u hasn't spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stressed the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited (St.) Augustine: "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife". To this very day, African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church's ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-trad.html


Yes, I've heard this discussion before and it's an interesting one.

But there are two reasons why something is not explicitly forbidden.

One reason can be that it isn't really forbidden at all.

But another reason can be that it's so obvious to everyone that it doesn't even need to be forbidden.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly forbid marrying more than one woman, that's true. But it also doesn't forbid women marrying more than one man. Or marrying animals.

To all traditional Christian groups throughout the world, not just the Roman world, in places like India, Ethiopia, China and right from the very beginning of Christianity, the constant understanding of Christ's teaching on marriage was: one man and one woman.

This is an exposition of the emphatic teaching of Christ that A man leaves his father and mother and marries A wife and THEY TWO become ONE FLESH.

And if you think about it, the teaching on divorce doesn't make sense otherwise. If a man commits adultery by divorcing a woman and marrying another--because the first is still his wife--then polygamy must be impossible for a follower of Jesus.

Because if a man is not committing adultery if he has two wives, then how can the question of divorce affect anything? Marrying the second wife after divorce can only be adultery if it's adultery before divorce too. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Whoever this author is, no one has heard of him except Muslims and Christians don't take him seriously. And for good reason.

But a Muslim man can divorce his Catholic wife (or wives) any time, how is that perceived by the wife?

Can she get married again after that, or she's done with her single shot of marriage?

But a Muslim man can divorce his Catholic wife (or wives) any time, how is that perceived by the wife?

Can she get married again after that, or she's done with her single shot of marriage?
i am married to a non catholic. my marriage is recognised by the catholic church from my part, but he's (*husband) not bound by it, because he's not baptised, and not brought up in the catholic religion. i was informed of this by the bishop before i got married. poor sod they had him interviewed by three bishops before we were allowed to marry, and we, like other couples had to go on a marriage course. his views on marriage and divorce are the same as mine, that's why i agreed into marriage with this good man. all his family have 60 yr marriages behind them. he's an 'anonymous' christian for my church. he respects my religion throughly, takes the kids to church and to our version of 'sunday school', sits with us during prayers...but he wasn't brought up as such. when and if he wants to join the religion officially, it's up to him. so far, he's just as well part of it, he comes to mass with us, and comes with us for easter/christmas celebrations etc. i feel and never felt any urge to 'convert' my husband.

he can divorce me, and i can divorce him legally, because he's not a maltese national. but i can't remarry in church unless i get an annulment.

Good to hear that your husband is a good man, you made some good publicity of him, I wish you both all the best

But what's the answer to my question?

Good to hear that your husband is a good man, you made some good publicity of him, I wish you both all the best

But what's the answer to my question?
i think i answered you, cos i edited my post :D
i can't remarry in church if we get divorced.

But you can't get an annulment from the Catholic church, can you?

But you can't get an annulment from the Catholic church, can you?
if i have significant basis for it, yes i can.
for example if i got married under 'fraud' like my husband had a kid before we got married or was incapable of having children and didn't inform me before. if he cheated on me during courtship but i didn't know of it....
annulment happens when marriage gets declared as 'never existed' and for marriage to exist, both parties have to enter it with full honesty. if that has not happened, then marriage is null.

.
1) the same God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New Testament;
2) this same God is "unchanging" according to the Bible;
3) Jesus in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e. the Old Testament) in several places; and
4) without the Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.
??? any sense in the above?





....But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".
it didnt say if they didnt have delight in each other.... This was a reply of a short term marrige , which wudjab says it never existed...


going back to the debate? Is polygemy prohibited in christianty?? or its a new error that was introduced recently? Because at least till 2 centuries back, the christians , In america in Fact ( the fathers in church) were marrying more than one wife, in fact many...I even saw a movie about in history how united states stopped polygymy.??? was it or wasnt it there till recently??

unfortunatly the websites I collect from are not opening..will see if they do tomorrow.


God is unchanging, but his ways of dealing with the human race are not.

Jesus said, yes, that He came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but He also said He came to fulfill them. To abolish is to take something away. To fulfill is to bring a promise to a conclusion.

Jesus quite obviously criticized the Law and claimed the power to change it in the New Testament. So whatever He meant by not abolishing the Law, but fulfilling it, it can't mean simply taking the provisions as is.

Jesus claimed to be able to dispense people from the Sabbath obligation, for example. He said that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And the Son of Man (that's what He often called Himself) is THE LORD OF THE SABBATH."

Jesus forbade people from carrying out the punishment of stoning because of adultery, even though the Law required it. "Let he is without sin cast the first stone."

Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage was adultery. When He was told that Moses allowed it and asked why, He said, "Because of your hardness of heart. But it was not so from the beginning."

So these are examples of fufilling, not abolishing. The Law in the Old Testament is a partial and incomplete revelation. But Jesus is the complete and final revelation. The Old Law was a first step. The moral principles in it remain, but others do not.

***

I don't know where you got the quote from Deuteronomy, but as you gave it to us, it is incomplete. The passage you refers to says this:

However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Deuteronomy 21: 14.

If you reread my earlier post commenting on what you said, perhaps it will make more sense now in light of that.

***

American Christians never had polygamy. Nor did our forbears in Europe.

You are talking about Mormons.

In the mid 1800s, a man named Joseph Smith declared himself a prophet. He claimed that he had received special tablets from the Angel Moroni with new scriptures and special glasses to read them.

These new revelations told him that the American Indians were descended from the Jews, that God was a man who lived on another planet and that we could become God's just like Him and create our own worlds and lots of other stuff.

One of the revelations was that polygamy was okay.

But his polygamous behavior so offended his non-Mormon neighbors that they ended up jailing him and he was killed by a mob. His followers had to run away thousands of miles into the desert to find a place to live.

And soon the American government, under heavy influence from Christians, passed a law making polygamy a criminal offense in the United States, even among the Mormons and they were not allowed to practise it even among themselves.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly forbid marrying more than one woman, that's true. But it also doesn't forbid women marrying more than one man. Or marrying animals.
.

Does this mean That the new tastament is unreliable ?

And what about this one ?

Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy. He writes in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15) that, although it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." He refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. In chapter 7, he wrote, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living



And this one as well .

The history of Mormon polygamy begins with claims that Mormonism founder Joseph Smith received a revelation from God on July 17, 1831 that some Mormon men would be allowed to practice "plural marriage". The July 12, 1843 recording of a Smith revelation on plural marriage is now canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants by the LDS Church.[29] For years the practice of plural marriage by Mormons in the United States was not publicly known. The 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, written before the doctrine of plural marriage was practiced, publicly condemned polygamy. This scripture was used to quash Mormon polygamy rumors by John Taylor during 1850 in Liverpool, England.[30] Polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois[31] during the 1839-44 Nauvoo era when several top Mormon leaders including Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball took plural wives. Mormon elders who publicly taught that all men were commanded to enter plural marriage were subject to discipline; for example, the February 1, 1844 excommunication of Hyram Brown.[32] In May 1844 Smith declared, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."[33] On June 7, 1844 the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith for plural marriage. The Nauvoo city council declared the Nauvoo Expositor press a nuisance and ordered Smith, as Nauvoo's mayor, to order the city marshall to destroy the paper and its press. This controversial decision led to Smith going to Carthage Jail where he was killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. The main body of Mormons soon followed Brigham Young to Utah where the practice of plural marriage continued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Does this mean That the new tastament is unreliable ?

