Heinrich Kramer on Nostr: I wasn't pointing fingers. I'm more than happy to follow your lead and let this ...
I wasn't pointing fingers. I'm more than happy to follow your lead and let this devolve to personal insults. I was just pointing out that "wow, just wow"ing about insults after you've flung your own is pretty lame. Moreover pointing out a logical train from one set of ideas is hardly "snide", even if I were wrong about it.
As for Luther "following the Bible", ignoring an explicit command in order to abide by a conditional remedy hardly seems like Scriptural fidelity to me. Dueteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, even Matthew are all pretty explicit about the sinfulness of breaking vows made to/before God. As for the implication that Luther was anyone's daughter or entered in to the Priesthood frivolously... you said it, not me.
And I agree. St. Paul was saying it's a shame the Corinthians were more weak willed than him. But unless you were claiming he felt he himself were imbued with some kind of superhuman self control, your reading of that passage as saying "self control is hard" is a stretch. To be charitable. And your choice of words to describe something St. Paul explicitly denies was a command as a command... is unfortunate. And the fact remains the St. Paul is in no way suggesting that one should sin in order to satiate their lust. Yes, if one is burning with lust they should get married. That does not mean, as you are suggesting, that one should abandon every other prescription Scripture gives us in order to get there. If you are burning with lust for a married woman, you should not seek to be her second husband. If you're burning with lust and attracted to the same sex, you should not "marry" a person of the same sex. And if you are burning with lust and and have taken a vow of celibacy to God, you should not break that oath. It is entirely reasonable (and in fact the case) that "you should marry rather than fornicate" coexists with all of those rules I just listed.
As for Luther "following the Bible", ignoring an explicit command in order to abide by a conditional remedy hardly seems like Scriptural fidelity to me. Dueteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, even Matthew are all pretty explicit about the sinfulness of breaking vows made to/before God. As for the implication that Luther was anyone's daughter or entered in to the Priesthood frivolously... you said it, not me.
And I agree. St. Paul was saying it's a shame the Corinthians were more weak willed than him. But unless you were claiming he felt he himself were imbued with some kind of superhuman self control, your reading of that passage as saying "self control is hard" is a stretch. To be charitable. And your choice of words to describe something St. Paul explicitly denies was a command as a command... is unfortunate. And the fact remains the St. Paul is in no way suggesting that one should sin in order to satiate their lust. Yes, if one is burning with lust they should get married. That does not mean, as you are suggesting, that one should abandon every other prescription Scripture gives us in order to get there. If you are burning with lust for a married woman, you should not seek to be her second husband. If you're burning with lust and attracted to the same sex, you should not "marry" a person of the same sex. And if you are burning with lust and and have taken a vow of celibacy to God, you should not break that oath. It is entirely reasonable (and in fact the case) that "you should marry rather than fornicate" coexists with all of those rules I just listed.