[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Vatican appointee says gay sex can express Christ’s ‘self-gift’
Source: Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v ... 143221886185206838242298360572
Published: May 21, 2015
Author: Lisa Bourne
Post Date: 2015-05-21 11:37:06 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues*     Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 22597
Comments: 86

ROME, May 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Pope Francis has appointed radically liberal, pro-homosexual Dominican Father Timothy Radcliffe as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The Holy Father made the appointment on Saturday, according to Vatican Radio.

Father Radcliffe, an Englishman, author and speaker, was Master of the Dominican order from 1992 to 2001, and is an outspoken proponent of homosexuality.

"We must accompany [gay people] as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open,” he said in a 2006 religious education lecture in Los Angeles. “This means watching 'Brokeback Mountain,' reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord."

In 2005, as the Vatican deliberated the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to study for the priesthood in the wake of the Church sex abuse scandal, Father Radcliffe said that homosexuality should not bar men from the priesthood, and rather, those who oppose it should be banned.

As a contributor to the 2013 Anglican Pilling Report on human sexual ethics Father Radcliffe said of homosexuality:

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift. We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever.

Father Radcliffe often celebrated Mass for the U.K. dissident group Soho Masses Pastoral Council (now renamed the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council).

The priest is also a supporter of the proposal of to allow communion for divorced and remarried Catholics.

He currently works as director of the Las Casas Institute of Blackfriars at Oxford University, a social justice center.

Social justice is the focus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, established in 1967 by Pope Paul VI in response to the Vatican II proposal for establishment of a body of the universal Church that would “stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.”

The pope appoints roughly 40 members and consultors to the pontifical body, according to their background and experience, who serve for five years, giving input to the planning for the Council.

When the Council gathers for assemblies, it’s for discernment of the "signs of the times," Vatican.va states.

London, Ontario's Father Paul Nicholson suggested in his blog that observers can wonder how much Pope Francis knows about Father Radcliffe.

“The Holy Father is only a man, and is limited in how much he can know about any and every appointment,” Father Nicholson wrote. “His primary language is Spanish and perhaps he has not been sufficiently briefed. And that may be done intentionally by those around him.”

The Boston Globe’s Catholic website CRUX called the appointment “a move sure to raise eyebrows among the Church’s traditional guard,” and termed Father Radcliffe “a strong ally of Pope Francis,” before listing various controversies surrounding the Dominican over the years.

The selection of Father Radcliffe by the Holy Father drew criticism from many Catholics.

The Scottish blog Catholic Truth blog called it an “absolutely shocking papal appointment.”

“It’s very clear indeed now, that to be 'a priest in good standing' means to be opposed to all that is truly Catholic – and that includes true morals,” the post read, and called for prayers for the Holy Father.

“Interesting that these appointments are going out over the weekend so people can't comment as readily,” The Eponymous Flower blogged in a post titled, “Evil Dominican Tapped For Important Post.

“Good times for dissident Dominicans” was the headline of the Rorate Caeli post on the papal appointment, which called Father Radcliffe “Uber-liberal.”

“It is true that Radcliffe has ‘opposed’ ‘gay marriage,’” the post said, “but his farcical ‘opposition’ rests on grounds entirely contrary to those of the Church: Radcliffe opposes it because, in his words: ‘gay marriage’ ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world."

“Radcliffe's acceptability has just received a major upgrade with this latest appointment,” Rorate Caeli stated. “A tremendous slap to the face of so many good Catholics who had opposed him out of fidelity to the faith.”


Poster Comment:

Also a related article on Vatican appointments/dismissals: Pro-Life Cardinal Burke dismissed Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

#2. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#0)

"How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift."

Ok there Father, well, the same thing can be said of divorce and remarriage, unmarried sex between boyfriend and girlfriend, polygamy and polyamory.

Men are certainly capable of loving two or more women at the same time, and raising all of their children as their own. Israel did it. Solomon did it. And David, and Abraham.

And of course since sex can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non- violent, birth control between consenting boyfriend and girlfriend makes eminent sense, right Father?

