Gezza

give it time. One day it may become your own!

TrishP

Pigtales - we moved to Northwestern Ontario at the beginning of October, we both love the area and the people here and I have absolutely no regrets about being so far from 'home' - to me, this is home now! As I said, moving gave me the impetus to get off my ass and do something about being miserable all the time in my relationship.

Gezza - I am a Christian (as is hubbie) and certainly on my part there has been no loss of faith in God, in fact this has probably strengthened my beliefs as He is helping me to cope with this new and scary situation I find myself in (haven't been a 'single girl' for 12 years). On reading the bible about divorce and relationships (and I still have much more to go on the subject), God intended that 2 people unite and become one; however, he did not intend that the union should be unbreakable, especially if one person is suffering abuse at the hands of another.

Gezza

As far as I know You are not wrong! The Bilble only condemns Adultery separation is itself perfectly o.k. I can imagine that situations such as this can be very hard on people. I one met a guy who lived - Married and yet celibate and alone for 18 years after his wife vanished with another man 4 months after they got married (In Church). It is worth remembering that Lord rewards for the efforts not the results.

TrishP

Cheers! Karma sent for not shooting me down as everyone else on the BE forum does when I mention Christianity!

It's OK in society these days to say you're a Muslim, Buddhist, Humanist, whatever, but as soon as anyone mentions Christianity, people think they have the right to shoot down your beliefs. That's the problem with being brought up in the UK, a culture based on Christian values, where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - where, just cos you went to Sunday school and learned about Daniel in the lions' den or Moses and the burning bush, people think they know what Christianity is about!! Without ever opening a bible!!

Are you and your family any further forward with making your decision about moving back to Canada?

Gezza

:scared:

TrishP

I've got to the point in life where it's not actually worth worrying about stuff like that - I truly believe that we were brought to Red Lake as part of God's plan for our lives - we really had no idea where to go until I got an e-mail out of the blue asking if I'd be interested in a job here. I'd never even heard of the place before!!
I still believe this, even more strongly now.

Whatever decision you make, you'll know it's the right one and truly from God when you get THAT feeling, you'll know what I'm talking about!!

Take care, keep communicating with Him and it'll work out to your advantage in the end, no matter where you end up!

dingbat

Not if you are Roman Catholic. Separation is frowned upon still. Even with abuse, partners are still counselled to work it through, particularly if there are kids involved. Without an annulment after civil divorce, you are left in limbo land.

TrishP

Being a Christian is different from being 'Roman Catholic' - Roman Catholicism is a man-made religion. Christianity is a faith. I prefer to follow what it says in the bible, you can't go wrong! If a church left me high a dry without support when I needed it because they (humans) deemed wrong for me to escape abuse, its not exactly following the teachings of the bible and isn't worth going to! The bible teaches against being judgemental towards others -that's God's job!

Gezza

"Upon you (Peter) I shall build the Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it?". I can not see how, in this context RC is man-made any more than any other Religion in the World, Trish. Thinking this way you can easily end up thinking that all religions other than your personal one - based on your own interpretation of the Bible - are no good. And making yourself the Head of your own Religion is, without a doubt, very convenient. This is also what the enemy wants above all other things and the Catholic Church has a name for it: Apostasy.

Always21

Actually, the verse reads "Upon this rock", not "upon you". I just checked a number of Bible versions and didn't see any that translate it "upon you". The following is from Matthew Henry's commentary as to why this verse does not constitute Peter being the first Pope:

First, Some by this rock understand Peter himself as an apostle, the chief, though not the prince, of the twelve, senior among them, but not superior over them. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, Eph. 2:20. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, Rev. 21:14. Now Peter being that apostle by whose hand the first stones of the church were laid, both in Jewish converts (Acts 2), and in the Gentile converts (Acts 10), he might in some sense be said to be the rock on which it was built. Cephas was one that seemed to be a pillar, Gal. 2:9. But it sounds very harsh, to call a man that only lays the first stone of a building, which is a transient act, the foundation on which it is built, which is an abiding thing. Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question.

It is past question when considering verses like 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" The Popes and "saints" can't be mediators as well when the Bible says there is only one.

Anyway, I'm just defending this position in light of the above post but I'm not interested in a huge religious debate as that's not why I come to this forum, so I shall end now.

TrishP

Hi Gerard

Didin't mean to cause any offence - I just don't agree with large-scale religions that have loads of rules and regs; I don't agree with the Catholic Church and other mainline religions like the Anglican church owning so much wealth yet stand by and watch people suffer in poverty and other such nonsense, like kissing rings on people's hands, etc. I just prefer to read the bible and interpret it according to how the Holy Spirit guides me to. It's certainly not my personal interpretation of the bible! I think you're right tho' - there's a danger in making yourself the head of your own religion, but isn't that how the religions of the world started? One man's interpretation and others follow it?

Gezza

Your argument is not invalid. And if in time the Pope starts to legalise questionable ideas, it will become even more popular. Myself prefer to stick to the Holy See mainly because I think without its authority we would have had North Korea all over the world by now. And even a very large number of individual faithful reading their own Bibles would not stand in the way. And I am not sure who would oversee writing the Bible for that matter. The fact, as it was published lately, that it was kgb who had plotted the assessination attempt on JP II, only proves how important the RCC is.

daft batty

Do you also mean then that you have to have faith in god to love? Because in my opinion thats tosh. I love; i love my husband, my family and close friends but I dont have a religion or faith, I dont believe in the concept of deities governing our lives, forgiving sins and so on. For those who do believe in god then i think its a bit harsh for you to say that because someone marriage breaks down then its because they have lost their faith, i don't think the two are inextricably linked at all, indeed someones faith may see them though the dark days of a break up.

BillBart1

This thread is turning into a pile of sanctimonious drivel which I could frankly do without...

If you want to preach go somewhere else... I can do without your kind of help/lecturing thanks!

Bill

phoenixinoz

God will get you for that