• ArnaulttheGrim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        Joke regarding the nature of at least catholicism that is premised here in the meme. The concept that, St Thomas Aquinas, who is arguably one of the more acclaimed theologians in the catholic church post Council of Nicea.

        He frequently establishes premises that sex in and of itself is not sinful, however any take on sex that is for the purposes of pleasure/gratification is sinful and should be shunned. Thereby one could state that being fully human and also divine, Christ was not immune to but would not have pursued the concepts of pleasure or deriving pleasure through sex.

        So the posit Im making is a joke within the joke. Basically, the position is one wherein this guy didnt read that guy which refuted the point. Hardy-har-har.

        It should be noted, more modern versions of catholicism dont really follow these principles any longer on the premise that sex between a man and wife is good because it can result in conception and they experience their love which gets them closer to god’s love (not my personal view, more parroting some of the more modern beliefs). Additional note, StTA also kinda eludes to this but in a round about way.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      boobs…or ass…

      just because you hate to eat pumpkin pie doesn’t mean you don’t understand what your preference is between with and without whipped cream.

    • zout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Isn’t that because women weren’t allowed in? I mean, I once saw a documentary about that time and place where it was shown women would pretend to be male and wear false beards so they could attend a stoning.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yes, no, it’s complicated. Early Christianity did push back against some masculine norms of the time. For example, Jesus saying that you should only divorce in cases of cheating was a help for women at the time. Men were divorcing their wives for whatever reason and leaving them destitute. However, now it’s flipped around by fundamentalist churches to say that’s the rule for all time, and that means women can’t leave an abusive husband. So what was intended as help for women is now a harm.

        1 Corinthians 14:34,35 (“women should remain silent in churches”) was probably stuck in there later on. The passage around it reads more naturally without it. From verse 26 on, it has an egalitarian outlook in saying that anyone who feels inspired should be allowed to stand up and speak their mind until someone else has an inspiration. Then it hits verse 34, and suddenly it’s “but not women”.

        And it’s interesting that a fundamentalist church might not approve women to even speak in church, citing this scripture as the reason, but not running their service in any other way that passage says.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Still interesting though, having grown up in that environment, hearing about how it was shaped over time and questioning some of the batshit crazy bits is very useful.

            I’m not in this comment thread elsewhere, just found the analysis useful