Report: "Massachusetts Town Legalizes Polygamy Using Same Arguments For Gay Marriage,"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
69% culturally claim to be Catholic but do not practice.
Click to expand...
But I don’t see how that makes them non-Catholic. A non-Catholic cannot receive absolution in confession. A Catholic who does not attend Mass regularly can go to confession and receive absolution, because he is still a Catholic. I think it is a mistake for someone to claim, as you have, that a Catholic who does not attend Mass regularly or who does not practice is a non-Catholic. He is still listed in the Vatican statistics as a Catholic, No?
 
AlNg said:
He is still listed in the Vatican statistics as a Catholic, No?
Click to expand...
Not just that. Whoever is baptized as Catholic, receives an inedible mark on his soul, so not even expressly repudiating his faith, can he lose that status. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. (btw, the pun was intentional.)
 
Abrosz said:
Not just that. Whoever is baptized as Catholic, receives an inedible mark on his soul, so not even expressly repudiating his faith, can he lose that status. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. (btw, the pun was intentional.)
Click to expand...
Yes. That is what I thought also. I don’t understand the claim we see on this thread
that if a person does not attend Mass regularly, then he becomes a non-Catholic.
o_mlly said:
Do they regularly go to Mass? Do they agree with Church teachings? A “No Answer” would categorize them as “Nominal Catholics” which is synonymous with “non-Catholic”
Click to expand...
 
AlNg said:
That is what I thought also. I don’t understand the claim we see on this thread
that if a person does not attend Mass regularly, then he becomes a non-Catholic.

Do they regularly go to Mass? Do they agree with Church teachings? A “No Answer” would categorize them as “Nominal Catholics” which is synonymous with “non-Catholic”
Click to expand...
Deflection ad nauseam. Look up the word “synonymous”. It does not mean “identical”. It means “nearly the same or suggestive of the same”. Catholics regret that so many fallen away Catholics have bought into the lie of the secularists. Thank you for your concern, as well.

Back to the OP’s issue, as a Christian, you apparently are for the ongoing destruction of the nuclear family as the core of society’s organizing principle by advocating for polygamy. Are you also for direct abortions? How about the other issues which threaten the family, e.g., homosexual acts, artificial contraception, adultery, fornication? Please join the conversation instead of kibitzing from the sidelines.
 
o_mlly said:
you apparently are for the ongoing destruction of the nuclear family as the core of society’s organizing principle by advocating for polygamy.
Click to expand...
Was it a mistake for God to allow polygamy and give several wives to David?
 
AlNg said:
Was it a mistake for God to allow polygamy and give several wives to David?
Click to expand...
God did not allow polygamy nor did God give David several wives. Did God allow Cain to murder Abel? Does God give children to sex traffickers?
 
o_mlly said:
God did not allow polygamy nor did God give David several wives.
Click to expand...
2 Samuel 12: 8
“I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more.”
New Living Translation
 
AlNg said:
2 Samuel 12: 8
“I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more.”
Click to expand...
Nathan is not God.
 
Only a short step from legalizing this based on this rational to legalizing adult-child relationships. It’s already been submitted for vote in California but was rejected
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says : ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and if that was not enough, I would have given you even more.
Click to expand...
The prophets spoke in such matters according to the norms of their day. The citation means nothing more than David succeeded Saul as King and, as king, inherited all that was Saul’s. The translation to “wives” is also translated as “women”, e.g…, Saul’s daughters. This can be understood only of David having Saul’s women at his disposal, to give them to whom he pleased. According to Oriental custom, the royal harem was a part of the royal inheritance.

To the point on polygamy, we have no evidence that David married any of Saul’s wives. David, married to Micah, Saul’s daughter, could never have married the wives of Saul without suspicion of violating the Levitical laws prohibiting incest; not to mention the obvious fact that they were just too old.
 
o_mlly said:
Nathan is not God.
Click to expand...
But I read: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says”,

and also we know for certain that: the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says
Click to expand...
Don’t forget, the Lord speaks according to the norms of the day. That is why there is no prohibition against slavery, keeping the virgins of the conquered tribes for your personal sex-slaves calling them “wives”. Mass slaughtering was acceptable, if that tribe “deserved” it.

Oh, the beauty of “quote mining”!
 
Abrosz said:
the Lord speaks according to the norms of the day.
Click to expand...
Was God wrong to give several wives to David?
Abrosz said:
Oh, the beauty of “quote mining”!
Click to expand...
But we know that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
But I read: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says” ,

and also we know for certain that: the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Click to expand...
When the man of God is constrained, as Nathan is here, to speak the transcendent Truth given to him, he must do so in immanent terms that are meaningful to those who receive his words.

Augustine teaches us that the, “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” If, as it seems, you are a fundamentalist, why then do you ignore Matthew 19:4-9?
 
Last edited:
It is without definition. Which means the application of ‘marriage’ can now become anything. Might be a slow progression but who know where it could lead.

I doubt it but hopefully this is a good thing. It may cast light on the foolishness of a non-defined term (marriage). It has become just a word.

Just had a thought. Why don’t we all concede on the word ‘marriage’ and start over again with a new term which means what marriage used to mean for many a millennia. In other words, take it back but with a strict definition.

Never work I know, just thinking out loud.
 
Last edited:
Dolphin said:
Only a short step from legalizing this based on this rational to legalizing adult-child relationships. It’s already been submitted for vote in California but was rejected
Click to expand...
Mijoy2 said:
It is without definition. Which means the application of ‘marriage’ can now become anything. Might be a slow progression but who know where it could lead.

I doubt it but hopefully this is a good thing. It may cast light on the foolishness of a non-defined term (marriage). It has become just a word.
Click to expand...
Just to return to the original story:

This is the piece in the Somerville newspaper that the original article cites:

article

Not condoning what these people do, but this still isn’t marriage, and doesn’t purport to be marriage.

This is “domestic partnership,” and it has some limited application for “survivorship, hospital visitation, shared property and finances, and power of attorney,” depending on the state. The article notes that in Massachusetts domestic partners aren’t legally considered “family” and don’t receive their partners assets at death.

And I still say, adult-child marriage will never be allowed. It would be vigorously opposed by both the left and the right. It’s one of those arguments that just drives people away from your point of view, like the dog marriage argument.

In California both partners in a domestic relationship still have to be old enough to consent.
 
Dolphin said:
Only a short step from legalizing this based on this rational to legalizing adult-child relationships. It’s already been submitted for vote in California but was rejected
Click to expand...
Perhaps you were thinking of this, from 2019?

article

It wouldn’t “legalize” it; it would “leave the decision of whether individuals convicted of particular sex crimes involving minors must register as sex offenders to the discretion of the court.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top