Pope Francis says sins of the flesh aren't that serious

submitted by Drewski from nypost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Foidblaster9000 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (44 children)

It seems to have issue with sexual immorality and impurity. Immorality being what though? Impurity indicates not abstaining, but if that's true then wouldn't men be punished for not being virgins as well as women? How was marriage defined in bliblical times?

[–]fschmidt 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

The Old Testament recognizes the differences between the sexes, and so treats them differently.

[–]Foidblaster9000 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Sexual immorality indicates sleeping with whores, but I'm not well versed in biblical text, so correct me if I'm wrong here. So what wouldn't be considered immoral and what would constitute as punishable and not punishable with sex not recognized as covenant?

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

There were 2 kinds of whores in biblical times, modern type paid for prostitutes and temple prostitutes who you'd have to worship or sacrifice to another god to get access to.

The second group is very dangerous to an uptight monotheistic religion.

[–]Cornfed 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Basically anything that interferes with stable marriages and extended families and the raising of children within them is bad. This doesn't include men having sex with unattached whores, which is fine.

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are wrong here. The Old Testament actually suggests sex with a prostitute as an alternative to adultery (sex with a married woman) in Proverbs 6:26. The Old Testament simply considers immoral whatever is harmful to society. Prostitution is good for society because it reduces adultery.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think it's telling you to actively go looking for prostitutes though. It's more trying to make adultery look even worse by comparison.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Old Testament is also mostly just telling the people how far they're allowed to go with their hard-heartedness, divorce being the most famous example of this.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

The typical view nowadays is that men should be virgins. The biblical view is probably that since biological heritage was so important in ancient times, women needed to be virgins so that when they had children there would be no confusion over whose child it is. Apparently men have an instinct for this as well so they can be confident that they passed on their genes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

yeah that's why they started saying Mother Mary was a virgin, she obviously would have had sex with her husband Joseph, and had other kids with him before Jesus, but a rumor started going around that she cheated on him with a Roman soldier and that's how Jesus was born, they denied this saying she was a virgin.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you get Mary having kids with Joseph before Jesus? In Matthew it says that they were only betrothed and had not had sex when Mary became pregnant with Jesus, which is why Joseph planned to divorce her before an angel appeared to him.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

mentions brothers and sisters of jesus, they made up the perpetual virginity thing later, now the dogma for christianity is that they were iether children of joseph from a previous marriage, or cousins of Jesus, but that's retarded

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The most obvious interpretation of siblings is younger siblings conceived after Joseph and Mary subsequently married.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I've researched this and I think the most probable conclusion is that Joseph is Jesus's biological father. There is no doubt about this except in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 which are both pretty obviously later additons. The "Roman soldier" rumor was probably started to discredit Jesus.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

most likely yes. The real historical Jesus was probably a follower of John the baptist, took over after John died, was a rabbi and had a large following, healed people, never claimed to be son of God, his brother James took over when Jesus died. A lot of stuff was made up after his death both good and bad.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have to disagree that he never claimed to be a son of God. Even if you don't believe the religious parts, Jesus called other people "sons of God" as well, and most of the time the "the" before son was inserted by translators, so the original is usually "a son of God".

But I also do think Jesus was the incarnation of Yehovah or Yahweh, who is actually the son of the "most high" God as revealed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. And many early Christians distinguished "LORD" in the Old Testament as Jesus speaking as opposed to "God", LORD being the placeholder for the divine name. I believe Jesus also said he was "I AM" in the gospel of John. This should clear up the confusion over the trinity vs unitarianism.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

just never says in the bible he claimed to be son of god, he said he was son of man. The closest is when he is on the cross and says why father have you forsaken me but it's doubtful anyone was there to hear that and it was made up later.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was "son of God" sometimes but it's usually "a son of God", and apparently other people can be sons of God: Happy are the pursuers of peace that they will be called sons of God.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

The typical view nowadays is infused with evil feminist bullshit and should be dispensed with. Obviously a husband cannot cuckold his wife in the way a wife can cuckold her husband.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Adultery is explicitly forbidden and condemnations are given directly to both sexes, not just one.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Right, adultery, as defined in all major cultures as sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband, is forbidden to both men and women. If a man had sex with a woman married to someone else he would be guilty of adultery. Obviously the Bible doesn't define a man having sex with an unmarried whore as adultery. BTW, just to take a wild stab in the dark, you didn't trouble yourself to actually read the Bible before commenting on it, right?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Obviously the Bible doesn't define a man having sex with an unmarried whore as adultery.

If he's married it does: anyone who sends his wife away and marries another commits adultery.

[–]Cornfed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

We are not talking about remarriage, we are talking about sex with a whore.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Same thing. Even wanting to have someone other than your spouse counts as adultery. Why would not divorcing your wife make it okay, but if you divorce her it magically becomes adultery? There is a huge difference between laws and morals. Just because polygamy was permitted doesn't make it good, just like divorce was also permitted but we have established that it too is wrong.

And if you are correct, the entire purpose of having more restrictions on a woman's sex life was to prevent confusion about inheritance, which is no longer relevant. That would mean women can now sleep around too.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

that's still relevant, 50% of people have a different father than who they think

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

But it doesn't matter anymore. Biological heritage is no longer this magical thing that defines who you are.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK so now you are making up your own morality and putting it on people in Biblical times even though you admit it was not the law. BTW, if you are saying inheritance is no longer relevant, fine, if you inherit anything please give it to me. If I have any children, you can pay for them. Also, if any of your family are going to help you out in time of need, point out that such considerations are irrelevant now and tell them to send me money instead. You shouldn't mind, what with inheritance being irrelevant and everything.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Inheritance is still a thing, but it's not strictly by biological descent anymore. Ancient fathers were absolutely paranoid about their children being "not really theirs" with their genes. To the point where they'd straight up abandon them if they found out they were illegitimate.