God gave David the throne of Saul, and his wealth. Nowhere does it say that David *married Saul’s wives.What is your view on this article? False teachings? biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/god-said-he-gave-wives/
When I was six months old I could poop in my diaper and not be guilty of an offense. As a grown man I had better not do that.No, but God did forgive David without requiring him to separate from Bathsheba, and that is the one thing we can take away. David was not in a state of mortal sin, living as a polygamist. So, it is at least possible to be in a state of polygamy and not in a state of mortal sin.
If I am wrong, why?
What of the people who say there is no Bible verse where God condemns it or states that its a sin?God gave David the throne of Saul, and his wealth. Nowhere does it say that David *married Saul’s wives.
Further the context is Nathan giving David God’s word when God rebuked David for adultery and murder, and pronouncing David’s punishment. God is saying "I did all this for you, made you king, made you wealthy, gave you power and glory, and you still *disobeyed me."
This passage does not in the least show that God approved of polygamy.
What about the absence of biblical prohibitions on atomic proliferation and industrial pollution?What of the people who say there is no Bible verse where God condemns it or states that its a sin?
The Bible talks about acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior.What about the absence of biblical prohibitions on atomic proliferation and industrial pollution?
Must be ok. Right?
Moses also allowed divorce, and many people see that as God’s express will for mankind, because it is in the bible without God’s express disapproval.The Bible talks about acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior.
People say polyandry is condemned in the Bible, but not a man having multiple wives.
That question only reveals something about the one putting the answer in to Jesus, as it is almost never used when Jesus spoke.“What would Jesus do” is more than a trite youth-group phrase.
All the people I mentioned in the Old Testament were adults, not children. I think I missed the point.When I was six months old I could poop in my diaper and not be guilty of an offense. As a grown man I had better not do that.
At six years of age I could be excused for losing my temper under provocation and trying to hit another child. Not condoned, but we don’t expect adult levels of self-control from a small child. As an adult if I do that I can be fined or jailed. We do expect adult levels of self-control from an adult.
…“Therefore shall a man leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.”What of the people who say there is no Bible verse where God condemns it or states that its a sin?
I was citing my personal life as an analogy for Human civilization. I had to go through childhood, and grow up to become a man, a process that took a couple of decades. My parents tolerated certain things till I was old enough to understand that I must not do them.All the people I mentioned in the Old Testament were adults, not children. I think I missed the point.
Since I do not like putting down analogy without reason, I will explain why I think this analogy does not work. A child maturing is a different process. Children at young age lack the moral culpability of adults because of their youth, not just because the precede adults in time. I think this analogy puts too much of a childlike template on people that were full moral beings.I was citing my personal life as an analogy for Human civilization.
Morality does not change. But knowledge can and does.Since I do not like putting down analogy without reason, I will explain why I think this analogy does not work. A child maturing is a different process. Children at young age lack the moral culpability of adults because of their youth, not just because the precede adults in time. I think this analogy puts too much of a childlike template on people that were full moral beings.
I am familiar with the theory of progressive revelation, but I thought even then there was a limit. Furthermore, that which is absolute morality must exist, at least in some form, through all time. The core must stay the same. It is kind of what absolute means. If morality can change through time, then
well, it can change.
Got it. Thanks for your patience. I see the point of your analogy. It was not the moral culpability that changed, but the level of knowledge. I can see that fitting.Morality does not change. But knowledge can and does.
I know my analogy is imperfect, but it’s an analogy, not an attempt to claim that the people of the time of Moses were actually childlike.
what do we do with canon 915?I will expand your question because it is important.
Many Catholics commit objectively grave sins without going to Confession before Communion: use of contraception, sexual sins, etc. While the current controversy surrounds the divorced and remarried, whatever is decided must apply to every objectively grave sin, not only adultery, not only polygamy, but every grave sin.
Yes, the commission of an objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin, unless full knowledge and full deliberation are also present (and that is difficult to judge). I suppose that at a bare minimum, only actual mortal sin prohibits one from Communion. But I would prefer a discipline that usually requires Confession before Communion for any objectively grave sin.