NATION

PASSWORD

Anglican church against gay marriage

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Constantinopolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7501
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Constantinopolis » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:03 pm

Zoice wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Of course it's just a religiously motivated preference. But I'm not the one trying to impose this preference on the rest of society. I don't think it should be enforced by the state, or that any laws should be based on it. You were the one who wanted to impose your preferences on churches.

No. I wanted to converse with and convert them to a more tolerant view. As long as they are not imposing on others, they can be left alone.

Well, in that case, we don't actually have any major disagreement. It's just that you want to convert me to your view and I want to convert you to my view, and neither of us will succeed.

Suominona wrote:Stop feeling entitled to sex, you selfish prick! Instead, I should feel entitled to stop you from having sex, for I am the selfless one!

Suominona wrote:If you don't want to control what I do or what other people in general do, why are you advocating for control?

No one here is advocating imposing any external control on your sexual activities. We are talking about self-control because that is precisely the thing we advocate. We are telling you that you should control yourself. If you don't want to, fine - that's your prerogative.

Suominona wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:And I'm not "controlling" you. Convincing and controlling are not the same.

Convincing is the control of the mind.

So it's wrong for anyone to try convincing anyone else of anything, because that's controlling? :eyebrow:

Then why are you trying to convince us of various things?
The Holy Socialist Republic of Constantinopolis
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -- Albert Einstein
Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64
________________Communist. Leninist. Orthodox Christian.________________
Communism is the logical conclusion of Christian morality. "Whoever loves his neighbor as himself owns no more than his neighbor does", in the words of St. Basil the Great. The anti-theism of past Leninists was a tragic mistake, and the Church should be an ally of the working class.
My posts on the 12 Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church: -I- -II- -III- -IV- -V- -VI- -VII- -VIII- [PASCHA] -IX- -X- -XI- -XII-

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:04 pm

Kannap wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:What do you mean by "leaving this planet behind us human-free"? I don't get what you're trying to say. And I never said to never have sex. Sex is fine, and even good, if it is within the confines of a Biblical marriage. If everyone stuck to that then we wouldn't be having problems with STDs. There's a reason that STDs became so common after the Sexual Revolution.


If you are implying that a married couple cannot have STDs then you are sorely mistaken.

I never said that. But if people were more conservative in their attitudes towards sex then STDs would not be as widespread.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Burgundy-Auvergne
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Nov 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Burgundy-Auvergne » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:04 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.


I agree. Church doctrine exists for a reason, and if the Episcopal Church has set itself against the historic Christian faith, which is what a majority of Anglicans worldwide are trying to uphold, then the honest thing for the Episcopal Church to do is re-consider its membership in the Anglican Communion.

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67527
Founded: May 07, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kannap » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:05 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
So what you're saying is that people shouldn't do it because of a potential risk? So people shouldn't drive cars because they might crash? I shouldn't go outside because I might get shot over previous affiliations?

You could extend that logic to literally everything we do on a daily basis and why we shouldn't do it. We've already established we can largely negate the risks of STD's and whatnot with proper sex-ed and contraception, do you have any other reasons why?

I've heard the car analogy a million times, and it doesn't make any sense. In many cases, you need to drive a car and go outside in order to continue on with life, but no one dies from not having sex.


You don't need to drive a car, and you aren't going to die from not driving a car. Pretty certain there was a time in history where cars did not exist and people got along fine.

For example, I don't have a car. I just walk the hour long walk it takes to walk to the next town over to do my shopping or whatnot.
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
.::The List of National Sports::.
27 years old, gay demisexual, they/them agnostic, South Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident red panda
Red Panda Network
Jill Stein 2024

User avatar
Zoice
Minister
 
Posts: 3041
Founded: Oct 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Zoice » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:05 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Kannap wrote:
If you are implying that a married couple cannot have STDs then you are sorely mistaken.

I never said that. But if people were more conservative in their attitudes towards sex then STDs would not be as widespread.