No, not at all.

It just means that the New Testament has to be read with understanding and with proper aids, not just on its own, verse by verse without thinking or deep knowledge.

A proper reading of the Quran requires hadith and sunna and an understanding of the Life of Mohammed under the guidance of proper scholarship.

A proper reading of the Bible requires a deep knowledge of ALL the texts and of the understanding of the apostles and the early fathers who were the recipients of the original Tradition, all under the guidance of apostolic authority in the Church.

The New Testament is not a manual of laws that you can just pick up, read a verse or two, and understand on its own. But neither is the Quran.

I have heard polygamy practiced still by some die hard Mormons but when caught they go to jail.

please el rey, do not quote from mormons to judge on all christians. as far as i am concerned, the mormons have beautiful music, and it stops there. their history and their customs are shunned by the rest of the christian community.

No, not at all.

It just means that the New Testament has to be read with understanding and with proper aids, not just on its own, verse by verse without thinking or deep knowledge.

A proper reading of the Quran requires hadith and sunna and an understanding of the Life of Mohammed under the guidance of proper scholarship.

A proper reading of the Bible requires a deep knowledge of ALL the texts and of the understanding of the apostles and the early fathers who were the recipients of the original Tradition, all under the guidance of apostolic authority in the Church.

The New Testament is not a manual of laws that you can just pick up, read a verse or two, and understand on its own. But neither is the Quran.

But those who explained it are Christians who are saints and priests right ? Are you saying that they interpret the new testament wrongly ?

For us Jesus was the final prophet (who will return) and that makes Mr. Smith a false one.

I have heard polygamy practiced still by some die hard Mormons but when caught they go to jail.

Why ? What about if the wife has no problem with her husband having another wife ?

please el rey, do not quote from mormons to judge on all christians. as far as i am concerned, the mormons have beautiful music, and it stops there. their history and their customs are shunned by the rest of the christian community.

Why is that ? Aren't mormons christians too ? Wudgap and thelia keep putting Mut'a marriage under islamic rules and now you are saying mormons ( Who are christians ) are false. I can see a double standards in here.

If the wife has no problem then she really needs to live in a society that condones it. The USA doesn't.

I really don't see Mormons as Christians or for that matter Jehova Witnesses. To me they are a cult.

For us Jesus was the final prophet (who will return) and that makes Mr. Smith a false one.

Wow. For a while you made me smile. So you believe that Jesus PBUH is a prophet not God ( Like us :D ) .

Prophet AND God.....God can be anything, everything. :)

Mormons are not Christian.

Oh really. Then what does The Church of Jesus Christ mean to you ?

They can call themselves whatever they like.

Since they follow some so called Prophet called Joseph Smith, they aren't Christian.

Do you consider Ahmediya as Muslim ?

Oh really. Then what does The Church of Jesus Christ mean to you ?
anybody can start a sect and call it anythign they want. they are not recognised. i can start one tomorrow, endorse pornography and drunkennes and call it 'The drunken church of the holy Jesus christ and Mary Amen hic'...probably i'll get a load of atheists to adhere to me as well lol. mormons are not christians. you want to say anything, look up the doctrine of the Catholic church.

the mormons have beautiful music

Personally I'm ambivalent at best about the Osmonds.

They can call themselves whatever they like.

Since they follow some so called Prophet called Joseph Smith, they aren't Christian.

Do you consider Ahmediya as Muslim ?

anybody can start a sect and call it anythign they want. they are not recognised. i can start one tomorrow, endorse pornography and drunkennes and call it 'The drunken church of the holy Jesus christ and Mary Amen hic'...probably i'll get a load of atheists to adhere to me as well lol. mormons are not christians. you want to say anything, look up the doctrine of the Catholic church.

Why aren't they christians ? You mean they don't worship Jesus ? They don't have churches ?

According to the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Mormonism is the restoration and perfection of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity

My point is that every religion has sects and fractions that may differ in some beliefs. As you can select a sect from Islam and take its beliefs as a core definition of Islam rules and ignore other sects, we also can do this in christianity.

PS.

According to the Latter Day Saints....

There's a clue in there.

they don't worship jesus cos they marry kids. and lots of them. no they don't.

PS.

According to the Latter Day Saints....

There's a clue in there.

PS.

They call themselves christians.

PS.

They call themselves christians.
yes so do many others. they don't follow basic christian rules so they can't be. if you want to get any counter argument, consult the Doctrine of the Catholic Church (google is easy)

they don't worship jesus cos they marry kids. and lots of them. no they don't.

How about Orthodox and Protestants ? Do you believe they are christians or not ?

Yes, they are Christian.

orthodox and protestants don't marry children. they don't have polygamy. there is mutual respect amongst the three denominations, and they share most of the values. yes they are the three denominations of christianity.

yes so do many others. they don't follow basic christian rules so they can't be. if you want to get any counter argument, consult the Doctrine of the Catholic Church (google is easy)

Fair enough. Thanks you answered wudgap question now. No further questions :D

Fair enough. Thanks you answered wudgap question now. No further questions :D
don't twist my answer. i was referring to mormons and the like. you want a whole list of them? consult wiki.

Yes, they are Christian.

Then I guess your country is allowing it. Oh It's against christianity and guess what I see some orthodox and catholics as well practising polygamy and protestans as well :rolleyes: .

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/0662420683/200511_0662420683-3_11_e.html

don't twist my answer. i was referring to mormons and the like. you want a whole list of them? consult wiki.

I thought you're smart enough to know what I meant minerva. I meant that orthodox, protestants and catholics don't agree in every single rule of christianity. They have some light differences but the basic rules are there and shared. This too goes to Islam. There are some sects which differ in some light things but the basic rules are there as well. So selecting what we like during the debate is just picking up in religions and no one would like it.

Really ? Can you show me where Orthodox Christians and Catholics are practicing it ?

The only people doing it (other than moslems) are Mormons living in Bountiful, in BC and that case is before the courts.

Now I see your game.

The difference is, that

(a) Christianity is NOT the official religion of Canada.
(b) None of the Chrisitian Churches allow polygamy - you can't get married in Church if you are already married.

But

Muta'a is OFFICIALLY allowed in several Islamic countries, and several Islamic scholars including Sheik Tantawi, the head of Al Azar has ruled that muta'a / maysir ./ etc are legal.

Try harder.

I repeat.

NOT ONE CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION ALLOWS POLYGAMY.

Why ? What about if the wife has no problem with her husband having another wife ?



Why is that ? Aren't mormons christians too ? Wudgap and thelia keep putting Mut'a marriage under islamic rules and now you are saying mormons ( Who are christians ) are false. I can see a double standards in here.

First you boast with alot of fanfare, song and dance that Shia are muslims and that they follow the Koran without putting any changes to it. (But dismiss their behaviour and laws as a minority thing)

Then you want to imply that the mormons have that same relation to Chritians. :hyper:

Mormons are a cult. They even have a living prophet. :hmm: They are not recognised as Christians at ALL.

Still, a comparison in figures of these two minorities, the Shia you all claim are just as 100% muslim as sunni or ibathi, and the mormons who Christianity is against, who have had their @sses hauled to court recently, would be... interesting.

Thalia,

It's not just a Shia thing.

Muta'a is supposed to be a Shia innovation.
Miysar is the Sunni version of the same thing.

Thalia,

It's not just a Shia thing.

Muta'a is supposed to be a Shia innovation.
Miysar is the Sunni version of the same thing.
Ah....

That's interesting.. thought it was just a "minority - shia" thing. Will have to read up on that.

Here you go. It's spelled Misyar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar

I posted this matrimonial ad earlier in this thread.


Date: Sunday, February 03, 2008

Category: Seeking Bride

Region: Riyadh

Description: I’m 33 year old Egyptian mature guy, live in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I need to marry a woman who is an open minded woman, well educated, good mentality and know well how to treat a man. I doest matter her nationality, her age (25 - 48) and her status (single - widow - divorced) but what is very important; is to be very honest, faithful and decent
I would like to marry a msyar for my own conditions, I’m married but my family isn’t here with me and I’m afraid about myself of falling in what ALLAH deny us. So I wish if she have the same situation just to feel that we both trying to keep us chaste

http://www.expatriates.com/cls/2406520.html

Ah.. so Muta'a is like having a temporary fling kinda thing or hiring a prostitute on a short contract basis.
And misyar is like having a life long mistress.. unless you divorce her that is.

I'm sure there will be no "adultery" in the west if we had these laws.. or rather, it would still exist, just under another, nicer lawful name. :)

Really ? Can you show me where Orthodox Christians and Catholics are practicing it ?

The only people doing it (other than moslems) are Mormons living in Bountiful, in BC and that case is before the courts.

As usual you keep living in denial


Mormons are a cult. They even have a living prophet. :hmm: They are not recognised as Christians at ALL.
.

I don't blame them. They might have a different version of the bible since you have many different versions :rolleyes:

Anyway, since all of you believe in orthodox as christians, here is an article about how some orthodox practise christianity and the article is written by a protestant, which is not a cult like mormons right ? ( David M Young MA, Director Albanian Evangelical Mission )

The Orthodox also have beliefs and practices which make us shudder! They pray for the dead; they also pray to the dead; they believe icons are a meeting point between the living and the dead; they believe God's grace is active in relics of the saints; they pray to angels; they have a view of sacraments which is very different from ours: salvation is deposited in the Orthodox Church, and the priest gives saving grace through the sacraments, so that people have a relationship with the Church rather than with Jesus Christ.

I suggest you read the whole article so you know more about the differences. What's your comment about this ?

And what about this one ?

Quote:
Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy. He writes in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15) that, although it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." He refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. In chapter 7, he wrote, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living


And this one as well .

Quote:
The history of Mormon polygamy begins with claims that Mormonism founder Joseph Smith received a revelation from God on July 17, 1831 that some Mormon men would be allowed to practice "plural marriage". The July 12, 1843 recording of a Smith revelation on plural marriage is now canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants by the LDS Church.[29] For years the practice of plural marriage by Mormons in the United States was not publicly known. The 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, written before the doctrine of plural marriage was practiced, publicly condemned polygamy. This scripture was used to quash Mormon polygamy rumors by John Taylor during 1850 in Liverpool, England.[30] Polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois[31] during the 1839-44 Nauvoo era when several top Mormon leaders including Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball took plural wives. Mormon elders who publicly taught that all men were commanded to enter plural marriage were subject to discipline; for example, the February 1, 1844 excommunication of Hyram Brown.[32] In May 1844 Smith declared, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."[33] On June 7, 1844 the Nauvoo Expositor criticized Smith for plural marriage. The Nauvoo city council declared the Nauvoo Expositor press a nuisance and ordered Smith, as Nauvoo's mayor, to order the city marshall to destroy the paper and its press. This controversial decision led to Smith going to Carthage Jail where he was killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. The main body of Mormons soon followed Brigham Young to Utah where the practice of plural marriage continued.


The point of Chapter 7 from St. Augustine is not that it is because of Roman usage that polygamy is forbidden. It is that polygamy is forbidden to Christians, just as it was under the Romans.

If you read the whole passage (why does nobody ever go look up the whole thing?), you can see what the point is. The translations SUCKS big time, it's in unnecessarily old-fashioned and ornate English. But starting with the beginning of Chapter 7, the flow of ideas is this:

"Gee, look how demanding Christian marriage law is. If your wife commits adultery, you can put her away, but you can't marry anybody else. And you ought to try to be reconciled.

"You might think that since the whole purpose of marriage is begetting children, that if you have to put your wife away for adultery, you would be able to marry another one so you can have kids. But even then you can't!

"Even though the purpose of marriage is to have kids, you can't get another wife even to have kids! That's because the unity of the two people is so profound in marriage that even when staying together defeats the purpose of marriage, you still have to be faithful to your spouse!

"Look: a man has power if he marries a wife who can't have children, to set her aside and marry another one. He has the power, but he's not allowed. And today we Christians are not allowed to marry even another woman--and this is the same as Roman tradition--to have children, although more children would be produced if you could marry another one. Wow! If the Divine Law forbids polygamy completely even in cases like this, it just proves how amazingly holy marriage is and how deep the bonds between husband and wife!"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm

The point is not that polygamy is only forbidden according to Roman Law only. The point is that God forbids divorce and polygamy to Christians even to get children.

And the passage from Chapter 17 (NOT from 15 like it says wrongly) means,

"Don't jump to the conclusion that just because the ancient patriarchs of the Old Testament were allowed to marry more than one wife, we can do it today. You might think that we would be allowed to do so in cases in which we had few children in society. But you can see that's not so because they were allowed to marry more than one wife even when children were NOT scarce, and we know that's not allowed."

Here's a passage from another great Latin father, even earlier than Augustine, Tertullian. Tertullian sees polygamy as a form of concubinage, where you take a woman to yourself without marrying her. And he says that it was lawful to the Patriarchs of the Old Testament:

[God] did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0405.htm

God was indulgent in the old days for special reasons. But now He is no longer indulgent and permission for concubinage and polygamy has been withdrawn.

You won't find any Fathers of the Church endorsing polygamy. And you won't find any Christians of ancient times practicing it.

And you won't find any of the Christian historical churches practicing it in non-Roman areas, such as India or Ethiopia or Iraq, where polygamy had once been common. Not today and not in the past.

***

I don't blame you for not knowing who Mormons are. They are an eighteenth century American invention. They are certainly not Christians. The believe that God was a man from another planet who got strong mind control and so He created the universe. And we can do the same thing too one day: create our own universes!

They believe that the American Constitution is inspired by God and have a whole bunch of Holy Books that an angel revealed to Joseph Smith.

They have no connection with historical Christianity, they are a spin-off religion, like the Nusairi or the Bahai are to Islam.

Shall I judge Islam on the basis of what the Nusairi do? Shall I say, "They drink wine and worship Ali as one of the Three Gates and they say women have no souls? Are they not Muslims? See? Muslims say women have no souls!"

***

I have some more evidence about polygamy and the teaching of the early Fathers, but....I have to help Billy with his Latin.

Good discussion! :)

http://www.3simplerules.com/images/digging.jpg

Christians don't practice polygamy.

Full stop.

If you practice polygamy, you are not a Christian.

Full stop.

Now try to focus on the topic. its about marriage and divorce.

As usual you keep living in denial



I don't blame them. They might have a different version of the bible since you have many different versions :rolleyes:

Anyway, since all of you believe in orthodox as christians, here is an article about how some orthodox practise christianity and the article is written by a protestant, which is not a cult like mormons right ? ( David M Young MA, Director Albanian Evangelical Mission )



I suggest you read the whole article so you know more about the differences. What's your comment about this ?

El Rey, it's not that they have "a different version of the Bible". It's that they have a completely different belief system and that's why other Christians don't accept them as Christian.

Just like Nusairis, with their secret books and their wine drinking and their belief that women have no souls are not accepted by most other Muslims as Muslim. Or Ahmaddiya who believe in an additional prophet.

The second quotation is by an strict evangelical Protestant. These beliefs and practices are substantially shared by Catholics and Orthodox alike by the ancient Christian Churches of Egypt, Ethiopia and everywhere else.

But Orthodox don't practice polygamy! Ask Threadlike or Haroun. They live in Egypt which is full of Coptic Orthodox, who condemn polygamy as much as we do.

Thanks Jeff. Am too sleepy to debate about marriage in both religions now but I'll come to this later.

Regarding Mut'a and Mysiar marriage it's only practised by very few people who we also don't call them muslims coz it's against Islam rules. What wudgap and thelia don't understand that not all shite and sunni sects practise this marriage. In Oman we have shites and sunnis and all of them don't practise this marriage. I've been to Iran ( The country of shite muslims ) And i've never encountered a Mut'a marriage. Most shites condemns it and say it's against Islam because it only fulfil a temporary lust and not based on what the holy quran and our prophet hadeeths tell us. Generlaizing a tiny group to a whole one is so wrong.

Here is the sad thing that happened on this thread, I think.

It started out as a reasonable comparison thread between Christianity and Islam on divorce.

But it degenerated into a fight where no one can win because too much dust is flying and everybody is making exaggerated claims and attacks, especially with regard to polygamy.

Can we say this?

It's no secret that some Muslims practice serial marriage. And many more Muslims condemn it. Many, many Muslims are uncomfortable with it.

One thing that we Christians share with MOST Muslims is that we do not like serial marriage.

But we have to admit that whether we think divorce is religiously allowed or not, all too many people in modern societies treat it as normal, by divorcing and remarrying and sometimes even having girlfriends.

Most serious Christians and most serious Muslims together condemn this sort of thing as against God's will, whether they accept divorce or not.

This is another place where we agree.

It's also no secret that Muslims see polygamy as allowable in principle. Many see it as normal and healthy at all times. But a significant number of Muslims, including some on Sabla, see it as designed primarily for emergency situations, like helping war widows who have lost their husbands. These Muslims think that although polygamy is allowable, its purpose is to help women in specific circumstances.

So at least SOME Muslims see polygamy practiced simply as a way for men to work their will and get lots of wives as less than ideal and perhaps even wrong.

With these Muslims, we Christians agree.

It is no secret that Christianity has not allowed polygamy ever, with the exception of spin off groups in modern times like Mormons. This is easy to determine. The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the major Protestant churches all condemn it.

BUT...

we have to admit that God at least allowed it in the Old Testament. And there is the lovely romantic story of Jacob, who loved Rachel and worked seven years to get her. Then he was tricked into marrying her sister, Leah. And he had to work another seven years to get Rachel, whom he loved,

"And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed but a few days because of the great love he bore her."

Genesis 29: 20.

The patriarchs, our fathers in faith, had multiple wives and even concubines.

Even if we Christians frown on this practice, because we strongly believe God has led His People in a different direction, we can judge our Muslim brothers and sisters only as harshly as we can judge the Patriarchs of the Old Testament.

And we have to admit that there are many Muslim families in which both partners are happy and satisfied as two only and who raise their children with love and teach them devotion to God, giving even us Christians--who don't always practice what we preach--a wonderful and edifying example of family life.

I wonder it that's enough unity of spirit and teaching to begin with?

What do you think?

Jeff as always you have a way of just giving it the extra ompfh to make sense...at least for me. Thanks! :D

http://www.3simplerules.com/images/digging.jpg

Christians don't practice polygamy.

Full stop.

If you practice polygamy, you are not a Christian.

Full stop.

Now try to focus on the topic. its about marriage and divorce.

Thats what leads to extra-marital affairs and adultery :shy:!

i am married to a non catholic. my marriage is recognised by the catholic church from my part, but he's (*husband) not bound by it, because he's not baptised, and not brought up in the catholic religion. i was informed of this by the bishop before i got married. poor sod they had him interviewed by three bishops before we were allowed to marry, and we, like other couples had to go on a marriage course. his views on marriage and divorce are the same as mine, that's why i agreed into marriage with this good man. all his family have 60 yr marriages behind them. he's an 'anonymous' christian for my church. he respects my religion throughly, takes the kids to church and to our version of 'sunday school', sits with us during prayers...but he wasn't brought up as such. when and if he wants to join the religion officially, it's up to him. so far, he's just as well part of it, he comes to mass with us, and comes with us for easter/christmas celebrations etc. i feel and never felt any urge to 'convert' my husband.

he can divorce me, and i can divorce him legally, because he's not a maltese national. but i can't remarry in church unless i get an annulment.

This is not marraige more like applying for a new job.

Don't you feel the church is interfering in people personal life and against their freedom by doing all these things?

i am married to a non catholic. my marriage is recognised by the catholic church from my part, but he's (*husband) not bound by it, because he's not baptised, and not brought up in the catholic religion. i was informed of this by the bishop before i got married. poor sod they had him interviewed by three bishops before we were allowed to marry, and we, like other couples had to go on a marriage course.

How did they allow the marriage, since I assume he didn't receive the confirmation either ?
I remember the bishop of my local area would never allow such a thing to a person who didn't go through all sacrements til confirmation

What does baptised means?

Marriage & Family (http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Works/marriageannulment.shtml)

Because of the clear teaching of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church does not recognise the re-marriage of a divorced person while the first partner is still living. In the same way it cannot recognise the marriage of a single person to someone who has been divorced.

So basically you get only one chance, if the marriage fails, you suffer all life & don't get another shot at it

I think it is one of the reasons why people in the west decide to live many years togeather, have kids then go to the church to get married, maybe they don't want to lose the only chance they have.

have kids then go to the church to get married

You mean have bastards then go to the church to get married?

This is an exposition of the emphatic teaching of Christ that A man leaves his father and mother and marries A wife and THEY TWO become ONE FLESH.


Come from Genesis

2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

Marriage & Family (http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Works/marriageannulment.shtml)



So basically you get only one chance, if the marriage fails, you suffer all life & don't get another shot at it
Yes. It also means you don't rush into a marriage or get married for good business ties, you don't marry a complete stranger and you check and re-check that this is who you want to be with the rest of your life, confident that you want to grow old and grey with them.. not when she starts going grey, you run out and marry a teenager.

This is not marraige more like applying for a new job.

Don't you feel the church is interfering in people personal life and against their freedom by doing all these things?
Interferes and is against his freedom much less than your Koran is against a woman who marries a muslim man and has to relinquish her right to have non-muslim children, cook pork and keep alcohol in the house, dontcha think?

Interfering in personal life you say? LOL

Against his freedom you say? :hyper:

Not having alcohol and pork is better for your health.

After all both are prohibited in the Bible also.

Not having alcohol and pork is better for your health.

After all both are prohibited in the Bible also.
Who said she was a Christian?

haha.. Gotcha now haven't I! :hyper:

Again, a Muslim man can divorce his wife any time regardless of her faith, let's presume she is a Catholic & he divorces her

Can she marry again or she remains widowed for the rest of her life? Presuming her husband is healthy & alive (not going to die any time soon)

HITMAN, I think she will claim that her husband was gay in order to be allowed by the church to marry again.

But the Bible says her husband causes her to be an adulteress if he divorces her.

Again, a Muslim man can divorce his wife any time regardless of her faith, let's presume she is a Catholic & he divorces her

Can she marry again or she remains widowed for the rest of her life? Presuming her husband is healthy & alive (not going to die any time soon)

No she can't get divorce which encourages her to have an affair with another man ( adultery ).

Regarding marriage too. In Islam every man and woman is encouraged to get marry and have kids since it's a human nature. No matter who, everyone should marry. However in christianity, and lets take catholics as an example, nuns and priests are not allowed to marry which encourages adultery among them and some times rape cases and these things happened and still happening. And here are some cases happened regarding this:

Prosecution witnesses have begun giving evidence at the trial of a Roman Catholic priest accused of sexually assaulting six children.

A woman, now 36, told Cardiff Crown Court that the priest raped her more than 20 times in the confessional box at her school when she was nine years old.

She was giving evidence against Father John Lloyd, 57, who denies four charges of rape and 17 offences of indecent assault on six children aged between eight and 13.

"I felt so dirty and ashamed," she said. "I thought about telling my mother but I was afraid."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/53517.stm

And this is for wudgap since this happened in Canada:

A retired Roman Catholic priest is accused of raping a woman who belonged to his downtown parish forty one years ago.
Francais John O’Neill, now 78 years old and living in Oakville, turned himself in to 51 division on Friday at the request of police. He has been charged with assault, buggery and rape. The latter two are criminal code offences that existed at the time of the alleged incident, but that would now amount to a charge of sexual assault

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/12/catholic-priest-charged-with-rape.aspx

And sometimes also between nuns and priests themselves:


Nuns raped by priests, says NationalCatholicReporter
"Several reports written by senior members of women's religious orders and by an American priest assert that sexual abuse of nuns by priests, including rape, is a serious problem, especially in Africa and other parts of the developing world," begins an article in this week's National Catholic Reporter. "The reports, five in all, indicate that in Africa particularly, a continent ravaged by HIV and AIDS, young nuns are sometimes seen as safe targets of sexual activity. In a few extreme instances, according to the documentation, priests have impregnated nuns and then encouraged them to have abortions." Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls admitted, "The problem is known, and is restricted to a geographically limited area." At the center of the article is a 1994 report by physician and nun Maura O'Donohue, who was then AIDS coordinator for the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. "Sadly, the sisters also report that priests have sexually exploited them because they too had come to fear contamination with HIV by sexual contact with prostitutes and other 'at risk' women," her report stated (but she turned down any interviews with National Catholic Reporter). Countries listed in the report include Botswana, Burundi, Colombia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda, the United States, Zambia, Zaire, and Zimbabwe. Expect the fallout to continue for a while

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/marchweb-only/3-19-32.0.html

Nuns at a Brisbane orphanage allegedly raped children and forced them to eat faeces, rotting food and their own vomit.

A woman in her late 50s has come forward to tell of her experiences at the hands of nuns at Nazareth House in Wynnum on Brisbane's eastside during the 1940s and 1950s.

Lizzie Walsh, as she was known as a child at the orphanage, has told this week's The Bulletin magazine she was subjected to violence for seven years.

During her time at Nazareth House, Ms Walsh claims she was raped by a nun with a flagstick "to get the devil out" while the other nuns turned a blind eye to her being raped by two different priests.

Ms Walsh also recalls being forced to eat a nun's faeces, rotting fish and vomit and to drink her own urine.


http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/08/2072.shtml


So with the increase raping cases among priests and nuns, why aren't they allowed to marry ? Isn't this against the human nature ?

Rape is not born from sexual frustration, it is about control and power. Why does that seem so hard for people to understand?

Thats what leads to extra-marital affairs and adultery :shy:!

Unless of course we call it muta'a or miysar and than all's good.

Becoming a widow and divorce are two separate things. It is until death do us part. I really don't see how a dead spouse and a divorced spouse are the same.

How did they allow the marriage, since I assume he didn't receive the confirmation either ?
I remember the bishop of my local area would never allow such a thing to a person who didn't go through all sacrements til confirmation


Did you guys have to promise to raise the kids catholic?

A friend of mine told me that she has a friend who married a non-catholic and they could not stand on the altar or receive communion.

My dad is not a Catholic though mom is. He had to promise to raise his kids Catholic.

Again, a Muslim man can divorce his wife any time regardless of her faith, let's presume she is a Catholic & he divorces her

Can she marry again or she remains widowed for the rest of her life? Presuming her husband is healthy & alive (not going to die any time soon)
It all depends if they were married in catholic church. :)

My guess is they are not, so the marriage is a civil one.
In the west, such a husband can say talaq all he wants. He's still married to her until they go to civil court and get a proper divorce. And she can do exactly the same thing.

No she can't get divorce which encourages her to have an affair with another man ( adultery ).

Regarding marriage too. In Islam every man and woman is encouraged to get marry and have kids since it's a human nature. No matter who, everyone should marry. However in christianity, and lets take catholics as an example, nuns and priests are not allowed to marry which encourages adultery among them and some times rape cases and these things happened and still happening. And here are some cases happened regarding this:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/53517.stm

And this is for wudgap since this happened in Canada:



http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/12/catholic-priest-charged-with-rape.aspx

And sometimes also between nuns and priests themselves:



http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/marchweb-only/3-19-32.0.html



http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/08/2072.shtml


So with the increase raping cases among priests and nuns, why aren't they allowed to marry ? Isn't this against the human nature ?


I think it's increasing ATTENTION to such things, because it's priests and nuns doing them.

But raping and affairs with underage schoolchildren is more common among public schoolteachers, married minister, etc.

So I don't think it's related to the vow of chastity.

Why bother about divorce when you can have as many concubines on the side ?

Not to mention the temporary marriages.. there's no restriction on that as well.

Did you guys have to promise to raise the kids catholic?

A friend of mine told me that she has a friend who married a non-catholic and they could not stand on the altar or receive communion.

My dad is not a Catholic though mom is. He had to promise to raise his kids Catholic.
You are correct, I was not knowing this
Just checked on some Italian Catholic websites, and the raising of the kids as Catholics is the only basic condition that the Vatican puts to give permission for marriage
In Italy the problem is that a great number of priests and bishops take licence to forbid marriage to those who don't have the confirmation
Moreover you can't marry in another village/city without a written permit of your parish priest
So usually people either attend courses in order to get the confirmation [in Italy is rare that one is not baptised, mostly they don't care anymore after communion and miss the confirmation] and finally can get married or if they are not interested, just get civil marriage at the municipality

This is not marraige more like applying for a new job.

Don't you feel the church is interfering in people personal life and against their freedom by doing all these things?


what applying for a new job? are you calling my marriage a sham? does your religion interfere in yours in any way?
i chose to marry in church, so the church has every right to decide whether i can marry in church or not.
i could have just stayed with the civil marriage, done in front of a public registrar. but i wanted a blessing in the house of god.

How did they allow the marriage, since I assume he didn't receive the confirmation either ?
I remember the bishop of my local area would never allow such a thing to a person who didn't go through all sacrements til confirmation

yes that's why they need to meet him before, to see what kind of man he is. as in...his values. if they concur with christian values or not. they wouldn't have allowed me to marry a man who'd approve of polygamy for example.

What does baptised means?

christened. first sacrament.

Marriage & Family (http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Works/marriageannulment.shtml)



So basically you get only one chance, if the marriage fails, you suffer all life & don't get another shot at it

i can do what the hell i like, i won't be allowed to marry in church. that's all. can a muslim woman just up sticks and go to live with another man. if she manages to dodge the stones maybe.....

Did you guys have to promise to raise the kids catholic?

A friend of mine told me that she has a friend who married a non-catholic and they could not stand on the altar or receive communion.

My dad is not a Catholic though mom is. He had to promise to raise his kids Catholic.

yes he promised to raise the kids catholic, as i stated in my job application post. so ridiculed by the intelligent people in here.

You are correct, I was not knowing this
Just checked on some Italian Catholic websites, and the raising of the kids as Catholics is the only basic condition that the Vatican puts to give permission for marriage
In Italy the problem is that a great number of priests and bishops take licence to forbid marriage to those who don't have the confirmation
Moreover you can't marry in another village/city without a written permit of your parish priest
So usually people either attend courses in order to get the confirmation [in Italy is rare that one is not baptised, mostly they don't care anymore after communion and miss the confirmation] and finally can get married or if they are not interested, just get civil marriage at the municipality

a priest can refuse to marry anybody not just on basis of religion.
for example, priests over here won't ever allow a girl to marry a drug addict (even if he was christian). first he has to come clean then they will be allowed.

i can do what the hell i like, i won't be allowed to marry in church. that's all.


Good that you managed to answer, others dodged it or gave indirect answers

So, a Catholic woman can't marry again after her husband leavers her or divorces her in case he was a non Catholic

On the contrary, Islam encourages a woman in a similar position to get married & start her life again

Good that you managed to answer, others dodged it or gave indirect answers

So, a Catholic woman can't marry again after her husband leavers her or divorces her in case he was a non Catholic

On the contrary, Islam encourages a woman in a similar position to get married & start her life again



if she gets an annulment she can. if he/she just ups and leaves (and the man too, it's not just a woman thing) they can't remarry in church because the church won't admit to divorce, only annulment via the church.
if he was a non catholic or if he was the pope's most catholic cousin, if they separate/divorce they can't remarry. only an annulment will give you that right.
i think it's been said before.

Good that you managed to answer, others dodged it or gave indirect answers

So, a Catholic woman can't marry again after her husband leavers her or divorces her in case he was a non Catholic

On the contrary, Islam encourages a woman in a similar position to get married & start her life again




Catholicism teaches the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, that's all.

The reason why divorced people can't "remarry" is because we believe it's not a marriage. It's a false name.

This is what sophis was getting at when she said that in Islam, marriage is contractual, whereas in Catholicism, it is sacramental.

Unless of course we call it muta'a or miysar and than all's good.

Thanks for accepting that what I said is TRUE, at last! :hyper:

if she gets an annulment she can

Will she get an annulment if the marriage was valid?

The husband just decided that he doesn't want live with her any more

Yes or No?

Will she get an annulment if the marriage was valid?

The husband just decided that he doesn't want live with her any more

Yes or No?

An annulment means the marriage wasn't real. Was the marriage real or not?

An annulment means the marriage wasn't real. Was the marriage real or not?

Real marriage, the husband just can't bare her any more & wants to marry someone else, or the opposite

what does real means?

nopes. she can't and he can't either.
they can but they won't be fully practising catholics.
because marriage like jeff said is a sacrament, you make it with your spouse and with God.

Real marriage, the husband just can't bare her any more & wants to marry someone else, or the opposite

what does real means?

Catholic teaching is that Marriage in most circumstances is a Sacrament. That means it is the bonding of two individuals in a spiritual way. In God's eyes, they are connected.

So, if two people are really married, they are joined together permanently.

You can't say, "He is not my son." Well, you can say it, but it isn't true. He IS your son still.

So you can't say, "She is not my wife" if your marriage was genuine. She is still your wife, no matter what any paper says.

If the Pope says, "She is not your wife" it doesn't matter. She is still his wife.

So, the answer, HITMAN, is that the Church can't encourage a person to sin by pretending that his wife is not his wife and getting in a relationship with some other woman, who will always be just a mistress or something.

***

Ice Tea, real means real. If two Catholics with understanding of what they are doing freely choose to marry in the Catholic Church, it creates a real bond.

But not if one is already married, for example. Not if one is forced by her father to marry someone against her will. Not if they are mother and son.

You have the words of marriage. But not the result.

This is true in civil law also.

If you are forced by threats to marry somebody, you don't need to go to court and get a divorce. You just apply for an annulment.

No freedom of choice; no real marriage. Just empty words.

No freedom of choice; no real marriage. Just empty words.

And where is the freedom of choice in not allowing a couple to separate if the marraige was real but didn't work well?

They can separate but will still be married. If you have issues with this look at say a woman who is first wife in a Muslim marriage and the husband takes on a 2nd wife...the first wife cannot gain a second husband. I have discussed this before regarding a friend of mine whose UAE husband took on a 2nd wife who is of that country when my friend went to the states to visit her sister. She comes home to find her husband married to another woman. How fair is that? To me sad.

And where is the freedom of choice in not allowing a couple to separate if the marraige was real but didn't work well?

You are allowed to promise a lifetime commitment.

But once you promise and God does His work, you cannot pretend that you didn't make it.

The point is simply that you are free to promise. But if you are forced to promise or you are in a position where you promise is meaningless, then you aren't bound.

I find that kind of complete commitment very freeing. And it seems to me that it's part of love to say, "I will be yours no matter what."

You are free of worry about what your course should be. You have made your decision and you know where you future is: With your spouse.

Didn't work well? Try harder! :)

So Jeff, are you saying that all those Christians who have divorced and moved on are committing adultery? Isn't that rude?

For me I think they are. If people can judge me for being a single parent why not? I don't believe in divorce.

Didn't work well? Try harder! :)

You are not fixing a car Jeff to try harder.

Humans have feeling and when marraige doesn't work it will be useless to try harder forever, that is why the solution is to divorce and find the happiness somewhere else. God doesn't want people to suffer that is why made divorce lawful.

You are not fixing a car Jeff to try harder.

Humans have feeling and when marraige doesn't work it will be useless to try harder forever, that is why the solution is to divorce and find the happiness somewhere else. God doesn't want people to suffer that is why made divorce lawful.

Well, I don't agree.

I think if we have trouble loving our sons, we try harder.

If we have trouble loving our parents, we try harder.

We don't say: Give me new parents!

We love those God puts in our lives as parents, as children, as wives and husbands.

People are not cars. Precisely. They are not in our lives to be used for our pleasure and traded in for another model.

I know this philosophy of the interchangeable partner. I lived with the consequences of it. And I am proud and happy that I don't believe in it.

Not all people the same, if you can manage to stay and fix the relationship other people can't do it. God has created people with different capabilities and with different personalities. Beside that you can't control the feeling of love.

I know for me my dad drives me nuts, I love him but I don't like him but he is my father and that will not change. If it got to the point where I love my spouse and did not like him I would wish to see a family counselor. There are always avenues and if that did not work then a legal separation. I could not fathom a divorce.

Jeff, so if the husband became an alcoholic with time (initially he was very nice & used to drink only with teaspoons), he started abusing his wife verbally & physically

She is suppose to live with him till death separates them?

You can't live together if you don't love each other anymore...
That happens and cannot be denied. And in that situation, by saying that you're bound forever anyhow, your marriage will fail, your life will fail and (sadly) your children will sink with the whole thing. No child deserves to be grown in an environment like that...And you can't FORCE yourself to somebody if you just found out you hated their guts. It sounds impossible!

If he was an alchy prior to the marriage I can see an annullment and if he is an alchy now he should go to counseling and if not then I would ask for a legal separation. I am sure Jeff will get back to you on this one also.

marianna, you can't change your parents while you can have another husband, the comparison is not valid in this case.

If he was an alchy prior to the marriage I can see an annullment and if he is an alchy now he should go to counseling and if not then I would ask for a legal separation. I am sure Jeff will get back to you on this one also.

These options proves that the no divorce law is a man made one, because it has holes and not perfect.

I can for me. I know I can and I have seen others. My PR grandmother became a widow in 1974 and never remarried. There are people out there who can do this and besides changing marriages isn't quite the same as changing one's undies. A lot of thought has to go into the marriage prior to saying "I do" and many Catholic couples go through pre-marital counseling to air out dirty laundry, doubts etc prior to the nuptials.

Actually some do implement this law on their cars

Many expatriates still cruise in the city & go to work with their 1980 model Toyota Starlet & Corolla, some of them are good earners but avoid buying a new car

They end up asking for a lift, I've been avoiding them lately

Sorry I don't get the analogy.

People ask me at "my age" and with "my looks" why I am not married or have a boyfriend...everyone has their moral standards...

Not all people the same, if you can manage to stay and fix the relationship other people can't do it. God has created people with different capabilities and with different personalities. Beside that you can't control the feeling of love.

Oh, YES YOU CAN. Or you can control love anyway, even if not always the feeling.

I will always love my children, my parents, and my wife.

I can and I do. I owe it to them.

marianna, you can't change your parents while you can have another husband, the comparison is not valid in this case.

That's the whole point.

You CAN'T change your husband.

You can't live together if you don't love each other anymore...
That happens and cannot be denied. And in that situation, by saying that you're bound forever anyhow, your marriage will fail, your life will fail and (sadly) your children will sink with the whole thing. No child deserves to be grown in an environment like that...And you can't FORCE yourself to somebody if you just found out you hated their guts. It sounds impossible!

Well, this is "common wisdom" but I disagree.

As I said, there are certainly tragic situations in life, no doubt about it.

But if you say people can divorce, you ALSO get tragic situations. And as I say it, those are vastly more.

I AM a kid whose parents were divorced and I know many others whose parents divorced. And many of us feel that that was a terribly wrong thing to do to us.

My test in terms of feelings is: Could I ever look in my kid's eyes and tell him that I didn't love HIS MOTHER anymore? Or that I was going to get another wife to replace her because I "wasn't happy"?

No.

But I CAN look in his eyes and say: "We are all ONE. We are in this thing TOGETHER. We will NEVER ABANDON EACH OTHER. Richer or poorer, happier or less happy, we are united. That I PROMISE YOU. You can DEPEND on me to be here with your mother."

We have a saying in the legal profession: "Hard cases make bad law."

You can't tell if a law is good by looking at the extremes.

Of course, anyone can make up a story about a situation that seems unbearable.

But there are only two choices. Absolute unity? Or exchangeability?

Most people in the world have agreed with you: Exchangeability.

Not me. I don't agree. I can have sympathy for people who do all kinds of things. I can say it's understandable. But I can't say it's right.

But Dr.Phil always says: You both should get a divorce when it comes to failing marriages :think:

But Dr.Phil always says: You both should get a divorce when it comes to failing marriages :think:
no he doesn't. he advocates counselling and forgiveness. hard pill to swallow.

Nope he does and so many times. I watch his shows. most of the times he says to the couples: you should work it out or get a divorce ( After giving his advices of course ).

I don't like Dr. Fake. I prefer to see a real licensed psychologist or family counselor preferablly one well versed in Catholic marriages. :)

Nope he does and so many times. I watch his shows. most of the times he says to the couples: you should work it out or get a divorce ( After giving his advices of course ).
you should work it out. work it out not get the easier way out.

I don't like Dr. Fake. I prefer to see a real licensed psychologist or family counselor preferablly one well versed in Catholic marriages. :)
white guy dr. phil = christian. no? :hyper:

I don't like Dr. Fake. I prefer to see a real licensed psychologist or family counselor preferablly one well versed in Catholic marriages. :)

I like some of his shows.

you should work it out. work it out not get the easier way out.

I don't know what you mean but he also has some programs to help divorced partners and also while divorcing and can be before divorcing. Here is some of his points on divorce.

Dr. Phil's approach to helping people cope with the stressors of divorce is twofold:

guiding adults to gain a realistic perspective of the divorcing process and what lies ahead for them as their new life path unfolds


Divorce is a time when it is important to establish new and clear boundaries. If at all possible, attempt to agree on boundaries and behavioral guidelines for how to raise your children so that there's consistency in their lives, regardless of which parent they're with at any given time.


Try to keep the lines of communication open with your ex regarding all aspects of your child's development and welfare. Never use the children as vehicles of communication when it has to do with issues that the parents should otherwise be dealing with themselves.


Divorce is a time of change that can also be quite stressful, During these times, children may be prone to testing a situation and manipulating boundaries and guidelines. This is especially true if they feel there's a chance to get something they may not ordinarily be able to obtain. At these times, it's important that you and your ex compare notes with each other before jumping to conclusions or condemning one another about what may have happened.


http://www.drreenasommer.com/dr_phil.html

Doesn't he here talk about divorce and advicing divorced people how to cope with it and the deal with the ex. ?

Good God, now we Christians have to follow the advice by this TV hack Dr, Phil Mc'graw.

I also seem to recall Jerry Springer used to give some 'advice' at the end of garbage show. Maybe we should start following that as well.

It seems like every christian supports divorce when it comes to failing marriage except you :rolleyes:

Divorce Sharia Style (channel 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1SGYftwcfw)

It seems like every christian supports divorce when it comes to failing marriage except you :rolleyes:

Not really.

For example, there isn't a single Christian on this sabla who has supported divorce OR your point of view.

You are wrong. Once again.

Oh, YES YOU CAN. Or you can control love anyway, even if not always the feeling.

I will always love my children, my parents, and my wife.

I can and I do. I owe it to them.

You are not being practical, if marraige life always perfect and a couple always will be able to live togeather then you will not find anyone in the world divorce his wife. People don't just divorce their wives because they want to but because there is a need for it.

Humans are no angels.

And it is not valid to bring the issue of children and parents to the discussion.

I owe it to them.

What you mean by this

You are not being practical, if marraige life always perfect and a couple always will be able to live togeather then you will not find anyone in the world divorce his wife. People don't just divorce their wives because they want to but because there is a need for it.

Humans are no angels.

And it is not valid to bring the issue of children and parents to the discussion.


Thats rich coming from you who claim that people with genetic defects can marry because Allah might not allow the sickness to continue forever !

So you say they shouldn't marry ya wudjab?

Whether you all want to admit it or not the Catholic church's stance on divorce is outdated and seriously flawed. It puts women at risk and places children in dangerous and unhealthy situations. Ppl change - it would be naive and a blatant lie to say that Catholics are an exception and always stay good and pious - everybody changes. Anybody can become abusive and/or neglectful. How can anyone believe for even one second that God wants us to suffer and struggle? Other Christian denominations accept divorce and have no problem with it. It is only the Catholics who forbid it - but then a lot of the tenants of Catholicism are based on suffering and sacrifice of oneself..... Arent they?

YBy Wudjub,ou seem to be very confused.
would you please revert me from The confusion state & tell me what is confusing


I thought Jeff explained quite nicely the sacrament of marriage with Christians and in particular Catholics Um Albanin. Polygamy is not recognized in the USA and Mormons know this by mariana..

I need a verse from the New Testmony that give the rules of marrige in christianity, Where did you get your rules from.
Utah's battle over polygamy is instructive. In 1862, Congress passed the Moral Act, which prohibited an individual from having more than one spouse, disincorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted its ownership of property...
In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, prohibiting polygamists from holding political office and disqualifying them from serving on juries. In 1887, Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Bill. It required, among other things, wives of polygamous relationships to testify against their husbands. On Oct. 6, 1890, the Mormon Church officially approved a manifesto mandating that it no longer sanction polygamous marriages.
The history of polygymy in Utah:...The number of families involved varied by community; for example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880. Rather than the harems often suggested in non-Mormon sources, most Mormon husbands married only two wives.
.

This is the way I look at it and this is how my personality is. Muslims do what Muslims do..they have a book they go by and the teachings of Mohammad and what they consider was revealed to him.

Christians do what Christians do and they have their book that they go by and what was revealed in their faith. Whether a Muslim accepts or tolerates Christian beliefs and vice versa that is up to the individual because I have had many Muslim friends who tolerate my faith and don't question my practices. Either we live together in harmony or we don't. And if we don't then what does that say about the person.

I don't believe in plural marriages while there are muslims who do under certain circumstances. I cannot make them change their minds about this just like certain muslims will not get a practicing Catholic to change their mind about divorce.

Whether you all want to admit it or not the Catholic church's stance on divorce is outdated and seriously flawed. It puts women at risk and places children in dangerous and unhealthy situations. Ppl change - it would be naive and a blatant lie to say that Catholics are an exception and always stay good and pious - everybody changes. Anybody can become abusive and/or neglectful. How can anyone believe for even one second that God wants us to suffer and struggle? Other Christian denominations accept divorce and have no problem with it. It is only the Catholics who forbid it - but then a lot of the tenants of Catholicism are based on suffering and sacrifice of oneself..... Arent they?

Yes, they are! :p

Raising children involves suffering and sacrifice. Having a career involves suffering and sacrifice.

Being true and keeping your promises involves suffering and sacrifice.

God sends us all sorts of situations in which we are expected to suffer and sacrifice for the sake of people we love.

True love required suffering and sacrifice. And it requires PERMANENCE. Commitment. Not fungibility.

Yes, this is what the Catholic Church almost alone insists on absolutely.

She doesn't change with the times. It's enormously impressive. I am so proud to be Catholic and this sort of thing tells me I am in exactly the right place.

Pope John Paul used to love to call us "a sign of contradiction" to the world. We say, "No, you've got it wrong."

And indeed, this is what Christ and His Church are: a Sign of Contradiction.
Luke 2: 34.
Acts 28: 22.

PLENTY of suffering comes with divorce. The suffering of having to worry that you may "not make it." The suffering of not being able to live with both your parents. The suffering of being a woman and growing old and finding that your husband suddenly "can't get along with you."

Can you be faithful to your spouse unto death, even through difficulties? "With men it is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Jeff:

But there are two reasons why something is not explicitly forbidden.
One reason can be that it isn't really forbidden at all.
But another reason can be that it's so obvious to everyone that it doesn't even need to be forbidden.



[B]To all traditional Christian groups throughout the world, not just the Roman world, in places like India, Ethiopia, China and right from the very beginning of Christianity, the constant understanding of Christ's teaching on marriage was: one man and one woman.

This is an exposition of the emphatic teaching of Christ that A man leaves his father and mother and marries A wife and THEY TWO become ONE FLESH.

And if you think about it, the teaching on divorce doesn't make sense otherwise. If a man commits adultery by divorcing a woman and marrying another--because the first is still his wife--then polygamy must be impossible for a follower of Jesus.

Because if a man is not committing adultery if he has two wives, then how can the question of divorce affect anything? Marrying the second wife after divorce can only be adultery if it's adultery before divorce too. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"

We clearly see in these verses that Jesus peace be upon him did not prohibit for the Old Testament to be followed, but only warned his followers to not follow it the way the current religious leaders of the Law (the Jewish Rabies) were following it.

The Laws & Rules in OT:
These laws were put by Jesus himself (assuming that Jesus is GOD himself as Christians believe). However, these laws do not exist in the New Testament. Does this mean that since these laws do not exist in the New Testament, then that would allow the son to marry his own mother? or the brother to marry his own sister? or a Gay person to become a minister or priest in a church? and if that would be ok, then wouldn't that all be a contradiction to what Jesus wants since he is the one who inspired the Old Testament?

. If the Old Testament must not count for Christians today and they must not follow it, then why is it part of their Holy Book? and why follow part of Jesus' teachings and not all of them, meaning, why follow the New Testament alone and not the Old Testament when Jesus himself is the author of both books?.

This is the way I look at it and this is how my personality is. Muslims do what Muslims do..they have a book they go by and the teachings of Mohammad and what they consider was revealed to him.

Christians do what Christians do and they have their book that they go by and what was revealed in their faith. Whether a Muslim accepts or tolerates Christian beliefs and vice versa that is up to the individual because I have had many Muslim friends who tolerate my faith and don't question my practices. Either we live together in harmony or we don't. And if we don't then what does that say about the person.

I don't believe in plural marriages while there are muslims who do under certain circumstances. I cannot make them change their minds about this just like certain muslims will not get a practicing Catholic to change their mind about divorce.

Thank you...Acknowlaged

Jeff:





[B]Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disap