Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
12
@vitalis
Weak b8 m8
Weak b8 m8
are you mormon?
Genesis 30:9 reveals that having multiple spouses will only yield multiple wounds. God is clear in his singular design of marriage. The NT reaffirms this in 1 Corinthians 7:2.
@vitalis
Gotta read the whole chapter. You can't cherry pick.
Corinthians is telling you not to step outside of marriage and gives some general advice about marriage. It's not contradicting the OT. Again, read the whole chapter.
Gotta read the whole chapter. You can't cherry pick.
Corinthians is telling you not to step outside of marriage and gives some general advice about marriage. It's not contradicting the OT. Again, read the whole chapter.
how did polygamy turn out for Jacob?
@vitalis
A legacy, inheritance, and eventual liberation from wage slavery.
A legacy, inheritance, and eventual liberation from wage slavery.
the jealousy between Jacob’s rival wives only created sorrow and bitterness. the favoritism towards the children of Rachel sowed seeds of division, nearly destroying the family and Jacob himself.
consequently, Jacob’s polygamy and favoritism culminate into Cain-like actions by the children of the unfavored wives, who nearly kill Joseph and sell him into slavery
consequently, Jacob’s polygamy and favoritism culminate into Cain-like actions by the children of the unfavored wives, who nearly kill Joseph and sell him into slavery
@vitalis
You may want to reread Chapter 29. Jacob sold himself into slavery to acquire the wives.
You may want to reread Chapter 29. Jacob sold himself into slavery to acquire the wives.
G P B
@pepsi_man @vitalis Pepsi_man is correct. Polygamy is not explicitly outlawed or labelled sinful by God. He warns of its consequences but does not ever say it is an abomination or to not do it.
@The_Grand_Pooh_Bah @pepsi_man if we’re going to go there, could it also not be said that being gay is not explicitly outlawed, only warnings of its consequences?
@vitalis @pepsi_man >Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
>If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
>For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.
Do you not read your bible? Or are you purposefully being a nuisance?
>If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
>For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.
Do you not read your bible? Or are you purposefully being a nuisance?
Replies
7
I said being gay, not about the consequences of committing sexual relations with the same sex.
in any case, I firmly believe that a monogamous relationship between husband and wife is a sacred tradition.
in any case, I firmly believe that a monogamous relationship between husband and wife is a sacred tradition.
@vitalis @pepsi_man >I said being gay, not being gay
Your sentence is tautological, but I'm going to engage with you in good faith and assume you are not being deliberately and maliciously retarded.
You can not "be [in essence] gay", you are a gay when you do things that are gay.
For example: If a man has [misplaced] attraction toward men because he was molested as a child, that does not make a man gay. It makes him prone to same sex attraction. What makes him gay is whether he permits, entertains, or acts on those thoughts.
If a man never does these things, he is not gay.
So yes, being gay is a sin, an abomination in the eyes of God.
Also, just because you seem to need the basics: No one is born gay.
If you believe this, you are retarded, but the bad kind of retarded.
The gay kind.
Your sentence is tautological, but I'm going to engage with you in good faith and assume you are not being deliberately and maliciously retarded.
You can not "be [in essence] gay", you are a gay when you do things that are gay.
For example: If a man has [misplaced] attraction toward men because he was molested as a child, that does not make a man gay. It makes him prone to same sex attraction. What makes him gay is whether he permits, entertains, or acts on those thoughts.
If a man never does these things, he is not gay.
So yes, being gay is a sin, an abomination in the eyes of God.
Also, just because you seem to need the basics: No one is born gay.
If you believe this, you are retarded, but the bad kind of retarded.
The gay kind.
I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith, because I care not to sling insults even if you feel I am being genuinely retarded in my beliefs.
I follow Catholic doctrine, which is to say that solely having same-sex attractions itself is not considered inherently sinful. it is the act of engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same sex that is regarded as a grave sin.
on the original topic of this meme, I must ask do you support polygamy? do you feel it righteous to have many wives?
I follow Catholic doctrine, which is to say that solely having same-sex attractions itself is not considered inherently sinful. it is the act of engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same sex that is regarded as a grave sin.
on the original topic of this meme, I must ask do you support polygamy? do you feel it righteous to have many wives?
@vitalis @pepsi_man Of course.
