Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[Era Might]

Marriage is no longer socially necessary the way it was for most of history. It was bound up with a lot of stuff that had nothing to do, strictly speaking, with marriage as a spiritual relationship. That included things like property inheritance, marriage contracts, economic manpower, gender supremacy, and high mortality rates for children.

I think the death of "family values" can be a good thing for Christianity, if it helps disentangle the Gospel from secular matters. Institutionalization of the family was itself a form of secularization. The real question here is not how to re-institutionalize the family, but how to actually take seriously the Gospel's appeal to human freedom. What does the Gospel have to recommend marriage when it excludes any secular appeal?

The goal of secular society is to replenish the race. The goal of Christianity is to reveal the end, when they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Let the married live as though unmarried, as St. Paul says. That doesn't make much sense to bright eyed young people in love, which I completely understand. We need to get away from this conception of the Gospel as an adventure to find fulfillment in life. I see the same ideology in vocations recruitment for the priesthood and religious life. And that, too, I completely understand, because modern people are born and raised in a world of marketing and therapeutic well-being and social organizing. We think life is a nice pagan society minus the paganism. But that's not the Gospel.

[Amppax]

Oh good, I was afraid this thread would die. /s

[polskieserce]

On 12/18/2016 at 8:36 PM, little2add said:

You know that:

Dear  polskieserce

its not aBout religion, 

It's about family

Most people aren't that altruistic and never will be.  Get that through your head.  About half of all marriages end in divorce.  A lot of those marriages had kids involved.  But that didn't stop those people from getting divorced.  For most people, the decision to get divorced is a pragmatic/secular decision, not a religious one.

The bottom line is that people need practical secular reasons to want to get married.  For women, those incentives exist in the form of an ultra-feminist legal system that awards women hefty settlements from their husbands earnings.  For men, the only incentives are to not get criticized by the older generation and not being told to "man up and stop complaining".  Men want children, sex, companionship, and a person to split bills with.  Men can obtain all of those things outside of marriage, which is precisely why men are far less interested in marriage than women.

 

On 5/30/2017 at 7:46 PM, JazzCleo said:

I'm in the process of learning the faith and couldn't agree more. Most Catholics I talk to (all cradle) don't know or understand what the Church teaches about sexuality and marriage. One recently engaged told me the Church isn't strict, so it will be easy for me to convert. Nice kid, but he is cohabiting with his wife and uses contraception. I doubt he knows they are both wrong. 

I think part of the problem is when people are schooled on what is true it's presented as more about morality from up on high and less about why it is beneficial to people. I naturally came to my own conclusions recently as a 37 year old single woman. I was delightfully surprised to read encyclicals that supported my views. But me coming to these conclusions ituitively was based on me seeing the spiritual and emotional health of viewing sex as a sacrament and wanting to not share it again until marriage. It wasn't shame, fear of cosmic retiribution or the cliche of "purity" that did it. It was the common sense that society is acting one way and it's not working. 

Well there are a lot of people who just don't agree with the Church's positions, even if they do understand them.  One major problem with the Church is that a good chunk of its teachings aren't rooted in black and white Biblical passages, such as the Church's stance against condoms.  If the Church made sure that every single teaching was tied to a black and white Biblical passage, then people would be far more inclined to either get with the program or walk away from Christianity altogether.

 

On 5/31/2017 at 0:49 AM, Era Might said:

Marriage is no longer socially necessary the way it was for most of history. It was bound up with a lot of stuff that had nothing to do, strictly speaking, with marriage as a spiritual relationship. That included things like property inheritance, marriage contracts, economic manpower, gender supremacy, and high mortality rates for children.

I think the death of "family values" can be a good thing for Christianity, if it helps disentangle the Gospel from secular matters. Institutionalization of the family was itself a form of secularization. The real question here is not how to re-institutionalize the family, but how to actually take seriously the Gospel's appeal to human freedom. What does the Gospel have to recommend marriage when it excludes any secular appeal?

