The "regrettable" is doing a lot of work there, both in keeping him accurate and convincing people who don't read it carefully that Christianity said sex is bad.
Coming in 2nd place instead of 1st is "regrettable", choosing B over A is regrettable, because of the lost opportunity to reach the ideal and it's always a possibility that someone might regret not doing something differently.
Regrettable doesn't mean shameful though, nobody should be ashamed of 2nd place unless you were arm wrestling toddlers or something. But people do have a tough time letting go of perfection so it does bleed over nonetheless, so rhetorically you can say "regrettable" without being technically wrong, whilst also giving opportunity for a common misunderstanding to make that look like a stronger claim.
If you stop reading at that word, maybe it could read like that, if you squint. But the rest of the quote very clearly goes well beyond that territory into something that just isn't in the Bible. Between Paul warning against immoral sex, the other letters extolling the virtues of fathers and families, and the repeated instruction to married couples that, no, really you have to give yourselves to each other, you can't read the NT and find anything less than a baseline assumption of married sex, let alone an anti-life mental disorder.
Thank you for having me read his quote again, though. Because he's not retarded. I always forget the other option: he's attacking Christianity because it's against his master.
I find Paul's words on eating sacrificial animals interesting.
Essentially, since God doesn't need sacrifices there's nothing profane about eating them so it's fine to save some money on cheap meat.
However, if someone doesn't understand this, and sees you eating it, that encourages them to do something they think is wrong, which is in itself wrong.
I read it as "it's fine to break rules that don't make sense, but keep it to yourself or lesser minds will decide that rules are bad due to your example".
The "regrettable" is doing a lot of work there, both in keeping him accurate and convincing people who don't read it carefully that Christianity said sex is bad.
Coming in 2nd place instead of 1st is "regrettable", choosing B over A is regrettable, because of the lost opportunity to reach the ideal and it's always a possibility that someone might regret not doing something differently.
Regrettable doesn't mean shameful though, nobody should be ashamed of 2nd place unless you were arm wrestling toddlers or something. But people do have a tough time letting go of perfection so it does bleed over nonetheless, so rhetorically you can say "regrettable" without being technically wrong, whilst also giving opportunity for a common misunderstanding to make that look like a stronger claim.
If you stop reading at that word, maybe it could read like that, if you squint. But the rest of the quote very clearly goes well beyond that territory into something that just isn't in the Bible. Between Paul warning against immoral sex, the other letters extolling the virtues of fathers and families, and the repeated instruction to married couples that, no, really you have to give yourselves to each other, you can't read the NT and find anything less than a baseline assumption of married sex, let alone an anti-life mental disorder.
Thank you for having me read his quote again, though. Because he's not retarded. I always forget the other option: he's attacking Christianity because it's against his master.
I find Paul's words on eating sacrificial animals interesting.
Essentially, since God doesn't need sacrifices there's nothing profane about eating them so it's fine to save some money on cheap meat.
However, if someone doesn't understand this, and sees you eating it, that encourages them to do something they think is wrong, which is in itself wrong.
I read it as "it's fine to break rules that don't make sense, but keep it to yourself or lesser minds will decide that rules are bad due to your example".