So tell me, Father, is simple MASTURBATION still a mortal sin?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   13:04:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-05-21   13:13:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13, redleghunter, All (#3)

I've tried to warn you guys about this pope. He's way too eager to be a world-pleaser.

Hey, follow the Pope's lead when he said "who am I to judge?" What a Vicar of Christ, no? So if it's not for the Vicar of Christ to judge I guess it's not for Christ to judge either.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-21   15:51:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: SOSO (#14) (Edited)

What a Vicar of Christ, no?

According to tradition, yes.

In reality, maybe yes, maybe no.

The Borgias were Popes too. Were they Vicars of Christ?

The Church doesn't survive its own evils unscathed. It, too, has failed, just as all men do, because it is made of men.

There's a tradition that says that the Church cannot sin. That tradition is obviously wrong. It can. It has. Maybe it is now, maybe it isn't. I guess if the Church really had POWER over us, I'd care more. But as it is, the real truth is that I have something IT wants from me: my money and my time. So, if it doesn't give me what I want, it doesn't get what it wants from me. Just like the Republican Party. My loyalty to ANY human being or organization is NEVER absolute. It's ALWAYS contingent: you please me and I'll please you. You do what you're supposed to do and I'll do my part. But if you don't do what I think you're supposed to do, then I'm not really going to go out of my way to do anything for you either. That's the way it is.

The Protestants have played the game the Pope and the liberal Catholics seem to be playing now. They made priestesses and bless gay marriages and support abortion and all that. And they emptied out. The liberals for the most part stopped coming - waste of time and money. The conservatives went and found evangelical Churches. Many Catholics buy their own propaganda that "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church". The error they make is in thinking that the government organization and political structure they call "The Church" is what Jesus meant by "Ecclesia". It isn't. The Catholic Church can dry up and blow away like any other human government. God is present among the faithful there, in supernatural power, for it's that assembly of the faithful that is the Ekklesia. If they leave the physical and political structures that are called "The Catholic Church", then the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Ekklesia - God is still with the Ekklesia. All that has happened is that a bunch of men in a political organization have overplayed their hand, lost their contributors, and destroyed their organization, which they CALL "The Church", but which is not REALLY "THE" Church, and which never, ever was. Catholics do not currently believe this. One need only see the empty and dead churches all over Europe to see that Satan - or just plain human indifference, can indeed prevail against the political governmental structure that CALLS ITSELF "THE" "Catholic Church". God's still there, in the Ekklesia, but the Ekklesia - those called out - is wherever two or more people loyal to God assemble to call upon Jesus and pray to the Father. THAT is THE CHURCH, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against THAT. The Roman Catholic Church can fail and fall into a ruin just as the Mainline Protestant Churches are, for the same reasons. If the inner political controllers walk away from the constituency, the constituency will stop giving money and stop attending, and the Catholic Church, like any other human organization, will cease to exist and disappear from the face of the earth. The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums. To traditional Catholics, what I have said is "apostasy". It is not. It's the Truth. The belief that the Catholic Church - the political structure that calls itself that, is the thing that is holy and cannot err - even when it visible DOES err, sometimes quite monstrously - well, THAT is idolatry. And it's an error. But there's no point in tearing open these wounds. The better answer is for Catholics and all other Christians to huddle together in Ekklesia, follow the (few, direct, clear) precepts of Christ, and rely on God directly and on each other. Any particular Pope may or may not be the Vicar of Christ - that depends on Christ. Men were never given the power to decide such things. Just following Christ and sticking with each other is hard enough. When the shepherds start acting like perverts and sticking up for perverts, it's time to stop calling those men shepherds.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-21   16:37:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#18)

The Ekklesia will always be there. Whether the Catholic Church houses it or not depends on whether the people who are the Ekklesia choose to make church within the buildings of the Catholic "Church", and whether or not they choose to tolerate Catholic "priests" as their spiritual shepherds. If the priests become odious by molesting children, running away with money, and then preaching absurdities, the Ekklesia will leave and reassemble somewhere else, and the "Churches" will turn into museums.

Excellent commentary. I agree.

This is exactly what is happening with PCUSA.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-21   17:35:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#22)

Off topic but I didn't want to start another thread on this.