The goal of secular society is to replenish the race. The goal of Christianity is to reveal the end, when they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Let the married live as though unmarried, as St. Paul says. That doesn't make much sense to bright eyed young people in love, which I completely understand. We need to get away from this conception of the Gospel as an adventure to find fulfillment in life. I see the same ideology in vocations recruitment for the priesthood and religious life. And that, too, I completely understand, because modern people are born and raised in a world of marketing and therapeutic well-being and social organizing. We think life is a nice pagan society minus the paganism. But that's not the Gospel.

What exactly are you proposing?

[Nihil Obstat]

26 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

Well there are a lot of people who just don't agree with the Church's positions, even if they do understand them.  One major problem with the Church is that a good chunk of its teachings aren't rooted in black and white Biblical passages, such as the Church's stance against condoms.  If the Church made sure that every single teaching was tied to a black and white Biblical passage, then people would be far more inclined to either get with the program or walk away from Christianity altogether.

Good thing for everyone, that is not how reality works. We are not Sola Scriptura Protestants, and our faith is infinitely richer because of it.

[Jack4]

33 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

Well there are a lot of people who just don't agree with the Church's positions, even if they do understand them.  One major problem with the Church is that a good chunk of its teachings aren't rooted in black and white Biblical passages, such as the Church's stance against condoms.  If the Church made sure that every single teaching was tied to a black and white Biblical passage, then people would be far more inclined to either get with the program or walk away from Christianity altogether.

I must have missed the black and white Biblical passage which teaches that all Church teaching must be drawn from black and white Biblical passages

[polskieserce]

11 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I must have missed the black and white Biblical passage which teaches that all Church teaching must be drawn from black and white Biblical passages

Black and White Biblical Passages Telling People Not to Add or Subtract from God's Commands

The problem with giving people free reign to decide what is right and wrong is that religion becomes a runaway train.  The Church has messed up before and it can mess up again if it doesn't rely solely on God for guidance.

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, polskieserce said:

What exactly are you proposing?

Just that the church not repeat the errors of the Middle Ages. The world is not a place of conquest, crusade, or reconquest, even moral reconquest. What did Jesus tell the disciples? Proclaim the kingdom of God (which is not of this world), and if they will not receive you, shake the dust from your feet and move on.

The decline of marriage has nothing to do with people being any more evil or sinful than any previous age. In fact, the decline of marriage has coincided with less direct violence in society. People generally don't slaughter each other for religion or heresy. The decline of marriage is just a reflection of a world where marriage is not a strictly necessary institution, as it used to be. It is not the church's mission to restore marriage as a social institution anymore than to restore monarchy.

I'm currently reading a history of the end of Christendom, i.e., a history of Europe from 1517-1648. Here's some stats:

Quote

How many men and women chose not to get married at all remains unknown, although it may have been as high as 10-20 percent of the population. For those who married, the pattern of marital fertility corresponded to the modern biological clock, highest for women aged between twenty and twenty-four, and declining thereafter, gently at first, but more rapidly the closer the mother reached forty, by which time most women had conceived for the last time in their life. Illegitimacy rates, however, were at levels that modern advocates of family values could only dream of. Somewhere between 4 and 10 percent of brides plighting their troth were already pregnant-but over half of them were in the early months and legitimating their condition.

It goes on to note that illegitimate births were on the decline, possibly because of greater social and sexual discipline during the 16th century's religious reformation. But, I would note that marriage was never the romantic ideal we might imagine, and further, social and sexual discipline were part of a broader war in society, leading to much slaughter and eventually the collapse of Christian civilization altogether. In other words, it's not a good thing for the church to be a partisan in a culture war. The church is here to reveal human freedom, not to make sure everyone falls in line with a civilizing program.

You say the church needs to provide more secular incentives for marriage. I don't think that is the church's purpose. If the church wants to save marriage, let it proclaim the essence of Christian relationship, which marriage is only one form of. We don't need secular incentives to forgive our brother 70 times 7, we need something else entirely; same with marriage.