This has been proven false by every study that has ever examined the question. Good sex ed and accepting communities always see a reduction in STD rates.
♂♀Copy and Paste this in your sig if you're ignorant about human sexuality and want to let everyone know. ♂♀
Or if you're an asshole that goes out of your way to bully minorities and call them words with the strict intent of upsetting a demographic that is already at a huge risk of suicide, or being murdered for who they are. :)

For: Abortions, Anomalocaris, Atheism, Anti-theism, Being a good person, Genetic Engineering, LGBT rights, Sammy Harris, the Sandman, Science, Secular humanism
Against: AGW Denialism, Anti-Semitism, Banning religion, Ends, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Means, Mother Theresa, Organized religion, Pacifism, Prejudice, the Pope, Political Correctness, Racism, Regressive Lefties and Righties, Republican Candidates, Theism, Violence

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67527
Founded: May 07, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kannap » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:06 pm

Burgundy-Auvergne wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:While I question the Anglican Church's actual commitment to the sanctity of marriage, I agree with their decision, as church-sanctioned SSM goes against established Christian doctrine on marriage.


I agree. Church doctrine exists for a reason, and if the Episcopal Church has set itself against the historic Christian faith, which is what a majority of Anglicans worldwide are trying to uphold, then the honest thing for the Episcopal Church to do is re-consider its membership in the Anglican Communion.


Yeah, they should break free from the bigoted and biased hatred that clearly exists in the Anglican Communion and stand up for their own ideas. *nods*
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
.::The List of National Sports::.
27 years old, gay demisexual, they/them agnostic, South Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident red panda
Red Panda Network
Jill Stein 2024

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:06 pm

Kannap wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:I've heard the car analogy a million times, and it doesn't make any sense. In many cases, you need to drive a car and go outside in order to continue on with life, but no one dies from not having sex.


You don't need to drive a car, and you aren't going to die from not driving a car. Pretty certain there was a time in history where cars did not exist and people got along fine.

For example, I don't have a car. I just walk the hour long walk it takes to walk to the next town over to do my shopping or whatnot.

Nowadays most people need cars in order to get to their jobs/school or whatever. Obviously yes before the Industrial Revolution no one needed cars but I wasn't talking about that.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54814
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:07 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
So what you're saying is that people shouldn't do it because of a potential risk? So people shouldn't drive cars because they might crash? I shouldn't go outside because I might get shot over previous affiliations?

You could extend that logic to literally everything we do on a daily basis and why we shouldn't do it. We've already established we can largely negate the risks of STD's and whatnot with proper sex-ed and contraception, do you have any other reasons why?

I've heard the car analogy a million times, and it doesn't make any sense. In many cases, you need to drive a car and go outside in order to continue on with life, but no one dies from not having sex.


It makes perfect sense, your logic is "there's a risk of X so you shouldn't do Y". You can apply that logic to anything and it's equally ridiculous in all of them. Guess I should stop leaving the house now, there's too many risks.

You also don't need to drive a car, our ancestors existed for a long time without them. Plenty of people today don't use them, I don't have a car and I'm still alive.
Hellenic Polytheist, Socialist

User avatar
Constantinopolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7501
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Constantinopolis » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:07 pm

Zoice wrote:Most people that end up homophobic weren't convinced by it, they were indoctrinated with it in a hyper religious family. They didn't have a choice or informed consent.

Actually, everyone I know who grew up in a hyper religious family either abandoned religion altogether or embraced that wishy-washy "I'm spiritual but not religious" line of thinking.

Conversely, the strictest Christians I know grew up with non-religious parents.

If you think adults always continue with the beliefs they were taught as children, you've clearly never met teenagers.
The Holy Socialist Republic of Constantinopolis
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -- Albert Einstein
Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64
________________Communist. Leninist. Orthodox Christian.________________
Communism is the logical conclusion of Christian morality. "Whoever loves his neighbor as himself owns no more than his neighbor does", in the words of St. Basil the Great. The anti-theism of past Leninists was a tragic mistake, and the Church should be an ally of the working class.
My posts on the 12 Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church: -I- -II- -III- -IV- -V- -VI- -VII- -VIII- [PASCHA] -IX- -X- -XI- -XII-

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:07 pm

Zoice wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:I never said that. But if people were more conservative in their attitudes towards sex then STDs would not be as widespread.

