Technically true. But you’d be foolish not to obtain a decree to that effect. In fact, your cite says:
Oh, no argument there… just as people search for well-meant laws in the secular world which may be used as loopholes, so too do people act when faced with religious strictures. But i took the purpose of this thread to be a commentary on religious laws that were designed to be loopholes, and was pointing out that the Catholic treatment of annullments do not fit that category.
The narrowness of the exception depends entirely on who defines the eruv. Some communities cut themselves quite a bit of slack, in the geographic sense. Of course, driving is still forbidden, so there’s a limit to how far you could get anyway.
I don’t see how the absence of an eruv would make it impossible for families with young children to go to shul. Stroller-age children aren’t old enough to be required to attend Shabbat services, so friends and neighbors watching each others’ children comes to mind as an obvious solution. My wife watches the little kids this week, your wife watches them next week. Women are not obligated to attend services as men are, so this arrangement does not prevent them from performing the mitzvot incumbent upon them.
Presumably the shul has prayerbooks, so one shouldn’t need to carry them. One wears the tallit over street clothes (and under a coat if it’s cold), so it needn’t be carried, either. I see this quite a lot where I live.
if you would like to describe any particular discussion you are referring to, I would be happy to show you how it was indeed in direct violation of the faith context in which it occured.
Jesus was remonstrating the Jews of his time for all the superfluous rules and regulations they had added to the law to micromanage the Commandments. Just use common sense.
Right on.
A later post
Apparently refers to post #32. The Jews of Jesus’ day rejected his authority as being The Son of God.
Those of today still do and will continue to do so. So sad.
An eruv was not invented to enable families with children to attend shul. Anything that can be carried within one’s house can be carried within an Eruv. That line in the Wikipedia article is misleading if it’s taken to mean that these are the only things that can be carried within an eruv; it’s main point was to clarify that certain things that are prohibited to carry (even within one’s own house) on the Sabbath are not rendered permissible by the eruv to carry.
And in addition, the point of an eruv has nothing to do with flexibility in “reading the commandments.” The commandment as stated in the Torah is very clear on where things can and cannot be carried, and where the Torah says it cannot be carried, an eruv will never permit it. The places where an Eruv is allowed is only where the prohibition of carrying is of Rabbinic origin, a category of open space called “Carmelit” in the Talmud. The Rabbis prohibited it in order that people not make a mistake and come to carry in a genuine public domain as defined by the Torah. Most places of human habitation fall into this “Carmelit” category, and therefore an Eruv is allowed, a RABBINIC structure devised to make a clear distinction between the area they are in, where carrying would otherwise be RABBINICALLY prohibited, and places where the Torah prohibits carrying.
The eruv is not a loophole, it’s a way to enable people to carry in a place the Torah allows them to carry in a way that they won’t mistakenly carry in places where the Torah forbids carrying.
I think that was the OP’s point, that people are using the same attitude to “get away with something” around their God as they use around a cop or a judge, which is a really weird attitude if you believe in an omniscient God, let alone if you believe in a benevolent one.
I realize it’s not really relavent to the discussion at hand, but FTR, Henry and Eleanor didn’t seek an annulment before they got married. Also of note, the Church tribunal judging Eleanor and Louis’ annulment declared that, because they entered into the marriage in good faith, their children were still legitimate. So the marriage was kinda invalid except where their daughters were concerned. (my cite)
Bricker, I have too much respect for you to think you really don’t get the point. Obviously there are some valid reasons for a marriage to be annulled. But in other cases marriages are annulled for no real reason except the couple no longer wants to be married. But because divorce is prohibited in some cases, some couples will stretch the annullment law far past any point of reason and use it instead.
So I guess if you want a guideline for when annullments are being used a loopholes, it would be whenever they are being used in a situation where a divorce would normally be used if a divorce was not specifically prohibited.