So, I'm not proposing anything, just saying that the question is: what is the Christian purpose of marriage when you exclude all secular motivations whatsoever? That is what the church should be asking.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Era Might

[Guest]

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" (Thessalonians Chapter 2)

Did the Holy Spirit cease inspiring and motivating after inspiriting the authors' of The Bible?  We do know, however, that Revelation is completed by Scripture.  We also believe that The Holy Spirit continues to inspire and motivate - He gifts insight into the Words of Scripture, into Revelation.  After all Scripture is an inexhaustible treasury - Romans Chapter 11 ⁶ Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! "':

John Chapter 16 :  Jesus is speaking to His apostles before His Death: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes (my note -i.e. Pentecost), the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

14 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Edit for space

 

Well there are a lot of people who just don't agree with the Church's positions, even if they do understand them.  One major problem with the Church is that a good chunk of its teachings aren't rooted in black and white Biblical passages, such as the Church's stance against condoms.  If the Church made sure that every single teaching was tied to a black and white Biblical passage, then people would be far more inclined to either get with the program or walk away from Christianity altogether.

 

The above should have appeared in my post.  I was responding to the above.

Finally:

Matthew Chapter 16: "

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. ¹⁴Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Authority to make and to unmake laws etc. in The Church.  It is also authority to free people of sin or not to do so.

The very "Whatever" at the beginning of the above quotation says it all.

Edited June 2, 2017 by BarbaraTherese

[Jack4]

14 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Black and White Biblical Passages Telling People Not to Add or Subtract from God's Commands

1. The verses don't mean what you think they mean. Otherwise, explain how, after adding to the statutes was prohibited in Deuteronomy, more books of the Canon - including the entire New Testament- were written.

2. Also, since you want teachings to be based on "black-and-white" verses of Scripture;

Do you believe in the Trinity of God? Is there a black and white verse of Scripture which say that three Divine Persons are one God, one nature?

Similarly, do you believe in the hypostatic union?

Quote

The problem with giving people free reign to decide what is right and wrong is that religion becomes a runaway train. 

Unless, of course, these people have infallibility.

Quote

The Church has messed up before...

...but not in what it teaches as binding truths which deserve the assent of faith.

[little2add]

17 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Most people aren't that altruistic and never will be. 

Let me guess, your single?

17 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Men want children, sex, companionship, and a person to split bills with. 

there is a lot more too it, in fact you are sadly uninformed

[Guest]

I'm single and I think that altruism is most everywhere.  People showing care and concern for others without any personal agenda at all other than the wellbeing of the other.  People who are generous in giving of time and money, unselfish with time and money.

I was married for 15 years and have a biological son and a foster son, both married now and in their early fifties, both independent with careers.  It certainly takes unselfishness to keep a marriage a happy marriage and to raise children.  However, now I am single and rather heavily invested in the welfare of others for no other reason than I feel called to do so as a matter of identity - of living out who I intrinsically am.  A by product is happiness and fulfilment, Peace - not without at times major struggles and difficulties mind you -  while not living this way in order to be happy and fulfilled, at Peace.   Also I strive to be generous with time and money and to a fault at times I have been told I - and for no other reason than at times money and time is needed in the interest of the other(s)

My note - please be kind to us singles committed to it, striving daily to be devoted and faithful and no easy ride whatsoever at all.  It aint the easy way and ride, lacking commitment, at all.......it is completely and totally deluded thinking to think and state that it is.  Nor do we have any great celebration nor heralding at any point whatsoever in our journey.  Probably the best and most realistic thing we can hope for is to be ignored and rather dismissed as valued.  The worst is to be deliberately and personally insulted in various ways.   So there

I know, I know...........

"Take up your cross and follow Me"

[Norseman82]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, polskieserce said:

One major problem with the Church is that a good chunk of its teachings aren't rooted in black and white Biblical passages, such as the Church's stance against condoms.  If the Church made sure that every single teaching was tied to a black and white Biblical passage, then people would be far more inclined to either get with the program or walk away from Christianity altogether.

 

I normally agree with what you write, but this is one instance in which you could not be more wrong. 

