Here he speaks of the use of the breast for the nurturing of children and how when a woman goes against that light of nature it is sinful. (Unless it is for medical purposes; which are rare circumstances.)
.jpg)
". . .the Lord does not in vain prepare nutriment for children in their mothers' bosoms, before they are born. But those on whom he confers the honor of mothers, he, in this way, constitutes nurses; and they who deem it a hardship to nourish their own offspring, break, as far as they are able, the sacred bond of nature. If disease, or anything of that kind, is the hindrance, they have a just excuse; but for mothers voluntarily, and for their own pleasure, to avoid the trouble of nursing, and thus to make themselves only half-mothers, is a shameful corruption."Commentary on Genesis 21.7
Discussion Points:
-What are some other "lights of nature" that we need to be mindful of?
-Why is our culture "uncomfortable" with the way in which God has provided for infants to be nourished?
-What role does Christian modesty play in providing nourishment for a woman's children?
2 comments:
Our culture has totally sexualized the female breast.People are so warped they actually believe that offering their child their breast is inappropriate?Breastmilk is the milk that GOD CREATED for the Babies he blesses us with!!Properly covering oneself during the act or when possible in private with only Dad's and siblings gazing, it's beautiful!!!
Freud was trying to explain away his own opiate addication, cigar smoking, and homosexuality.
I work in psych and even psych does not take him seriously.
I think that the reason that PSY 101 spends so much time with him (other than he helped to create the field) is the fact that he is so out of this world that it hooks people on the stuff and makes them sign up for PSY 201.
I would like to coin a bunch of Greekisms and call it science.
He was a fraud and an enemy of God.
Post a Comment