I am curious, does Catholic doctrine truly not think that entertaining homosexual thoughts (to be clear ones that come and are not dismissed or worse are encouraged) is not sin? Only a sexual activity would count?
If it is a matter of the thoughts being unbidden, I would still say they are sin. Do not my thoughts of lust for an attractive married woman come unbidden to my mind? Yet this is lust. Do not also feelings of covetousness not come unbidden when my neighbor happens upon great wealth by chance? Yet this is in violation of the tenth commandment.
I do believe this is sin. Though I know it is inherent in me. Because I do not welcome the thoughts just as the Christian man struggling with same sex attraction does not welcome his, does not mean that it is not sin. To me it is only evidence that I live in sinful flesh. A nature I look to be free of in eternity.
As to the gravity of the sin, I know that action is graver than thought in both natural and positive law. However sin begets death no matter the severity of it.
I am curious, does Catholic doctrine truly not think that entertaining homosexual thoughts (to be clear ones that come and are not dismissed or worse are encouraged) is not sin? Only a sexual activity would count?
If it is a matter of the thoughts being unbidden, I would still say they are sin. Do not my thoughts of lust for an attractive married woman come unbidden to my mind? Yet this is lust. Do not also feelings of covetousness not come unbidden when my neighbor happens upon great wealth by chance? Yet this is in violation of the tenth commandment.
I do believe this is sin. Though I know it is inherent in me. Because I do not welcome the thoughts just as the Christian man struggling with same sex attraction does not welcome his, does not mean that it is not sin. To me it is only evidence that I live in sinful flesh. A nature I look to be free of in eternity.
As to the gravity of the sin, I know that action is graver than thought in both natural and positive law. However sin begets death no matter the severity of it.
St. Augustine teaches that where there is no consent there can be no sin.
”Nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium.” (De Vera Rel, cap. xiv.)
though intrusive temptation, a rebellion of the senses, or the evil motion of the inferior parts, should be very violent in mind, there is no sin as long as there is no consent
From St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“In two ways men err regarding bad thoughts. Some who have the fear of God, are scrupulous, and are afraid that every bad thought that presents itself to the mind is a sin. This is an error. It is not the bad thought, but the consent to it, that is sinful. All the malice of mortal sin consists in a bad will, in giving to a sin a perfect consent, with full advertence to the malice of the sin.”
”Nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium.” (De Vera Rel, cap. xiv.)
though intrusive temptation, a rebellion of the senses, or the evil motion of the inferior parts, should be very violent in mind, there is no sin as long as there is no consent
From St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“In two ways men err regarding bad thoughts. Some who have the fear of God, are scrupulous, and are afraid that every bad thought that presents itself to the mind is a sin. This is an error. It is not the bad thought, but the consent to it, that is sinful. All the malice of mortal sin consists in a bad will, in giving to a sin a perfect consent, with full advertence to the malice of the sin.”
@vitalis @pepsi_man Interesting, I did some reading but will need to think further on this doctrine.
I now realise that I was describing St. Augustine's Three Stages of Sin with different words and saying that sin happens at the first step (concupiscence of the flesh). He says that sin happens at the third, but others now say it happens at the second (apparently depending on if you define the second step as biological or conscious?)
So then you are saying that if a man's flesh (concupiscence of the flesh) is inclined or disposed toward finding sexual delight in a man, he is "gay" but without sin? (Where as I am saying he is only "gay" if in step 2 & 3 he contemplates(consciously) and consents to his twisted senses.)
Are there further trusted resources for inquiries into this thought?
I now realise that I was describing St. Augustine's Three Stages of Sin with different words and saying that sin happens at the first step (concupiscence of the flesh). He says that sin happens at the third, but others now say it happens at the second (apparently depending on if you define the second step as biological or conscious?)
So then you are saying that if a man's flesh (concupiscence of the flesh) is inclined or disposed toward finding sexual delight in a man, he is "gay" but without sin? (Where as I am saying he is only "gay" if in step 2 & 3 he contemplates(consciously) and consents to his twisted senses.)
Are there further trusted resources for inquiries into this thought?
if you wish to learn more about the Catholic doctrine on this, I would recommend reading about scrupulosity. a good resource on this is writings of Father Thomas M. Santa, CSsR
we are to trust in God’s mercy with venial sins, or the possible sin of our imagination
we are to trust in God’s mercy with venial sins, or the possible sin of our imagination