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 →

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

it's the only thing that matters

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Why?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

no one wants to raise another man's kid

[–]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.