Authoritarians, Assemble!

[The Parkus Empire]

And I'd say to you Jesus Christ Himself would oppose this. Authoritarianism is not in line with, "Love thy neighbour."

I don't agree. You can't love your neighbor while allowing him to degenerate because he doesn't agree with morality.

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

[Pasong Tirad]

You don't love other's rights to have freedom and happiness if you are an authoritarian. Try harder.

If you can't be happy without the state guaranteeing preference of individual rights over welfare and stability of the society it speaks about you and not the society.
90%+ of world's population has and wants much less individual rights than westerners do and they're are happier than westerners. You've gotta leave your libertarian thought bubble.

Source that.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I don't agree. You can't love your neighbor while allowing him to degenerate because he doesn't agree with morality.

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

If he could, he'd try.

And to United Muscovite Nations, I posed this (he may not have seen):

And what do you do with those who aren't moral enough in your mind? Beat them? Imprison them? Execute them? Is that showing Christ's love and forgiveness?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't agree. You can't love your neighbor while allowing him to degenerate because he doesn't agree with morality.

1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

[The Parkus Empire]

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

If he could, he'd try.

And to United Muscovite Nations, I posed this (he may not have seen):

And what do you do with those who aren't moral enough in your mind? Beat them? Imprison them? Execute them? Is that showing Christ's love and forgiveness?

Then he'd be a commie. :^) Private property is inherently selfish.

[Sounstian]

90%+ of world's population has and wants much less individual rights than westerners do and they're are happier than westerners. You've gotta leave your libertarian thought bubble.

Please source. And a society that knows nothing but authoritarianism is of course going to have little qualm with its existence. They know nothing else.

If you can't compare social reality of the west which makes a small number of world's population and that of rest of the "less developed" world you should read more.
In most of the world people live their lives without the liberal democratic state and it's social social programs, without obsessing over liberal ideology like westerners do and they're perfectly fine.

It seems to me that you're the one who knows nothing else but your ideological though bubble of postmodern urban culture.

[United Muscovite Nations]

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

If he could, he'd try.

And to United Muscovite Nations, I posed this (he may not have seen):

And what do you do with those who aren't moral enough in your mind? Beat them? Imprison them? Execute them? Is that showing Christ's love and forgiveness?

Filially correct them, but if it is a serious enough offence, the lash. I'd accept such punishment for myself, and it's forgiving because all sins are worthy of death.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I don't agree. You can't love your neighbor while allowing him to degenerate because he doesn't agree with morality.

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

What if you do something selfless and degenerate? Are you selflessly selfish?

[The Parkus Empire]

'Degeneracy' is selfishness. You really can't outlaw being selfish.

What if you do something selfless and degenerate? Are you selflessly selfish?

Technically, you can't. 'Degenerate' here means to fall from God.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What if you do something selfless and degenerate? Are you selflessly selfish?

Technically, you can't. 'Degenerate' here means to fall from God.

And one can't fall from god while doing a selfless act? What if I paid for prostitutes to have condoms?

[Pasong Tirad]

Please source. And a society that knows nothing but authoritarianism is of course going to have little qualm with its existence. They know nothing else.

If you can't compare social reality of the west which makes a small number of world's population and that of rest of the "less developed" world you should read more.
In most of the world people live their lives without the liberal democratic state and it's social social programs, without obsessing over liberal ideology like westerners do and they're perfectly fine.

It seems to me that you're the one who knows nothing else but your ideological though bubble of postmodern urban culture.

That's not what he's asking. He's asking you to provide a source for your claim that 90%+ of the world is happy with having fewer rights. Source it.

You might also as well provide sources for how you came up with the idea that most of the world doesn't live in states that don't have social programs.

[Genivaria]

Technically, you can't. 'Degenerate' here means to fall from God.

And one can't fall from god while doing a selfless act? What if I paid for prostitutes to have condoms?

Or to have free health checks.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

If he could, he'd try.

And to United Muscovite Nations, I posed this (he may not have seen):

And what do you do with those who aren't moral enough in your mind? Beat them? Imprison them? Execute them? Is that showing Christ's love and forgiveness?

Filially correct them, but if it is a serious enough offence, the lash. I'd accept such punishment for myself, and it's forgiving because all sins are worthy of death.

This just in: not everyone in the world is Christian. And it's views like this that make people piss on Christianity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Filially correct them, but if it is a serious enough offence, the lash. I'd accept such punishment for myself, and it's forgiving because all sins are worthy of death.

