Bravo Flag Flying

‘Marriage is a union of souls’ N O .

Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

Marriage is a union of flesh and your manichean concepts to justify a contraceptive mindset have no place on my good Catholic blog.

And the primary end of marriage is and always will be the procreation and education of children

I love my catholic brothers and sisters, but this is an icy cold take.

It’s the view of all Christians of any sect until the mid-20th century but okay

Unless you’re Paul writing to the Ephesians but ok

St. Paul in Ephesians is compatible with the traditional Christian view of marriage. The idea that the primary end of marriage isn’t the procreation and education of children is incompatible with Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful and multiply” is literally the first thing God commands the first married couple.

I’m not taking issue with having children, but rather with the word “primary”. Because God commanded that to Adam and Eve doesn’t make it the primary role of marriage, and the teachings of Jesus and Paul are testament to that. The primary role of marriage is a relationship that mirrors the one of Christ and the Church. Procreation is a necessary practicality that works within the confines of marriage, not the other way around.

It does mirror Christ and the Church but the role of Christ and the Church is still one of producing spiritual offspring and raising them up spiritually. We’re adopted as coheirs with Christ through baptism and are sanctified through grace. The procreation and education of children mirrors this. God commanded to be fruitful and multiply first because it’s the first, or primary, end of marriage.

Except producing “spiritual offspring” doesn’t change who the church is. Spiritual offspring are still the bride of Christ, and the ultimate goal of marriage is to glorify God. The Church as a whole has no “offspring” so to speak, everyone who is gained simply becomes apart of that bride. Again, the practical purpose of procreation does not outweigh the spiritual significance of a marriage relationship simply because God told Adam and Eve to have kids. You’re making the claim that God told Adam and Eve to procreate first because it’s the primary end of marriage, but do you have any further evidence that is the case? Certainly we’re called to procreate and to raise our children up to be disciples of Christ, but I cannot find further scripture that points to the act of having children being the main focus of being married.

Procreation is a necessary function created within the bounds of biblical marriage. Marriage was not created around the need to procreate.

‘Marriage is a union of souls’ N O .

Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

Marriage is a union of flesh and your manichean concepts to justify a contraceptive mindset have no place on my good Catholic blog.

And the primary end of marriage is and always will be the procreation and education of children

I love my catholic brothers and sisters, but this is an icy cold take.

It’s the view of all Christians of any sect until the mid-20th century but okay

Unless you’re Paul writing to the Ephesians but ok

St. Paul in Ephesians is compatible with the traditional Christian view of marriage. The idea that the primary end of marriage isn’t the procreation and education of children is incompatible with Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful and multiply” is literally the first thing God commands the first married couple.

I’m not taking issue with having children, but rather with the word “primary”. Because God commanded that to Adam and Eve doesn’t make it the primary role of marriage, and the teachings of Jesus and Paul are testament to that. The primary role of marriage is a relationship that mirrors the one of Christ and the Church. Procreation is a necessary practicality that works within the confines of marriage, not the other way around.

‘Marriage is a union of souls’ N O .

Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

Marriage is a union of flesh and your manichean concepts to justify a contraceptive mindset have no place on my good Catholic blog.

And the primary end of marriage is and always will be the procreation and education of children

I love my catholic brothers and sisters, but this is an icy cold take.

It’s the view of all Christians of any sect until the mid-20th century but okay

Unless you’re Paul writing to the Ephesians but ok

kosmonin

‘Marriage is a union of souls’ N O .

Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

Marriage is a union of flesh and your manichean concepts to justify a contraceptive mindset have no place on my good Catholic blog.

And the primary end of marriage is and always will be the procreation and education of children

libertarirynn-deactivated202006

I love my catholic brothers and sisters, but this is an icy cold take.

twistoftheknife

eternal-echoes

src

bogleech

Things food snobs are wrong about

“Organic” isn’t better for you or for the environment. It actually means nothing of any significance at best and is sometimes even the more wasteful, more hazardous option.

A shitload of “natural” food including a lot of imported produce is grown and harvested through slave labor in inhumane conditions.

Pizza, fried chicken, french fries, fast food, candy bars and chips ARE nutritious. They are loaded with good things. Just because they have an abundance of excess fats and might not be healthy as a staple doesn’t mean they are “nutritionless” or that their calories are “empty.” Those are hokey buzzwords pushed by the people in charge of how much you pay for the alternatives.

Eating healthier costs more. Much more. Looking down on people for their reliance on cheaper food is extremely classist and expecting everyone to be able to live off fresh veggies and cage-free meats is insultingly unrealistic in the modern world.

“Processed” literally only means the food went through some kind of automated process. This can be literally the exact same thing a human being would have done to the food for it to be labeled “unprocessed.” Being processed does not make something less healthy.

