There ARE at least three non linear points in a plane, it is not a matter of faith. Jesus, Santa Claus, the Devil, the Easter Bunny, God…matters of faith hence faith context.
I might get some of the specifics wrong here, but the gist is true.
Golders Green is an area of North London with a significant Jewish population. Some years ago, they mounted a campaign to have their eruv extended. An eruv is a means of allowing various shabbat or festival activities which are normally prohibited. It is an area that is actually, physically demarcated either by reference to visible landmarks (e.g. a fence) or by displaying ropes, marked lines, barriers etc.
A non-Jewish commentator at the time proposed a simple thought experiment. Okay, make the eruv bigger… and bigger… and bigger… and slip over the equator, and then make it smaller and smaller until it can be represented by a loop of rope around the South Pole. Then pretty much everywhere is definitely INSIDE the eruv, so people can get on with whatever they want during shabbat. Some orthodox Jews said this was a silly idea and defeated the whole point. But an arbitrary enlargement of the eruv… is OK?
The faith I know most about is the Roman Catholic faith, because I was raised as one and didn’t really escape into reality until my late teens, early 20s. I don’t know about it being full of loopholes, as has been suggested elsewhere, but they certainly seem good at ditching rules whenever it suits them. For years and years, women had to cover their hair when in church, usually by wearing a veil called a mantilla. Over time priests realised that this just wasn’t happening, and was a rule “more honoured in the breach than the observance”. So they just ditched it. The communion wafer, after the miraculous change, could only be handled by the priest, who placed it directly on the tongue of each celebrant. But then they got wise to the icky hygiene aspects of this, and so it was changed and the priest now puts the host into each person’s hand. First cremation was a no-no, then it was okay. At least here in the UK there is a dire shortage of priests, so ‘lay preachers’ often officiate at things like funerals. At the moment the church won’t allow women priests and ‘lay preachers’ can’t celebrate mass. But just you watch if the numbers of priests continue to decline to crisis point - my bet is that they’ll let women in, one way or another, and that they’ll consider allowing lay preachers to celebrate mass.
The keep trying to say that the rules and regs are somehow related to, or have the indirect authority of, the word of God. But then they show that as far as they are concerned, the rules are like pie crusts… made to be broken.
I would say your religious education was somewhat lacking.
No one ever claimed that a rule about women covering their hair in church was divinely inspired, or represented an unchanging aspect of the faith. Tomorrow, Pope Benedict could announce that the rules concerning priests’ vestments are antiquated, and that henceforth, priests will celebrate Mass in a tuxedo, top hat, and tails. That would indeed be a rule change, but it wouldn’t be a rule that was alleged to have any particular permanance.
In the secular world, it used to be that women could not vote or serve on juries. Then the law was changed. No one points at that exercise and calls it a loophole. It’s simply an exercise of the legislative authority of the country.
Every rule change that you mention falls into that category. The Church, in an exercise of legislative power, can certainly make up rules for people to follow that relate to the needs of the moment, and do not have any eternal or divine significance.
ianzin:
This just shows why someone should seek the advice of an Orthodox Rabbi before mucking around with questions of Jewish Law.
As I said in an earlier post, an Eruv is only allowed in places where the Torah permits carrying, but carrying was subsequently forbidden by Rabbinic edict. Places which conform to the Torah definition of “public domain” and where the Torah forbids carrying could never be included in an Eruv. Obviously, in this little thought-experiment of ignorance, the stretched Eruv would end up including areas which are forbidden by Torah law for carrying in and would no longer be a valid Eruv.
(That definition, in case you’re curious, is any place which 600,000 people pass through in the course of a day, and which includes an uncovered roadway at least 16 cubits…approximately 25-30 feet…in width. If these conditions are met, the place in question cannot be Eruv-ized.)
Just by way of accuracy - I think you will find that in the UK at least, ‘no fault divorce’ is not yet possible. It has been agreed that it WILL come into effect in the fullmess of time, but the actual implementation of it in law has been set aside by the ‘powers that be’ and the decision made that it won’t be coming into effect for AT LEAST the foreseeable future - as I understand it AT LEAST another few years!
As for the comment of annulment and divorce and the difference between the two. In my understanding of it, in times gone by, divorces could be obtained mainly on the grounds of BEHAVIOURAL issues, whereas annulments were based more on religious or procedural grounds? - e.g. having been forced into the marriage by parents etc, or the non-consummation of a marriage etc. In the eyes of the catholic church, divorce doesnt relinquish you of your responsibilities to your husband. Once married, ALWAYS married unless the marriage has been annulled. In fact, I am told there is even a passage in the bible somewhere (dont ask me where, but please DO let me know if YOU know!) which apparently says that when you die, you will be reunited (and rejoined) with your husband - from your FIRST marriage!! Bet THATS not good news for some!
There is a passage in the Bible that seems to imply that issues of marriage won’t matter after death:
This was in response to a question about a woman who was widowed six or seven times, asking which one she would be married to in the afterlife.
Disclaimer: IANACatholic, I have no idea what the Catholic Church says about being reunited with your spouse in the hereafter.
And suppose it was the aggrieved spouse who wanted the annulment? Is it still a loophole, or is it someone who believes she never really was married, but merely had a ceremony based on a lie?
I don’t think anyone is asserting that it’s never used as a loophole, or even denying that it might be frequent. But it’s not meant to be a loophole, and using it as a loophole requires a lie- I can’t get an annulment becasue I simply got tired of my husband after 10 years, found a new man and want to marry him. There might be an annulment if my innocent husband claims I clearly never intended to be faithful, and there might be one if I claim I never intended to be faithful. The only time it’s really a loophole is if I claim I never intended to be faithful and it’s not true. And it’s not much of a loophole- after all, God will know I lied and got the annulment under false pretenses.
I suppose so, given the historical precedent – more or less the same thing happened in Western Christendom during the late Middle Ages.
If I’m inferring the definition of “Nth degree” correctly, I would think it would be quite difficult for European nobility to find acceptable marriage partners beyond the 7th degree – thus making this another situation where “loopholes” would necessarily become routine.
The Saduccees were testing Jesus because they didn’t believe there was an afterlife and presented Him with what they believed was a conundrum that proved that the afterlife idea wouldn’t work. They asked Him what would happen to a woman who married a succession of men after each one died; who would she be married to in the afterlife? He said that things are different there and such things don’t matter.