This has been proven false by every study that has ever examined the question. Good sex ed and accepting communities always see a reduction in STD rates.

But we wouldn't have the problem in the first place if it weren't for liberal views on sex becoming more popular.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Suominona
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Suominona » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:08 pm

Constantinopolis wrote:We are talking about self-control because that is precisely the thing we advocate. We are telling you that you should control yourself. If you don't want to, fine - that's your prerogative.

You're not. All you're saying is "don't let your urges control you but other things controlling you are fine, don't give 'em up".

Constantinopolis wrote:So it's wrong for anyone to try convincing anyone else of anything, because that's controlling? :eyebrow:

Then why are you trying to convince us of various things?

It being wrong or not was a thing that you and many others delved into, except for me. You said it, not me.

User avatar
Suominona
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Suominona » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:09 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Kannap wrote:
You don't need to drive a car, and you aren't going to die from not driving a car. Pretty certain there was a time in history where cars did not exist and people got along fine.

For example, I don't have a car. I just walk the hour long walk it takes to walk to the next town over to do my shopping or whatnot.

Nowadays most people need cars in order to get to their jobs/school or whatever. Obviously yes before the Industrial Revolution no one needed cars but I wasn't talking about that.

Jobs or school are not necessary for living either. Shocking, I know.

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67527
Founded: May 07, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kannap » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:11 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Kannap wrote:
You don't need to drive a car, and you aren't going to die from not driving a car. Pretty certain there was a time in history where cars did not exist and people got along fine.

For example, I don't have a car. I just walk the hour long walk it takes to walk to the next town over to do my shopping or whatnot.

Nowadays most people need cars in order to get to their jobs/school or whatever. Obviously yes before the Industrial Revolution no one needed cars but I wasn't talking about that.


They still don't need cars.

There are other forms of transportation: buses, bicycling, walking, metros, etc. Many people get to work via these other means of transportation. Cars remain a want rather than a need. However, the statement towards risk that was made was a valid one. Why drive cars if you can get into a car accident. Yes, why drive cars if you can get into a car accident? Because cars are much more convenient than other forms of transportation and are worth the risk to drive them rather than walk somewhere or rely on the bus.

Anyway, this is not the topic of this thread.
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
.::The List of National Sports::.
27 years old, gay demisexual, they/them agnostic, South Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident red panda
Red Panda Network
Jill Stein 2024

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:11 pm

Suominona wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:Nowadays most people need cars in order to get to their jobs/school or whatever. Obviously yes before the Industrial Revolution no one needed cars but I wasn't talking about that.

Jobs or school are not necessary for living either. Shocking, I know.

My point is that you need a job in order to make money in order to buy food in order to eat it and make sure your body has the energy required in order to continue living.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Zoice
Minister
 
Posts: 3041
Founded: Oct 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Zoice » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:12 pm

Constantinopolis wrote:
Zoice wrote:Most people that end up homophobic weren't convinced by it, they were indoctrinated with it in a hyper religious family. They didn't have a choice or informed consent.

Actually, everyone I know who grew up in a hyper religious family either abandoned religion altogether or embraced that wishy-washy "I'm spiritual but not religious" line of thinking.

Conversely, the strictest Christians I know grew up with non-religious parents.

If you think adults always continue with the beliefs they were taught as children, you've clearly never met teenagers.

I've met plenty of them. Your anecdotes are not convincing.

Grand Calvert wrote:
Zoice wrote:This has been proven false by every study that has ever examined the question. Good sex ed and accepting communities always see a reduction in STD rates.

But we wouldn't have the problem in the first place if it weren't for liberal views on sex becoming more popular.

