double-holy

Reply+114

(04/15/2014)[-]

If they're devout Christians, they shouldn't see each other as married, since they haven't consummated their marriage.

Reply+6

(04/16/2014)[-]

Biblically they are supposed to become one flesh, which would be through consummation. They are one of hundreds of examples of Christians that don't really understand what it means when they say they are Christian.

This is by far the least harmful thing I have seen though so good for them I hope they stay happy.

#74 to #30 - anon id: 0ab9f227

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

ur a faggot and u suck cokc

#17 to #5 - qtipthegreat

Reply+6

(04/15/2014)[-]

Yeah, god wants people to bang like mad after marriage (for the sole purpose of procreation of course), it's why catholic stereotypes have parents with like 14 children.

#28 to #5 - kaarvaag

Reply+1

(04/16/2014)[-]

But that won't be double-holy, man

#2 - yuukoku

Reply+67

(04/15/2014)[-]

>"It must be double holy now!"

You aren't a monk living in a ******* monastery. You're allowed to **** after marriage. What, you think God's going to give you double points? You're going to get into Super Heaven because you didn't **** for a handful of months?

Look, I'm not huge on religion or anything, but just not ******* isn't what makes you a good person. You can screw all you want, but if you're a person who helps all the people around you, can let go of a grudge, can save a life, can ease someone's suffering, etc. you've already gotten five steps ahead of two people who don't **** for a whole year after marriage in the good person department.

#3 to #2 - sliferzpwns

Reply+7

(04/15/2014)[-]

"get into Super Heaven because you didn't **** for a handful of months?"

#60 to #2 - nonanonnon

Reply+1

(04/16/2014)[-]

If abstinence is what gets you into Super Heaven, I who am I kidding, we might still stand a chance!

#57 to #2 - williamhowardtaft

Reply+1

(04/16/2014)[-]

your jimmies are so rustled bro
but I completely agree

#6 - deathsn

Reply+39

(04/15/2014)[-]

He must be so happy.

#4 - usarmyexplain

Reply+31

(04/15/2014)[-]

I think "be fruitful and multiply" was God's general order number one

#39 to #4 - splitalterego

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

The Jewish people took it seriously but I don't think Christians are under any obligation to do so.

#31 to #4 - IamSofaKingdom

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

That is more of a strong suggestion. It isn't really a rule or law or anything.

#37 to #31 - Visual

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

The key word in that phrase is "be". As in it is a command to become something. It would be a strong suggestion if it said "you should" or "it is best if" or something along those lines.

#40 to #37 - IamSofaKingdom

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

wrong reply bro. I didn't use "be"

#42 to #40 - Visual

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

Sorry, I didn't clarify enough, I meant in "be fruitful and multiply" which I assumed is the phrase you were referring to as a "strong suggestion".

If you weren't talking about that phrase, then my bad.

#44 to #42 - IamSofaKingdom

Reply+1

(04/16/2014)[-]

Oh, I see what you were getting at. My point is that it is not among the laws specified as commandments in the book. That means that this specific phrase can easily be argued in direct mention of the people He refereed to rather than an every expanding command and the strength of it as a rule is diminished since others were given more concrete standing in context.

As a side note, arguing the use of our modern word of "be" wouldn't be a very strong on on lexical meaning on the Bible since our translations are usually just approximations. Accuracy is hit or miss in many cases since poetic license and metaphors and parables are used so often.

#15 - nass

Reply+23

(04/15/2014)[-]

HFW photshop skillz

#7 - thechosentroll#30 on commentsRank#30

Reply+21

(04/15/2014)[-]

Fairly certain the old testament said something along the lines of "Thou shall save thyself for marriage, but then thou areth free to **** like rabbits on extasy.".

#9 to #7 - anon id: dd26c4d7

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Christian, can confirm. Specifically: "Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times and do not deny yourselves from each other."

Present day language: Wait, Marry, never be able to walk straight again.

#20 to #9 - Anonomousthirteen

Reply+3

(04/16/2014)[-]

Another Christian. We've forgotten the most import biblical passage.
"If thou art to become silly, thou shalt be most certain to wrap thy willy."

#46 - landerp

Reply+12

(04/16/2014)[-]

"Ya, it's holy, but you know what's better than just holy?"
"What's better than just holy?"
"Double-holy"
"Post-marital abstinence is double-holy?"
"You bet your gosh darn rear it is."
"Alright, let's do it."
"Oh, this is going to make us so happy. I love you."
"Love you too, I'm gonna go eat a potato."

#49 - pxthreezerothree

Reply+9

(04/16/2014)[-]

They do realize that the marriage technically isn't official until they consummate it right?

#32 - HordeyWordey

Reply+9

(04/16/2014)[-]

Abstaining from pre-marital sex kinda makes sense from a religious standpoint, but never doing it after? What the **** do you think those parts down there are even for?

#43 to #32 - whitie

Reply-2

(04/16/2014)[-]

according to the bible, solely for reproduction, so if they aren't intending to have a child when they ****, it's a sin

#68 to #43 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

Where does the Bible say "contraceptives are bad, don't use them"?

#71 to #68 - whitie

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

i mis - spoke , which you all so rudely downvoted me for, the idea originates in catholic church teachings during the dark ages, not the bible itself, i just use the bible and the church interchangeably in speech because i see it as more or less the same thing, the directive from which a large portion of Christians derive their values from, didn't mean to cause confusion if i did

#73 to #71 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

I didn't downvote you, stop whining.

Well, that's not really misspeaking, that's the exact opposite of what you just said. I guess for Catholics it could be since that's what the Church says, but with zero Biblical basis it falls flat theologically.

#77 to #73 - whitie

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

i wasn't whining, merely stating i find peoples downvotes rude, as i feel my message was misinterpreted,
and the interchangeability is valid here, anti-contraceptive teachings have been part of the catholic church for over 1,000 years, it's not that much of a stretch that protestant faiths, which are different interpretations of the same holy book, would inherit this philosophy in their teachings after the reformation, and beyond that look around at reality and how many devout Christians that are anti-contraceptive come from protestant faiths

#81 to #77 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

That is how things may be in practice, but without biblical support it is not a sin.

#23 - fyaq

Reply+9

(04/16/2014)[-]

take these before commenting