Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ma3vis t1_j2l6qpl wrote

Reply to comment by DragonGarlicBreath in The nun and the monk who fell in love and married by Stanny491

I think it's cause Nuns are often depicted as "brides of Christ" married to either Jesus or the church (which I think is a popularized myth). Apparently it’s a metaphor meant to better understand their commitments to Chasity, which works for some people, but it’s not something that is literal or universally embraced. So to give that up is like you're divorcing Christ himself probably to some folks out there.

I understand people taking a vow of celibacy but I also feel like to devote yourself entirely to it is in rejection of the biblical message of Adam and Eve, God's message to be fruitful and multiply, and so on. That said, even for asexual people of faith there's always the option to adopt and be stewards that way, so I see no outright harm in such. Just that certain institutions are unfortunately misleading their own clergy.

97

arkofjoy t1_j2mncjc wrote

Don't forget that the whole chastity came in to prevent senior priests from claiming church lands for children.

The whole "teachings of Jesus being used to amass power and wealth" has some problems that they certainly didn't learn from the Carpenters son.

59

Thedarknight1611 t1_j2nfdts wrote

It's also notable that only the catholic church really has that rule most other denominations your free to get married because they realize how backwards the rule is

12

arkofjoy t1_j2nn05u wrote

True, but most of those came after the church had all those lands.

Didn't Henry the 8 take a bunch of the Catholic churches lands in England and make it his own?

7

Thedarknight1611 t1_j2noq6m wrote

I believe so because he started the Anglican church and voided all catholic church lands. Giving them to the Anglican church instead

7

arkofjoy t1_j2nr0mw wrote

Ah, OK, then I mis- remembered. I thought he took all the Catholic church lands for the crown and did not give them to the Anglican Church.

2

billypilgrim87 t1_j2r4hft wrote

The Anglican Church was an instrument of the crown, so it's sort of the same thing really.

1

arkofjoy t1_j2rumtr wrote

That is true, but I thought part of the purpose of the break with the Catholic church was to remove the power of the church over the government. So if they were still large landholders, they would still have a lot of power.

But it seems that I remember my of my English history wrongly.

1

MrHazard1 t1_j2lwupp wrote

Almost like the whole concept is flawed and full of contradictions. And people use whatever part they need to fit the point, they're trying to make

18

Douchebazooka t1_j2mt93m wrote

Oh, wow, someone hostile to religion on the Internet! What a rarely encountered treat!

−4

MrHazard1 t1_j2mzofb wrote

>Oh, wow, someone hostile to religion on the Internet! reddit

Fify. I think these discussions wouldn't be as onesided if this was facebook.

7

lrpfftt t1_j2n6u3n wrote

Hostile or realistic?

4

Douchebazooka t1_j2n6zb5 wrote

You do realize this kind of take isn't clever or new, right? It just sounds like a teenager who just told their parents they're an atheist and thinks anyone else cares.

−13

lrpfftt t1_j2n79v4 wrote

Sounds more to me like someone who never fell for religious nonsense in the first place.

It's good that this couple found one another and had a real life instead of the "cult" they belonged to before.

5

notnotaginger t1_j2ne78l wrote

They asked a question you dodged: hostile or realistic?

2

Douchebazooka t1_j2nea1w wrote

I didn't dodge it; it's a false dichotomy. It's not a dodge to refuse to engage with fallacious arguments.

−5

notnotaginger t1_j2nkev3 wrote

Can you explain how it is hostile, then?

4

Douchebazooka t1_j2nkrgm wrote

Because the definitions of hostile include "antagonistic," "not friendly," and "showing a desire to thwart." It's literally right there for everyone to read, unless you're cherry-picking your definition of hostile to only include outright attacks rather than disposition.

−2

notnotaginger t1_j2nmke1 wrote

And how did their comment fit that, is the question? Or is it just your interpretation?

2

Douchebazooka t1_j2nmvqs wrote

>Almost like the whole concept is flawed and full of contradictions. And people use whatever part they need to fit the point, they're trying to make

Perhaps you can tell me how the above is friendly to someone's religious beliefs instead, because if you can't find the hostility in that comment, I honestly have no idea how we're going to find reasonable common ground here

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2nnbr9 wrote

Is pointing out flaws hostile? Yikes. If your boss points out an error in your work, is that hostile? Or is it important to analyze our own flaws?

Your definition is super snowflakey.

4

Douchebazooka t1_j2nnjfm wrote

You're either being intentionally dense or playing coy. I'm not sure which. Claiming something is a flaw while arguing a straw man is not genuinely pointing out flaws. It's the underlying supposition and approach that is hostile.

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2no6am wrote

Where’s the flaw? Do you have an assertion that there is no contradictions? Because I went to Bible school and in my education even the professors pointed out contradictions and how they dealt with them

3

Douchebazooka t1_j2nobdb wrote

Ah, "Bible school." Have a nice day. You're not engaged in an honest discussion, and I'm not interested in wasting my time. :)

−1

notnotaginger t1_j2nox26 wrote

Sounds like your hostile towards Bible school, by your own definition. Where I am it’s a four year university, and I came out with a BA.

For someone who wants others to follow logical rules of discourse, you’re dismissing mine based on your own prejudices.

If you truly care about logical discourse, you can ALWAYS explain your argument.

And obfuscating when I ask about contradictions says a lot.

You have much higher standards for other then yourself.

6

[deleted] t1_j2odp6x wrote

Oh look, a religious hypocrite. What a rare find!

3

Douchebazooka t1_j2omgk7 wrote

Oh look, accusations of hypocrisy from a nu-atheist with literally no supporting evidence! How novel and not at all a rhetorical device at this point!

−2

lirannl t1_j2nnd59 wrote

From an outsider's perspective (atheist), it seems that vows are swears (and by that I mean "I swear to uphold xyz", not "fuck"), so you would never ever be allowed to break them, theologically speaking? Is that not the point of a vow (if not, what is the point of a vow?)

2