Your example appears to be more of a general debate of Religion vs. Science. As far as I can tell, not all contributors appear to be predisposed to the same religion, so to clarify, I was referring to debating entirely within a faith context. An example might be more like “If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big he cant lift it?” or “Does the communion wine actually become the blood of Christ when you drink it?” The faith involved here of course is the assertion that God exists. There is some internal logic to the statement, but an actual debate will go far beyond this in order to prove the statement either false or not.
Ahhh. So when you said you, “…cannot start an honest exploration with the conclusion already decided (faith bias), absolute openness to direct observation is the basic requirement for logic and learning,” and “The very act of intellectual scrutiny of a faith is a direct violation of it,” you were referring only to “debating entirely within a faith context?”
Here’s the problem with that observation. If you discuss “Does the communion wine actually become the blood of Christ when you drink it?” then the context is clearly: within the basic rules of the practice, which we accept as given for the purposes of this discussion, does the communion wine actually become the blood of Christ when you drink it?
If we wish to discuss a more general question: did Jesus Christ manifest divine powers, for example, then we would have that discussion FIRST. If that discussion proved sufficient to permit a listener or participant to reach the conclusion that Christ manifested divine powers, we might then discuss what, if anything, we may deduce from his words and actions, and whether he meant to form a church on Earth, and what authority he intended it to have, and so forth. Only at the “successful” conclusion of such discussions might we tread into the issue of communion wine, and only with the understanding that - at least for purposes of the argument - the suppositions adopted by the Roman Catholic Church are accurate as regards history and authority of the church.
You seem to be staring myopically at the last discussion, amazed that it is assuming facts that were never proved to your satisfaction, in the same way that someone might attend a geometry class halfway through the year and object because everyone was assuming that three non-linear points determine a plane.
You love inventing hypotheticals, relevant or not; give it a try. Can you suggest any such plausible reason that would allow you to keep your face straight? I won’t hold my breath.
Re eruvs: They do seem to boost real estate prices.
Elvis:
Well, that’s real estate…location, location, location.
As someone who moved from a non-eruv community (Lower East Side of Manhattan) to an Eruv community (Kew Gardens Hills, Queens), let me tell you, it’s like being let out of jail. When you have a non-walking baby, and you can’t go to friends’ houses on Sabbath, or take the older kids to the playground together, or go to synagogue events together (not so much the prayer, since as someone mentioned, women aren’t really obligated, as Kiddushes and the like), it’s like being a shut-in (even if it is only fo one day a week). Paying extra to be within the eruv is well worth it (if one can afford it, of course).
Yes, you’re right, I meant to say dispensation. It’s been a long time since I was in parochial school.
Sure.
If one party was at the time of marriage ignorant of the essential properties of marriage - namely permanence, fidelity, and openness to children. Or if one party suffered from a psychological condition that rendered him or her incapable of fidelity. Or if the marriage suffered a defect of form, because it did not take place before an authorized priest and witnesses. Plenty of possible reasons.
After 12 years and 2 children? You were asked for *plausible * reasons.
This illustrates the OP’s essential point, of course - that religious exceptions are so often flouted as to constitute loopholes in practice. There’s no need to defend that when it happens; we’re all humans here.
What is so implausible? That someone could be married for twelve years and then find out their spouse never had any intention of being faithful or didn’t really mean it to be permanent ? I’m sure those things happen all the time. There is , in my opinion, a bit of a loophole in the Kennedy case, but it has nothing to do with the grounds for annulment. The loophole, as I see it, is that he was able to get an annulment based on his own "lack of due discretion ".
And what’s implausible about it? Guy gets married, never intending to be faithful, is clever enough at cheating that it takes twelve years for him to get caught, at which point she leaves him.
Of course. Note that, even as the hypothetically aggrieved party, she *opposed * the annulment.
Is anyone asserting that annulment is *never * used as a loophole, or even that it so rarely happens that the OP’s charge of frequent loopholeness is misguided?
I guess what I’m wondering, because I admit, I don’t know, but Bricker might, is, what can you get a divorce for that you can’t get an annulment for. I know nowadays, there are these “no fault divorces”…where you don’t need a reason to get divorced, but I’m not talking about those. I mean actual, old fashoned divorces.