That is absolutely untrue. There's no reason to believe that is true. IF no one ever had sex then STD's would be lower for sure. But that'd not how the world works. Conservative views on sexuality fail horribly because they don't understand how humans work. They have sex. Informing them and giving them rubbers let's them have safe sex. Conservative abstinence only education and pressure to be chaste just leads to frustration, bad sexual experiences, STD's, and feelings of guilt when people give in.
♂♀Copy and Paste this in your sig if you're ignorant about human sexuality and want to let everyone know. ♂♀
Or if you're an asshole that goes out of your way to bully minorities and call them words with the strict intent of upsetting a demographic that is already at a huge risk of suicide, or being murdered for who they are. :)

For: Abortions, Anomalocaris, Atheism, Anti-theism, Being a good person, Genetic Engineering, LGBT rights, Sammy Harris, the Sandman, Science, Secular humanism
Against: AGW Denialism, Anti-Semitism, Banning religion, Ends, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Means, Mother Theresa, Organized religion, Pacifism, Prejudice, the Pope, Political Correctness, Racism, Regressive Lefties and Righties, Republican Candidates, Theism, Violence

User avatar
Setgavarius
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1087
Founded: Mar 21, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Setgavarius » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:13 pm

Constantinopolis wrote:
Setgavarius wrote:
Based on the definition above, considering marriage and sexual activity by a person to be sinful and to be banned or avoided because they are part of a group of people who desire to perform such activities with those of the same gender comprises yet more discrimination. When discrimination is practiced based on inborn qualities that only generate distress or anger in a given situation based on the reactions others have to them possessing said quality, I find it to be wrong.
The Christian viewpoint on homosexuality is, therefore, blatantly discriminatory.

Bullshit. All views of morality - both religious and non-religious - always restrict or ban certain activities done by people who have inborn qualities that make them desire those activities.

It's not "discrimination" to say that some inborn desires that certain people have, are wrong. Indeed, even while disagreeing about homosexuality, we all already agree that a vast number of other inborn desires that many people have, are wrong.

It is a consideration against the possessors of said inborn desires on the basis that they have those inborn desires. Some of these desires are universally agreed upon as wrong. Others have a more contentious status.
It doesn't affect what said behavior is, though. It's discrimination.

Grand Calvert wrote:
Setgavarius wrote:I don't think I find some of that "self-control"...to be undamaging to children.

Why? It's better to teach someone self-control than to say that it's fine to act on every sexual impulse they get.

I don't find the latter of these two continuum endpoints favorable. I do, however, find that self-control is celibacy for anyone who lacks thoughts of sexual attraction towards those of the opposite gender. Whereas for those who do possess such thoughts, some of them may be acted upon.
Constantinopolis wrote:
Zoice wrote:Paedophelia is wrong, because it is rape.

Right. So this is an example of a case where just because a desire is innate, that doesn't necessarily make it right, and opposing this desire isn't necessarily a form of discrimination (contrary to Setgavarius's view of discrimination, which implies that any innate desire is always ok).

But I wasn't just talking about sexual desires, either. Some people have a desire to eat too much food or drink too much alcohol. This is also wrong. And it's wrong even though it is not hurting anyone else.

Some people have a desire to commit suicide because of an innate predisposition towards depression. This is also wrong.

And so on.

Zoice wrote:Homosexuality is wrong because... it hurts God's feelings?

Homosexuality is wrong in the same way that heterosexual pre-marital intercourse is wrong. We should control our sexual impulses.

:palm: I see I made an error.
I didn't mean to imply such a statement. I've yet to find any reason based on sources I trust, such as the American Psychological Association, that homosexuality would be, absent any opposition to its' open acknowledgment, bad for a society and still believe that discrimination against those who possess this quality is wrong.
I still believe that open action on pedophilic impulses towards children is child sexual abuse and a definite malus for child development and would support discrimination against those who possess such a quality, among others.
Grand Calvert wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Well unlike chastity sex actually has proven health benefits, chastity and things are mocked because they're stupid.

So it's wrong to criticize homosexuality but fine to mock people for staying chaste? For demonstrating self-control?