Matthew 19:28

"28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Twelve? That would include Judas, no?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   0:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: SOSO, ALL (#37)

Acts 1:12 (NIV)

Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. [13] When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. [14] They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [15] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) [16] and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— [17] he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” [18] (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. [19] Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.' [21] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” [23] So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. [24] Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen [25] to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”

The Lord chose Matthias to take Juda's place. Acts 1 Shared from PocketBible for Windows Store (http://www.laridian.com)

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-22   1:59:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: GarySpFC, Don, All (#41)

This was AFTER the event recorded in Matthew 19. Judas was in the twelve at the time Jesus said that to the twelve that were there.

"Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

He said you not they or those but you. Was or was not Judas part of the twelve at the time Jesus spoke those words?

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:09:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#46) (Edited)

Did Judas not betray Chris?. Was Judas replaced as one of the Apostles? What is the meaning of replaced?

Don  posted on  2015-05-22   15:20:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Don (#47)

Why don't you answer my questions? I have asked you twice if Judas was one of the twelve referred to in Matthew 19 and all you do is duck the question.

I also asked you if God allows divorce when a spouse commits murder and you have ducked this question as well.

You can give it but sure can't take it. But this is typical of those that hide behind quoting scripture rather than have an open discussion of it.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   15:43:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SOSO (#49) (Edited)

Divorce shouldn't be such a fraught subject. After all, the Bible permits polygamy.

You can't DIVORCE your wives, but you CAN marry more than one.

The problem comes when you take a no-divorce Hebrew Christian commandment and overlay it on a Western cultural imperative of strict monogamy, which was a Roman imperative, but not a Scriptural imperative.

God did not prohibit polygamy. The Europeans did. God prohibited divorce. The European insistence on monogamy - a Latin cultural norm - coupled with the Hebrew Christian no divorce rule - made marriage a corset that is tighter than what God actually made.

Is polygamy GOOD? It's never presented as GOOD in Scripture. But God never forbids it either, and some of the greatest figures whom God favored were polygamists without God speaking a word against it.

The divorce restriction is so severe to our eyes because we have ADDED a purely cultural restriction of monogamy to the divine word.

To understand God's direct rule, you must remove the cultural tradition of monogamy. It is not Biblical.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   17:30:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

Divorce shouldn't be such a fraught subject.

It's not to me but the hypocrisy of the Church around it and other so-called no- nos is.

Matthew 19 seems to clearly state that you are wrong about this.

"1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

It also seems pretty clear tha God did not ordain or create the action of divorce. This seems to be a man made thing. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Christ clearly says you can divorce you wife for at least fornication (adultery).

And what does the following mean For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Can a man be one flesh with more than one wife. Are all the man's wives one flesh together with him? I doubt it.

Some use 1 Corinthians 7:15-17:

"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches."

to conclude that, in addition to adultery, divorce God permits divorce when Wan unbelieving spouse deserts a believer.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-22   21:10:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SOSO (#65)

I agree that Jesus permits divorce for sexual immorality.

I don't see any particular reason why a man can't cleave to more than one flesh and become one with both. The text shows men doing that.

Of course it always shows that it doesn't work out well also. There are problems with all of the polygamous marriages in Scripture.

Thank goodness that the Western European cultural norm was monogamy, and that this was overlaid upon Hebrew and Greek Scripture as an absolute requirement because the Gentiles were dominant in the Church, and they were Westerners with monogamy.

Because obviously all of those problems that the Bible records among polygamous couples: the bickering, the jealousy, the sibling rivalry - those things, at least, never happen in our monogamous world.

Note: I'm not carrying a brief for polygamy. I think that Bible clearly shows that it's not the best way, and is not God's full intent. But God was always explicit about everything forbidden. And he never forbade polygamy. Therefore, polygamy is not a sin. That's the bottom line.

God's law is what he said it is. Men can't add to it because they think something else should be in it. Polygamy is one example.

The other example is masturbation. The Catholic Church has always said that it is a grave disorder, a mortal sin. This is false. God specifically addressed gay sodomy, and he specifically addressed heterosexual fornication. He specifically addressed adultery. God is always SPECIFIC about things for which a man or woman will be damned. He is not vague.