This just in: not everyone in the world is Christian. And it's views like this that make people piss on Christianity.

I don't really care what non-Christians think about it.

[Genivaria]

This just in: not everyone in the world is Christian. And it's views like this that make people piss on Christianity.

I don't really care what non-Christians think about it.

The Romans thought the same way.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

This just in: not everyone in the world is Christian. And it's views like this that make people piss on Christianity.

I don't really care what non-Christians think about it.

Well I am Christian and I think it's insanity. Being able to love and accept different people is a cornerstone of showing His love. His love is not a corporal type of love where sinners are destroyed and punished. That's for Judgment Day only where HE will dispense justice, not some quasi-fascist Christian government that you seem to dream of. He will bring the sword, not sinful human beings who dispense imperfect justice.

[Pasong Tirad]

This just in: not everyone in the world is Christian. And it's views like this that make people piss on Christianity.

I don't really care what non-Christians think about it.

How Christian of you.

[Sounstian]

If you can't compare social reality of the west which makes a small number of world's population and that of rest of the "less developed" world you should read more.
In most of the world people live their lives without the liberal democratic state and it's social social programs, without obsessing over liberal ideology like westerners do and they're perfectly fine.

It seems to me that you're the one who knows nothing else but your ideological though bubble of postmodern urban culture.

That's not what he's asking. He's asking you to provide a source for your claim that 90%+ of the world is happy with having fewer rights. Source it.

You might also as well provide sources for how you came up with the idea that most of the world doesn't live in states that don't have social programs.

You can't measure happiness. It's not a number. It was OBVIOUSLY not a sociological fact, but advocation for the "noble savage" lifestyle.
They are happier because happiness isn't based having "rights" people in your social circle consider important. If you actually knew life outside of reality of the big city you would understand it too without asking for sources. If they weren't happy they wouldn't be advocating against those very "rights" (whose advocation is mostly attributed to constant media repeating) and for restrictive religious laws like they do in the west.

You might explain to me how would things like advocating for feminism and rights of spoiled teenagers to wear tattoos and skimpy clothes without reprisal work with most of the world which lives in poor african and asian countries in primitive shacks having at least half a dozen kids per family.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't really care what non-Christians think about it.

How Christian of you.

Would you say it's unchristian to punish murderers and rapists?

[Genivaria]

How Christian of you.

Would you say it's unchristian to punish murderers and rapists?

Would it be 'unChristian' to do the same if they happen to be Christians?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Would you say it's unchristian to punish murderers and rapists?

Would it be 'unChristian' to do the same if they happen to be Christians?

Can you clarify the question, I don't understand what you're asking.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

How Christian of you.

Would you say it's unchristian to punish murderers and rapists?

Nobody is saying that. Nobody advocates that.

The point of contention is you wanting to have an authoritarian theocracy where the rights of those who don't believe and those who don't hold up to your moral standards are punished in the most un-Christian of ways.

[Neutraligon]

How Christian of you.

Would you say it's unchristian to punish murderers and rapists?

Depends on the punishment. Would it be unchristian to torture them or stone them to death...no...but then that is part of the problem.

[Pilarcraft]

That's not what he's asking. He's asking you to provide a source for your claim that 90%+ of the world is happy with having fewer rights. Source it.

You might also as well provide sources for how you came up with the idea that most of the world doesn't live in states that don't have social programs.

You can't measure happiness. It's not a number. It was OBVIOUSLY not a sociological fact, but advocation for the "noble savage" lifestyle.
They are happier because happiness isn't based having "rights" people in your social circle consider important. If you actually knew life outside of reality of the big city you would understand it too without asking for sources. If they weren't happy they wouldn't be advocating against those very "rights" (whose advocation is mostly attributed to constant media repeating) and for restrictive religious laws like they do in the west.

You might explain to me how would things like advocating for feminism and rights of spoiled teenagers to wear tattoos and skimpy clothes without reprisal work with most of the world which lives in poor african and asian countries in primitive shacks having at least half a dozen kids per family.

You don't bring arguments into a debate without being able to back them up with references. You can't use the "You'd know it if you weren't this []" cop-out. When you say "People outside the Western World are happier", you'd better be able to back it up with facts.

[Genivaria]

Would it be 'unChristian' to do the same if they happen to be Christians?

Can you clarify the question, I don't understand what you're asking.

Would it be "Christian" for Christians to strike down Christians who murder and rape?