It seems like we've failed a whole generation of adults with good examples of what a relationship should be like.
... the good examples are like your relationship I assume?
In some cultures parents are number 1, and the expectation is your elderly parents outrank your wife in terms of the devotion and love you should show them. Is that disrespectful too, or does it only apply to close friends?
Who are you to judge here?
I don’t believe the benefits of monogamous marriage are simply cultural. One would have to pose a better ideal for generating and raising children (because nurturing the next generation is a key part of societal survival) that leads to human flourishing. Is it polygamy, or casual hookups, or absentee fathers?
That said I do think there is more to the marriage relationship than procreation. That 2 people are becoming one. With that comes life long friendship bound by a vow that weathers the storms of life, close intimacy etc.
How so? Are you certain that your parents have no genetic interest in helping you and your offspring thrive?
A healthy relationship is one where each partner is dedicated selflessly to the flourishing of the other partner.
In any case, the idea of a "number one person" is also really two dimensional and limiting.
This sounds co-dependent to me, not healthy at all.
Any relationship that makes your feelings for someone dependent on their feelings for you is effectively a complicated form of bargaining.
I doubt any “platonic life-partner”…
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it.”
Doesn’t take more than a minute of reflection to figure out why we interpret it this way.
Edit @avar to your question ("posting too fast"): https://gist.github.com/gjsman/d928b0db53cc2a4bacf37d4e45543...
My understanding of catholic doctrine is that Jesus was part of the holy Trinity and knew it before he sacrificed himself.
Therefore when he sacrificed himself for humanity he wasn't in the sort of personal danger or at risk of eternal damnation that a mere mortal in his shoes would be.
I've always understood that as God making a grand gesture of some sort, not that Jesus was in personal danger comparable to that of a mortal in his shoes.
Of course being tortured for days before being guaranteed a seat by God's side in heaven upon death would royally suck in the short term.
But I'd think an internally cotsisconsistent interpretation of doctrine would call for a personal sacrifice short of that of Jesus in his last days from a mere mortal, the odds being stacked in the deity's favor. No?
“Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development… The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem… Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”
So because of that it isn't really necessary to logically evaluate it unless you want to poke holes in a Protestant and Fundamentalists cheery picked parts. I want to be careful to not run into a "No true Scottsman" thing here, but Catholics by and large have tried to adapt the Bible to modern problems, not dissimilar to Reform Judaism.
While certain strains of fundamentalism have literalist tendencies, there is nothing implicit literalist in fundamentalism. Some might look at the Five Fundamentals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93moderni...] and consider them implicitly literalist, but most of them are contained in the creeds and confessions that Catholicism and Protestantism hold together and so denying any of them would place one outside of either Catholic or Protestant doctrine.
I'm not particularly religious but over time I've come to respect the erudite and philosophical side of it. It's so easy to just dismiss the entire thing when looking at the worst of it which IMO tends towards protestant church's that are more a political organization than a spirituality center. Or of course the scandalous and criminal history of the Catholic church covering up so many bad things.
A Christian would say the same of themselves, because through Jesus, they have eternal life in Heaven.
That would make his moment of sacrifice an entirely human experience. imo, that but was designed intentionally because Catholics believe that everyone is a somewhat lesser version of Jesus in that way. Everyone has "original sin" and conflicts and doubt, but can be saved by the intent which they live their lives, not mere acts.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/could-jesus...
Catholics, in fact, are not a monoculture just because they follow the pope. If you travel the coasts, through the South and Midwest you'll see very stark delineations of Catholicism and their beliefs.
> Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
This is one such stark delineation. All Catholics are required to be inside it.
The holy trinity wasn't known to Jesus at the time of his life or death. It became apparent that he, the holy spirit, and god were the same post resurrection. That's what separates Jesus from other canonical characters like saints and disciples - he was destined to become one because it was God's manifestation of himself. The others are just humans with extraordinary presence whom God chooses to act on the world through. It was pretty clear Jesus perceived himself as the latter.
Anyway, I could be wrong. I learned all this nearly 20 years ago and only remember it because it was beat into me.
If this was beaten into you the school you went to was not Catholic or even Chalcedonian, which is a low, low bar. This appears to be some form of the heresy of kenoticism and your parents deserve a refund.
Catholic history, canon, etc were all part of our education. Beatings (corporal punishment) were part of Catholic education going back decades in the states. If you don't recognize this as part of Catholic history you're fooling yourself. What we had was less than corporal punishment, but having erasers tossed at you and being hit with rulers were expectations year over year.
As I said, I may have some details wrong but I'm 90% positive this is what we were taught.
The Catholic line would be something like "God created marriage as a kind of metaphor for your relationship with all people, as a kind of easy arena where you can play out the kind of love that you should extend to the entire world."
Jesus, after all, did not die for a wife except in this very metaphorical sense. He died for sinners, lazy shits, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc, etc, etc. That is what the calling in Catholicism is.
And this isn't?
While it certainly is a gross summary, saying that Catholicism calls on people to sacrifice (everything, if necessary) for any person, is accurate and pertinent to the idea that it only suggests this for one's spouse. Being willing to sacrifice for your spouse is necessary but not sufficient to be an optimal catholic.