Both are discriminatory and at the very least do no good to the individuals who possess the qualities of homosexuality, self-control and chastity. At worst they are downright deleterious to the lives of those possessing such qualities. I wouldn't advocate discrimination against the chaste, the homosexual or those with self-control.
The Planetary Administration of Setgavarius,
The World of Snark

Core Colony of The United Colonies of Earth.

User avatar
Suominona
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Suominona » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:13 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Suominona wrote:Jobs or school are not necessary for living either. Shocking, I know.

My point is that you need a job in order to make money in order to buy food in order to eat it and make sure your body has the energy required in order to continue living.

Buying food isn't necessary for living. You can grow your own or gather from nature.

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:15 pm

Zoice wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:Actually, everyone I know who grew up in a hyper religious family either abandoned religion altogether or embraced that wishy-washy "I'm spiritual but not religious" line of thinking.

Conversely, the strictest Christians I know grew up with non-religious parents.

If you think adults always continue with the beliefs they were taught as children, you've clearly never met teenagers.

I've met plenty of them. Your anecdotes are not convincing.

Grand Calvert wrote:But we wouldn't have the problem in the first place if it weren't for liberal views on sex becoming more popular.

That is absolutely untrue. There's no reason to believe that is true. IF no one ever had sex then STD's would be lower for sure. But that'd not how the world works. Conservative views on sexuality fail horribly because they don't understand how humans work. They have sex. Informing them and giving them rubbers let's them have safe sex. Conservative abstinence only education and pressure to be chaste just leads to frustration, bad sexual experiences, STD's, and feelings of guilt when people give in.

Let's face it; if the Sexual Revolution never happened, STDs would not be as common. Though I would say that conservative abstinence does work, but only on the individual level. As in, you've got to really be convinced yourself that there's a good reason to stay chaste until marriage.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:16 pm

Suominona wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:My point is that you need a job in order to make money in order to buy food in order to eat it and make sure your body has the energy required in order to continue living.

Buying food isn't necessary for living. You can grow your own or gather from nature.

You're missing the point. For most people it is, but we're getting too far from the topic as it is.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

User avatar
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:18 pm

Suominona wrote:Just 'child', but all right. It's not gays telling themselves 'gay is bad', you know. So yes, you made shit up instead of reading what I said after which you read what I said and stated the most obvious thing to me. Even then you fucked up, seeing as you stated something again what I didn't say.

So again, you felt the need to make me relevant and thus made me more relevant on your quest for da troof. Maybe drop the whining about me becoming relevant? Actually don't, because it's funny.

Did I say gay marriage was theologically correct or did I say that it wasn't theologically incorrect? I'll spare your time to search for that comment and reveal that I said neither. I said that proponents of queer theology on this forum have really sound arguments. I wonder if they're still here?

How would you know if you haven't tried it? That question was rhetorical, by the way. You don't know. You're just appealing to emotion. Thus, your argument is crap! See what I did there? I can do that too!

"W- w- won't somebody think of the children?" is your argument. There is nothing I can really "make up" when you're saying it yourself, you know?
But feel free to show me where exactly I "strawmanned" you. ;)

You know that it's my "anger" at the fact that civil marriage was "taking over" religious one, a claim whose stupidity I joked about since I live in the country where civil unions were invented, which was supposed to make you relevant; not just me responding to you and even less the legitimate laughter you're getting of me with your pitiful attempts of being spiritual. :)
Anyway, when you say shit; I correct you. Don't feel that you're somewhat important nor "relevant" because of it. It's simply what most people here does.

You know that it's not because something isn't totally theologically incorrect that it's actually theologically ok or just simply right? It's only because of the existence of one of those "technically not theologically incorrect" thing that your borderline heretical church even exist in the first place. :)
Anyway, don't wait for others people to support your own claims. Do it yourself or drop them.

