NationStates

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Maurepas wrote:

Logasiri wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:One of the many ways that Atheism is leading to the degradation of Western civilization and the decline of humanity in general is that Atheists have weak personal relationships, as opposed to the abiding and adamantine bonds between loving Christians.

I don't see how Atheist's marrying is "degrading" western civilization as you say.

For example, Christ commands us to love our neighbors, so we do.

Tell that to the Atheists, Secularists, Homosexuals, and pretty much everyone who is not a Christian.

Christian history is replete with affable coexistence, and to this day, there is not a single border between Christian nations that requires armed guard. From Northern Ireland to the Maginot Line, from Germany to Poland, from Mexico to America, the peace of Christ has rained a fiery barrage of tranquility down upon the blacked-out fortified bunkers of our neighborhoods.

American Border Patrol, UK Border Agency. They are armed, ready to repel illegal aliens if violence is necessary.

But on a far more important scale, Atheists have particularly failed at the second* most important relationship available to human beings: marriage. Marriage is what brings us together, today. And for Christians, it is a sacred bond, wherein a man is commanded to love and care for his wife and she is commanded to obey and make babies for him.

Man is not commanded to do anything. It all depends on hormones. Love and care are emotions caused by hormones. The will to make babies is caused by hormones.

If either fails in this most sacrosanct of duties, Jesus stands ready to punish them with eternal burning and flaying in hell, unless they have asked Jesus to forgive their sins, in which case Jesus just puts information on their credit report resulting in denial of financing for the purchase of appliances at Sears. This results in a truly loving bond.

Is it a sin not to have sex now? