TOTALLY GEEKED!

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Renegade Time Lord wrote:

---

I was not raised here or with a family, and "religion" and "attending church" was not a part of my life.  The only times I have entered a church were for funerals/memorial services and weddings.  I have my beliefs based on my own life experiences, which I do not expect anyone else to understand, so I will just leave it at that. 

---

 This post makes the most sense to me. I applaud you for being true to yourself. 

---

So people who go to church aren't?  That's BS.  

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Renegade Time Lord wrote:

---

I was not raised here or with a family, and "religion" and "attending church" was not a part of my life.  The only times I have entered a church were for funerals/memorial services and weddings.  I have my beliefs based on my own life experiences, which I do not expect anyone else to understand, so I will just leave it at that. 

---

 This post makes the most sense to me. I applaud you for being true to yourself. 

---

So people who go to church aren't?  That's BS.  

---

 Yeah...I totally said exactly that. You are right again! <sarcasm>

---

Yeah, you did.  You specifically pointed out someone who didn't go to church for being "true" to themselves, specifically quoted their post that it made the "most sense" to you--and did not similarly comment on posts of those who have been church goers. 

The implication could not be more obvious.  

huskerbb wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Renegade Time Lord wrote:

---

I was not raised here or with a family, and "religion" and "attending church" was not a part of my life.  The only times I have entered a church were for funerals/memorial services and weddings.  I have my beliefs based on my own life experiences, which I do not expect anyone else to understand, so I will just leave it at that. 

---

 This post makes the most sense to me. I applaud you for being true to yourself. 

---

So people who go to church aren't?  That's BS.  

---

 Yeah...I totally said exactly that. You are right again! <sarcasm>

---

Yeah, you did.  You specifically pointed out someone who didn't go to church for being "true" to themselves, specifically quoted their post that it made the "most sense" to you--and did not similarly comment on posts of those who have been church goers. 

The implication could not be more obvious.  

---

 So saying what makes sense to you is now a problem?

It makes sense to her. 

It doesn't mean a slam against you.

Good Lord, Husker. 

 

She can like whatever she wants. The direct meaning of the second statement is that those who do go to church aren't or can't somehow be "true" to themselves--whatever the fvck that nonsense even means.

I happen to agree with huskers perspective. I read it as a slam against the faithful as well.

In other words, since I am faithful to my belief, it doesn't count as being true to myself.

Why does one count and not the other?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

TrudyML wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I do think the whole "annulment" thing is a bit strange. I mean, OK, maybe within the first week or something. But, having an "annulled" marriage after 20 yrs and kids, what does that really mean?

---

You have to pay for it.  Big time.  So you can get married in the church again.

 

Big bucks. 

---

 So it's basically an indulgence?  I thought the church got rid of those.

---

 It costs between 100-500 bucks on average for an annulment.  Its not an indulgence.  Catholics only believe in divorce for very limited things, which is why its so hard to get married in the church to start.  Marriage is a sacrament and they take it very seriously.

---

 Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  I mean, if marriage is a sacrament, why would an annulment be granted at all? 

---

 An annulment means the sacrament was never present to begin with. That's why it takes like 18 months of investigation of lots of counseling.

Here is a good little recap - https://www.archbalt.org/about-us/marriage-tribunal/upload/Doc_12_myths_about_marriage_annulments_in_the_Catholic_Church.pdf

---

 So, I can understand that if it wasn't a Catholic wedding.  But if a Catholic wedding mass occurred in accordance with the church laws, how could they ever find the sacrament didn't exist.  That would take some serious spinning.

---

 To be honest I am not 100% up on all of this, but part of the lengthy process of annulment is to see if one spouse - say a cheater for example every actually seriously took their sacrament.  If the sacrament was not ever in their heart/mind/soul then it never existed and their fore the marriage is not a true sacrament and the other party should be free to re-marry again.

Make sense?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

TrudyML wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

I do think the whole "annulment" thing is a bit strange. I mean, OK, maybe within the first week or something. But, having an "annulled" marriage after 20 yrs and kids, what does that really mean?

---

You have to pay for it.  Big time.  So you can get married in the church again.

 

Big bucks. 

---

 So it's basically an indulgence?  I thought the church got rid of those.

---

 It costs between 100-500 bucks on average for an annulment.  Its not an indulgence.  Catholics only believe in divorce for very limited things, which is why its so hard to get married in the church to start.  Marriage is a sacrament and they take it very seriously.

---

 Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?  I mean, if marriage is a sacrament, why would an annulment be granted at all? 

---

 An annulment means the sacrament was never present to begin with. That's why it takes like 18 months of investigation of lots of counseling.

Here is a good little recap - https://www.archbalt.org/about-us/marriage-tribunal/upload/Doc_12_myths_about_marriage_annulments_in_the_Catholic_Church.pdf

---

 So, I can understand that if it wasn't a Catholic wedding.  But if a Catholic wedding mass occurred in accordance with the church laws, how could they ever find the sacrament didn't exist.  That would take some serious spinning.

---

 To be honest I am not 100% up on all of this, but part of the lengthy process of annulment is to see if one spouse - say a cheater for example every actually seriously took their sacrament.  If the sacrament was not ever in their heart/mind/soul then it never existed and their fore the marriage is not a true sacrament and the other party should be free to re-marry again.

Make sense?

---

 So, fraud?

---

 Basically.  

I happen to agree with huskers perspective. I read it as a slam against the faithful as well.

In other words, since I am faithful to my belief, it doesn't count as being true to myself.

Why does one count and not the other?
- just Czech

___________________________

I read it as Renegade Time Lord was being true to himself, irrespective of others also being true to themselves.

Going to Church for some is being true to themselves. Not going to Church is some other people being true to themselves. Being true to "yourself" means, to me, that the situation is unique to the person being referred to, and doesn't disqualify anyone else's trueness to themselves, even if their actions or beliefs differ. Does that make sense? I hope it does. It did when I formed the thought about it.

I've already answered this question on a previous thread (somewhere), but for me, Church is not a good fit. I've tried many and none had the full message that I believe God intended, which I have received through my belief. I've always felt kind of like the Baptist at a Catholic Mass, or the Lutheran at a Universal Unitarian Church. It's just not "right".

Oh yeah.

He can read minds, see the future, and bend your spoon.