You tried too do it indeed. And failed awfully and utterly at it. :)
I never ate shit yet I know it'll be disgusting. There are some occasions where the adage "Can't tell if it's bad or not before you taste it" is just bullshit and bedding your kin is one of those.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

User avatar
Suominona
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Suominona » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:18 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Suominona wrote:Buying food isn't necessary for living. You can grow your own or gather from nature.

You're missing the point. For most people it is, but we're getting too far from the topic as it is.

Your point is moot because your premises are incorrect. That is the point you're missing here. And no, even for vaguely stating stuff about 'most people' or 'the majority', they're still not any more correct.

User avatar
Ice and Blood
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jan 06, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Ice and Blood » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:19 pm

Northern Freikur wrote:
Socialist Tera wrote:We are unlikely to know what is or is not edited since the papacy has changed the bible multiple times.


1 -POSSIBLE BLASPHEMY DETECTED-
2 I do not believe that God would allow such to happen to the CANNON.
3 Papal edits are contained within the catholic "Sacred Texts" (pagans...)


Hey Northern Freikur, are Catholic?

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54814
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:22 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:Though I would say that conservative abstinence does work


It doesn't, all the evidence shows this. In the US for example, abstinence education conservative areas almost always have the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates. People are going to have sex and all abstinence education does is make people unprepared for safe sex.

With any luck civil unions will eventually have all the benefits of marriage so we can let people keep their stupid beliefs and have everyone equal so we're all happy. That's probably hoping for too much though.
Hellenic Polytheist, Socialist

User avatar
Zoice
Minister
 
Posts: 3041
Founded: Oct 30, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Zoice » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:22 pm

Grand Calvert wrote:
Zoice wrote:I've met plenty of them. Your anecdotes are not convincing.


That is absolutely untrue. There's no reason to believe that is true. IF no one ever had sex then STD's would be lower for sure. But that'd not how the world works. Conservative views on sexuality fail horribly because they don't understand how humans work. They have sex. Informing them and giving them rubbers let's them have safe sex. Conservative abstinence only education and pressure to be chaste just leads to frustration, bad sexual experiences, STD's, and feelings of guilt when people give in.

Let's face it; if the Sexual Revolution never happened, STDs would not be as common. Though I would say that conservative abstinence does work, but only on the individual level. As in, you've got to really be convinced yourself that there's a good reason to stay chaste until marriage.

Again, no. That's just not a fact, STD's were all over the place before the sexual revolution. As for the individual level, well, there is no good reason.
♂♀Copy and Paste this in your sig if you're ignorant about human sexuality and want to let everyone know. ♂♀
Or if you're an asshole that goes out of your way to bully minorities and call them words with the strict intent of upsetting a demographic that is already at a huge risk of suicide, or being murdered for who they are. :)

For: Abortions, Anomalocaris, Atheism, Anti-theism, Being a good person, Genetic Engineering, LGBT rights, Sammy Harris, the Sandman, Science, Secular humanism
Against: AGW Denialism, Anti-Semitism, Banning religion, Ends, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Means, Mother Theresa, Organized religion, Pacifism, Prejudice, the Pope, Political Correctness, Racism, Regressive Lefties and Righties, Republican Candidates, Theism, Violence

User avatar
Grand Calvert
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Feb 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Calvert » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:23 pm

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Grand Calvert wrote:Though I would say that conservative abstinence does work


It doesn't, all the evidence shows this. In the US for example, abstinence education conservative areas almost always have the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates. People are going to have sex and all abstinence education does is make people unprepared for safe sex.

With any luck civil unions will eventually have all the benefits of marriage so we can let people keep their stupid beliefs and have everyone equal so we're all happy. That's probably hoping for too much though.

Did you even read the second half of that quote? You're misquoting me.
17 year-old Conservative Reformed Baptist
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!” -Martin Luther

Saved...

Sola Gratia (by grace alone)
Sola Fide (through faith alone)
Solus Christus (in Christ alone)
Sola Scriptura (according to scripture alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone)

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baltinica, Cheblonsk, Liberal Malaysia, New haven america, Novorijeka, Oceasia

Advertisement

Remove ads