In the Old Testament, he specifically addressed male masturbation in the Torah. Twice he spoke of it - "If a man has a discharge of semen" - and twice he said the same thing: He is unclean until evening, and whatever the semen touches must be washed with water to make it clean.

That's it. And that's ALL. It is a ritual uncleanness, under the law of Torah, and nothing more than that. NOTHING MORE than that.

The Catholic Church, amped on its tradition, has always asserted that this uncleanness is a MORTAL SIN. And the Catholic Church has always been wrong about that, for 1600 years. It is not.

Jesus never mentioned it. It is not in the list of "porneis" - sexual immorality - because God spelled out what sexual immorality IS: adultery, fornication, sodomy. Male masturbation is a ritual uncleanness - if you got to give a New Testament meaning to an Old Testament rule, then don't take communion on a day you jerked off in the morning. But God thought so very little about it that he never mentioned it again, ever. And that's not God's way. God harangues and kvetches and repeats himself over and over and over about everything that's important. And male masturbation gets two brief mentions in the Torah and never again. Female masturbation is never mentioned at all.

So, why did the Church elevate this petty uncleanness, for men, to a mortal sin? Probably in the quest to find something to accuse everybody of being guilty of, something that is part of the natural flow of human life which, by labeling it a grievous sin, can then get inside of the head of the young and twist them.

It's evil to add to Scripture, and the Christian Churches have been evil and doing the work of the Devil for 1600 years by adding to Scripture and claiming that masturbation is a mortal sin. It is not. It's not even a sin at all, other than ritualistically in ancient Israel, to Hebrews. Which we're not.

This is not a little error. It's an important error. It's important because it has messed with the heads of every generation, and it's a classic example of an utterly evil moral principle added to Scripture and imposed by the Christian Churches - all of them - on the faithful.

It is the best single example as to WHY one cannot trust tradition completely, WHY claims of infallibility are absurd. Masturbation as a grave mortal sin has been a doctrine from the time that the Churches were united, and it has never, in fact, been a grave mortal sin at all. The Churches added to God's law, and in doing so taught a Satanic doctrine that has fucked up people's minds for 1600 years.

This doctrine is not in the Bible, and it is evil. Men made it up, and they were evil for having done so.

Polygamy, well, that's in the Bible and it's never presented as good. But it's not prohibited by God either, ever. Men decided that their cultural norm was the law of God, and asserted it, But it's not the law of God on the matter. It is BEST to be monogamous, but, for example, Muslim polygamy is not a reason for damnation. God has always tolerated polygamy, and he never said he stopped.

God is always clear. If he's not clear, and somebody is asserting a clear doctrine, that somebody is making it up to suit himself and adding to Scripture. And THAT is evil, and whoever does that is also evil, no matter how good he THINKS he is.

Just speaking the facts.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-23   8:49:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

I don't see any particular reason why a man can't cleave to more than one flesh and become one with both.

Do the two women then become one with each other as well(which is more than just cleaving)? If not then the man is not one with either, at least as his whole self - which would be a total contradiction to the concept of sacramental marriage.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-23   13:03:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: SOSO (#69)

The problem with that interpretation is that marriage was instituted with Adam and Eve, and then Abraham the blessed went on to polygamy, as did Jacob, who was Israel, and also David and Solomon.

And God never said a word about it. Not one.

All of the sins - God delineated them, and then harped on them. In both testaments.

But he never said a word about polygamy, only divorce.

Which means that one has to start piling up logic to reach a conclusion that isn't in the text. I can't do that, because in the text God warned about not ADDING to what he said.

Prohibiting polygamy is adding to what God said.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-23   15:37:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Vicomte13 (#70)

And God never said a word about it. Not one.

God never said a word about beating your wife or kids or your mother-in-law either. Is it adding to God's words to believe and teach that God prohibits these actions.

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-23   16:41:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 71.

#74. To: SOSO (#71)

Yes. God DID say a word about beating your wife, kids and mother-in-law: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.

It restricts all things.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-24 09:00:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com