First, the protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura" is not in the Bible, and the verses some protestants use to justify it are not valid. 

Second, if you study in depth the Catholic doctrines in regards to faith and morals, you will find that the Catholic stance is actually closer to the Bible than other denominations!  Now, you may have to read the Bible not just literally, but also contextually, and also trace the development (or constancy) of the doctrine through the Bible in both Old and New Testaments, but you can indeed trace the doctrinal matters back to the Bible.  This what is known as "apologetics".   I would highly suggest you look into this, it will be enlightening.

As far as the specific question of condoms are concerned, although the word "condom" is not in the Bible (I don't even know if they had such things back then), the stance against contraception is rooted in Genesis 38:6-10 in which God was offended that Onan wasted his seed. 

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 0:16 PM, polskieserce said:

The problem with giving people free reign to decide what is right and wrong is that religion becomes a runaway train.  The Church has messed up before and it can mess up again if it doesn't rely solely on God for guidance.

And this is exactly why we should not be doing "private interpretation" and why the Church's role is in fact to prevent the "runaway train".

[havok579257]

On 11/6/2016 at 11:39 AM, polskieserce said:

I am not blindly insisting on a viewpoint or my personal experience.  I am merely stating the realities of the world we live in.  In the real world, the more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish a goal, the higher the chance of failure gets.  It doesn't matter if it pertains to having sex, completing a Phd program, or climbing Mount Everest.  Men have a higher mountain to climb than women do when it comes to having sex.  A girl has to just make sure she looks good and doesn't live in isolation.  A guy has to make sure he looks great, doesn't live in isolation, has to be a decent conversationalist who is good at initiating social contact, has to be at least semi-financially stable, has some form of transportation, and has to be good at reading the "beat around the bush" communication style of most girls.  Yes, there are exceptions to each of the points I listed, but that's what's expected of guys for the most part.  More women are having premarital sex than men.  That's a bigger travesty than a handful of male players who are sleeping around with a bunch of girls.

 

 

 

so your basing your judgment off of no factual evidence and your preconcieved notions.  but sure, people should believe what you say on this subject.  the simple fact is, you have no proof women sleep around more than men.  all you have is what you believe which again must be stated, has no basis in fact.  so please explain why when you present no facts, should we believe your ideas are correct?

[Norseman82]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 0:16 PM, polskieserce said:

Black and White Biblical Passages Telling People Not to Add or Subtract from God's Commands

 

I checked the link.  FYI, it is a non-Catholic site.  As far as the three Bible verses in it are concerned: 

1)  Regarding the two in Deuteronomy, then technically Jesus would be guilty of adding/subtracting to it, wouldn't He? 

2)  Regarding the one in Revelations, the "book" described most likely refers to the Book of Revelations, not the entire Bible, since it refers to the "prophetic message of the book", which is also referred to in the introduction of the Book of Revelations (1:1-3).

[polskieserce]

On 6/1/2017 at 3:35 PM, Era Might said:

Just that the church not repeat the errors of the Middle Ages. The world is not a place of conquest, crusade, or reconquest, even moral reconquest. What did Jesus tell the disciples? Proclaim the kingdom of God (which is not of this world), and if they will not receive you, shake the dust from your feet and move on.

The decline of marriage has nothing to do with people being any more evil or sinful than any previous age. In fact, the decline of marriage has coincided with less direct violence in society. People generally don't slaughter each other for religion or heresy. The decline of marriage is just a reflection of a world where marriage is not a strictly necessary institution, as it used to be. It is not the church's mission to restore marriage as a social institution anymore than to restore monarchy.

I'm currently reading a history of the end of Christendom, i.e., a history of Europe from 1517-1648. Here's some stats:

It goes on to note that illegitimate births were on the decline, possibly because of greater social and sexual discipline during the 16th century's religious reformation. But, I would note that marriage was never the romantic ideal we might imagine, and further, social and sexual discipline were part of a broader war in society, leading to much slaughter and eventually the collapse of Christian civilization altogether. In other words, it's not a good thing for the church to be a partisan in a culture war. The church is here to reveal human freedom, not to make sure everyone falls in line with a civilizing program.

