Abraham was not a sexual puritan. Neither was King David

Abraham was one of the most liked and he had sex with his maid.
King David was liked by God and he was not a monk.
Neither was Solomon.
In fact it’s not until the New Testament that we start seeing this Puritanism thing taking root. Perhaps that is why the Catholic church dwells on the New Testament and skimp on the Old Testament. Monogamy doesn’t seem like a criteria that God demands for those seeking righteousness, right?
My thoughts on this is I think the Catholic church’s position is not practical. Once in a while a man will find himself with a single lady and nature will take its course. What I think it’s wrong is if that lady is married.

Are you suggesting we abandon the New Testament?:wink: When you say ‘it’s not practical’ what exactly are you referring to? Unamaanishaje?

Not abandon it. But I think New Testament seems like a monks script. The 12 disciples and Jesus were never married so it’s hard for married men to use it for guidance

you should know what those “celibate” parish priests do in the villages, especially with church members wives. some two yrs ago a lady friend sent an SOS to rescue her from a priest that had tracked her house and had gone to extent of baring his manhood to her…

Oh I’m aware.
The flower gardens of some convents are fertilised by aborted foetuses of the nuns and nobody says a word.
Chastity is not a normal thing. Monogamy itself is tough to practice so chastity is not practical to a man.

Aha, I get you. Let me ruminate over this and engage some more tomorrow.

Hehehe. Ndauwo, kama unapita na vitu, pita nazo na utulie. If you look for confirmation for your actions in the bible, utajipata matatani juu it’s the same book that will fuck you up when sth else crops up.

In other words, you aren’t Solomon or David, neither are you a pastor banging womens wives in the village. You are an African man. Make up your own mind.

My advice, if you’re married, the sidedish might not be worth it.

1 Like

Problems arise when you try to interpret the bible without looking at the context. With all due respect, I believe the epistles were written to address a specific issue to a specific people. Reading them is actually invading the privacy of the intended audience.

The old testament on the other hand, is a historical or cultural guide for Jews in Israel and diaspora. I surely belief it would be different if the setting was majoring in Kenya. On the other hand, the gospels contain the words of the universal savior.

My stand is thus simple: follow your culture to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with the gospels (not bible). Thus, polygamy is ok to me despite having done a church wedding. In any case, it’s better than adultery or prostitution.

Some of the messages communicated by books in the bible were distorted by the early church. I am sure there are more 66 books of the bible but some were left out of modern versions because the Catholic church wanted to have a large influence on Christians’ choices.

1 Like

Its interesting how we read the bible selectively to justify wrongs. If one read it in its entirety they’d discover the same men paid for their mistakes personally or through their offsprings. For every action, there is a reaction.

1 Like

…No one is righteous,therefore judge NOT for you will be judged too

Yeah. But you have to agree that the Bible has too many inconsistencies and contradictions.

No it doesn’t.

@Ndauwo or is it @Owuadn is trying to justify his philandering ways with the Bible… Dinyana tu bro…Its ok…

1 Like

Foolish Africans debating a middle eastern history book as a guide… enyewe the white missionaries did us proper. Dry fry hadi kwa ubongo


Yes indeed, there are more than 66. Hizo ‘extra’ zinaitwa ‘Apocrypha’.

1 Like

you can only do polygamy if you can afford he lifestyle. If you cant even maintain your first family you should divorce and remain single.

@Owuadn, you like history? If you do, get yourself a copy of the book called The Bad Popes by Russell Chamberlain. It’ll give you a brief history of, especially, the papacy as an institution.

Point being, long ago the pope was spiritual (head of church) as well as political (head of state/gov’t) leader. At the time, popes would marry and get kids, divorce and remarry just like anyone and everyone else.

Church property was at the time vested in them for custody and, as with everywhere else, would pass on to their children and other heirs upon their death. Of course, there was no guarantee that the successors would follow in their father’s footsteps and so when they chose a different path or changed allegiances (remember there were many political upheavals at the time) the church would lose. In cases of divorce and remarriage, disputes often arose amongst the step-siblings over inheritance and these would sometimes degenerate into violent confrontations pitting entire families and clans, this bringing disrepute upon the papacy and further eroding the papal authority.

To address the myriad of all these issues therefore, celibacy was born. In a flash, this avoided dilution of church property since in absence of spouses & kids the property would forever remain in the church’s hands and therefore not jeopardize the church’s economic well-being. The situation persisted even after the pope ceased being a political leader and was left exclusively as a spiritual leader.

1 Like

I think this should be under religion spiritualism and other related nonsense category

1 Like

Yeah. There were also some Christianity practices that have more to do with European traditions rather than the message taken to the masses by Christ and his disciples.

1 Like