Heinrich Kramer on Nostr: You claimed that it is "based" to break an oath made to God (and to encourage others ...
You claimed that it is "based" to break an oath made to God (and to encourage others to do the same.) Making false oaths to God is, under any definition, taking His name in vain. We are commanded not to take His name in vain.
So because you have already endorsed sinning in order to satiate your lust, I was trying to understand your parameters for which other sins are acceptable to satiate your lust.
As for anger, yeah. You snidely suggested I don't read Scripture for not agreeing with your reductionist interpretation of a single passage. I guess the mature response would have been to snidely and condescendingly suggest you simply didn't know it is sinful to take the Lord's name in vain.
And for the record, in the very passage you're citing St. Paul asserts his own self-control, suggesting he's not nearly as pessimistic on the concept as you're pretending. He also asserts that what he's saying is a "concession", not a "command" (as you claim.) So you're not only taking the passage out of context, but are straight-up misrepresenting the text.
So because you have already endorsed sinning in order to satiate your lust, I was trying to understand your parameters for which other sins are acceptable to satiate your lust.
As for anger, yeah. You snidely suggested I don't read Scripture for not agreeing with your reductionist interpretation of a single passage. I guess the mature response would have been to snidely and condescendingly suggest you simply didn't know it is sinful to take the Lord's name in vain.
And for the record, in the very passage you're citing St. Paul asserts his own self-control, suggesting he's not nearly as pessimistic on the concept as you're pretending. He also asserts that what he's saying is a "concession", not a "command" (as you claim.) So you're not only taking the passage out of context, but are straight-up misrepresenting the text.