You say the church needs to provide more secular incentives for marriage. I don't think that is the church's purpose. If the church wants to save marriage, let it proclaim the essence of Christian relationship, which marriage is only one form of. We don't need secular incentives to forgive our brother 70 times 7, we need something else entirely; same with marriage.

So, I'm not proposing anything, just saying that the question is: what is the Christian purpose of marriage when you exclude all secular motivations whatsoever? That is what the church should be asking.

In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Middle Ages, we need to avoid the way of thinking that got humanity to that point in the first place.

Whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic Church has made restoring marriage one of its primary missions.  The problem is that marriage was never purely about religion.  It was also about sexual reproduction, property arrangements, etc.  The restoration of marriage will never fully be achieved until the Church comes to terms with the fact that marriages were driven by many factors that were far stronger than religious dogma.  Religious dogma alone is only enough to drive the fringe (hard-line Traditionalist Catholics) to the pews.

Forgiving someone is not the same as getting married.  If I choose to forgive someone, I don't have to worry about that person taking 50% or more of my livelihood away from me.  However, marriage is dangerous for the very reason that wealth becomes legally shared.  Many people have reservations about marriage because they don't want to lose their stuff in a divorce.  The Church could mitigate this danger by letting people marry without state contracts, but whatever.

 

On 6/2/2017 at 3:04 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" (Thessalonians Chapter 2)

Did the Holy Spirit cease inspiring and motivating after inspiriting the authors' of The Bible?  We do know, however, that Revelation is completed by Scripture.  We also believe that The Holy Spirit continues to inspire and motivate - He gifts insight into the Words of Scripture, into Revelation.  After all Scripture is an inexhaustible treasury - Romans Chapter 11 ⁶ Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! "':

John Chapter 16 :  Jesus is speaking to His apostles before His Death: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes (my note -i.e. Pentecost), the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

The above should have appeared in my post.  I was responding to the above.

Finally:

Matthew Chapter 16: "

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, ¹³ and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. ¹⁴Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Authority to make and to unmake laws etc. in The Church.  It is also authority to free people of sin or not to do so.

The very "Whatever" at the beginning of the above quotation says it all.

And where does Papal discretion end?  There most likely never would have been a Protestant Reformation in the first place if prior Popes hadn't abused their power so much.  Some Popes were accused of having lovers and children of their own.  Some of them went on the battlefield and fought against some of their very own Catholic followers.  The Church executed its grandiose building projects while common people all over Europe were struggling to stay alive.  And selling forgiveness for money?

 

On 6/2/2017 at 4:16 AM, Jack4 said:

1. The verses don't mean what you think they mean. Otherwise, explain how, after adding to the statutes was prohibited in Deuteronomy, more books of the Canon - including the entire New Testament- were written.

2. Also, since you want teachings to be based on "black-and-white" verses of Scripture;

Do you believe in the Trinity of God? Is there a black and white verse of Scripture which say that three Divine Persons are one God, one nature?

Similarly, do you believe in the hypostatic union?

Unless, of course, these people have infallibility.

...but not in what it teaches as binding truths which deserve the assent of faith.

People don't even know what God is.  All we have been told is that there is some higher intelligence that created humanity, gave us rules to follow, got mad when humans didn't follow those rules, and sent down his Son to set us straight.  I believe in God to this day because I simply can't accept the idea that humans naturally evolved from primitive apes.  Humans are by far the most peculiar species on the planet that doesn't remotely resemble the others.  Humans had to have been created by a higher power, a higher power we call God.  But if I really interrogated you on the topic, you wouldn't actually be able to give me a scientific explanation of what God is.

To the furthest extent of our knowledge, God has never revealed his true identity to us.  When Jesus started teaching the Israelites, he turned the orthodox understanding of religion on its side.  If God were to truly reveal himself to humanity, the Church's understanding of God may very well be proven inaccurate.