Chemicals with long, scary names are part of nature. An apple is full of compounds you probably can’t pronounce. A shorter ingredients label only means they didn’t bother listing all 300 things the product is actually made of and HAS to be made of.

Preservatives, artificial flavors and other additives are not the devil. Most are harmless and in general they are part of the reason you haven’t already starved to death or died of a food borne illness.

MSG is not bad for you at all.

The fact that something might be made of “scrap” meats like pig snouts or chicken necks only means one thing: that we didn’t waste perfectly normal, edible meat.

I DON’T KNOW HOW I FORGOT THIS IN MY FIRST VERSION OF THIS POST BUT GMO’S ARE NOT DANGEROUS TO EAT. GMO’S ARE SAVING LIVES. YOU’VE ALREADY EATEN GMO’S BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW THE TERM. IT’S FINE. EAT THEM.

bogleech

So I’ve literally done this twice before and so have several other people but here are sources on all of these, most of them fairly recent academic studies or otherwise the most up-to-date I could find:

Organic food isn’t better for you: [1] [2] [3]

Tracing food industry slave labor: [1]

Healthier food is more expensive: [1] [2]

Saturated fats (i.e. “junk food”) still provide needed energy, aren’t as bad as people thought: [1] [2]

“Processed” isn’t synonymous with less healthy, because it means a lot of different things: [1]

“Chemicals” also means a lot of things and many food components are misunderstood by the general public: [1]

MSG is not harmful: [1] [2] [3]

GMO’s are not dangerous to eat: [400 sources collected here]

olive-the-olive

It looks like your sources on organics are mostly on the health impact. Do you have any on the environmental impact? bc that’s the reason I feel like I should buy organic.

Also, it always bugs me that the GMO debate is over whether they’re bad for you. Like of course they’re not bad for you but the patent issues around them are really concerning.

bogleech

Oh yeah, I forgot!

Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice - a massive 2017 study, which is also included in a collection of other research here: “Is organic really better for the environment?” The general conclusion right now is basically “it depends,” but it depends on the produce we’re looking at as well as the type of environmental harm:

If this chart is a little obtuse to read, here’s a breakdown:

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: organically grown meat and dairy is better for the environment in terms of greenhouse gases. For all other foods, there isn’t a big difference.

LAND USE: all organic foods are worse here, using much more land.

ENTROPHICATION: all organic food is STAGGERINGLY worse here, HOLY SHIT.

ACIDIFICATION: all organic food is worse, once again.

ENERGY USE: organically grown cereals are worse, all other organic foods roughly the same or better at overall energy use. There isn’t a category here for pesticides, but it’s important to know that “organic farming” DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER MEANT PESTICIDE-FREE. Apparently over 95% of people who choose organic food say they do so because they don’t want to be eating pesticides. That’s pretty fucking alarming, because organic crops are pretty much equally likely to be sprayed with something to kill weeds, insects or both, and just because those pesticides are certified organic in origin doesn’t mean they’re harmless to humans or to the environment. There’s more about that in this article.

Anyway, the biggest failure of organic foods is that “entrophication” thing, which most people have never even heard of. It refers largely to fertilizer and organic waste runoff, i.e. “extra food” dumped into the environment, which SOUNDS better to the average person than most forms of pollution, but is in fact absolutely devastating to entire ecosystems.

Nutrient pollution means food for microorganisms first and that is what causes population explosions of bacteria, fungi and toxic algae. This can kill off every single living thing in a given environment, like the “red tide” blooms that recently ravaged Florida. Overall, organic farming is a mess of poorly understood advantages and disadvantages in different areas.

zarosianzealot

Real funny how everyone has arbitrarily decided meat is bad for the environment because the vegans couldn’t make a coherent moral case against it so they’re going to use eco-looneyism as an excuse to tax the poor into being forced to eat bugs and stay weak and subdued huh

Taylor Swift’s bots fucking nuked this off YouTube in nanoseconds so enjoy here

queendice-blog

Reblog if you love the person in your icon.

mxrcury-lxve

Fo sho

Everyone knows that smoking a pipe has no health risks. The classiness of the pipe outweighs the danger of the carcinogens.

mr-downer

Okay Gandalf

I was thinking of Tolkien himself

but one of his characters works too.

libertarirynn-deactivated202006

Bruh when we getting together to smoke pipe?

If you think being monogamous=boring sex life, then you suck at sex. I’m js.

#monogomy #open marriage

And of course the gun control debates following the UNC-C shootings are in full effect. “We need better laws! Congress needs to act!”

Let me break this down for you: The killer had no criminal record and he didn’t even use one of those spooky scary AR-15s the libs are always clutching their pearls about, he used a legally obtained handgun. So tell me again what laws would have prevented this outside of an outright ban?