 

On 6/2/2017 at 7:07 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

I'm single and I think that altruism is most everywhere.  People showing care and concern for others without any personal agenda at all other than the wellbeing of the other.  People who are generous in giving of time and money, unselfish with time and money.

I was married for 15 years and have a biological son and a foster son, both married now and in their early fifties, both independent with careers.  It certainly takes unselfishness to keep a marriage a happy marriage and to raise children.  However, now I am single and rather heavily invested in the welfare of others for no other reason than I feel called to do so as a matter of identity - of living out who I intrinsically am.  A by product is happiness and fulfilment, Peace - not without at times major struggles and difficulties mind you -  while not living this way in order to be happy and fulfilled, at Peace.   Also I strive to be generous with time and money and to a fault at times I have been told I - and for no other reason than at times money and time is needed in the interest of the other(s)

My note - please be kind to us singles committed to it, striving daily to be devoted and faithful and no easy ride whatsoever at all.  It aint the easy way and ride, lacking commitment, at all.......it is completely and totally deluded thinking to think and state that it is.  Nor do we have any great celebration nor heralding at any point whatsoever in our journey.  Probably the best and most realistic thing we can hope for is to be ignored and rather dismissed as valued.  The worst is to be deliberately and personally insulted in various ways.   So there

I know, I know...........

"Take up your cross and follow Me"

I will give you the same answer I gave to Era Might, marriage in the modern age is a tall order due to the legalities.  If I were to get married to a girl and divorce her 10 years later, she would be entitled to 50% (or more) of the stuff even if she was earning 25% of the total income.  The Church could alleviate these concerns, at least for American Catholics, by no longer requiring a government marriage license in order to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony.  But of course, Catholics will always find a way to argue to death over the most minute things.  Even if the government marriage license requirement is eventually dropped, I don't think it will be in my lifetime.  On top of that, the Catholic Church is really hardcore about people not being allowed to remarry if their marriage can't be annulled.  I could get married to someone, she could be the worst wife imaginable, and I wouldn't be able to get remarried.

I'm not willing to put that much on the line unless the girl is absolutely out of this world.

 

On 6/4/2017 at 10:30 PM, havok579257 said:

so your basing your judgment off of no factual evidence and your preconcieved notions.  but sure, people should believe what you say on this subject.  the simple fact is, you have no proof women sleep around more than men.  all you have is what you believe which again must be stated, has no basis in fact.  so please explain why when you present no facts, should we believe your ideas are correct?

Havok, there isn't going to be any reliable information on such a taboo and personal subject matter.  Most girls aren't going to tell a random researcher their sexual history because they don't want to be seen as hoes.

But the simple reality remains: men have more hurdles to overcome than women do to have sex.

Fewer hurdles = higher chance that a certain goal gets achieved

More hurdles = lower chance that a certain goal gets achieved

It doesn't matter if the goal is to get laid, graduate from college, start a business, etc.  Good looking people have a better chance of getting laid that ugly people.  Students from wealthier families where everyone graduated from college are more likely to finish college themselves than impoverished, 1st gen college students.  Guys who get small loans of a million dollars from their parents are more likely to be wealthy than a blue collar kid who invests 5 grand that he has been saving up for.  Only a moron doesn't understand this simple fact of life. 

 

On 6/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Norseman82 said:

I checked the link.  FYI, it is a non-Catholic site.  As far as the three Bible verses in it are concerned: 

1)  Regarding the two in Deuteronomy, then technically Jesus would be guilty of adding/subtracting to it, wouldn't He? 

2)  Regarding the one in Revelations, the "book" described most likely refers to the Book of Revelations, not the entire Bible, since it refers to the "prophetic message of the book", which is also referred to in the introduction of the Book of Revelations (1:1-3).

Jesus was not an ordinary human.  He was the Son of God.  That rule doesn't apply to him for the same reason that the "no work on the Sabbath" didn't apply to him.

I agree that the quotes listed are limited in scope/context, but it does go to show that God wasn't keen on adding too much stuff.  God created the human race and knows that we have far more limitations than he does.  That's why I think that God wouldn't want to overburden humanity.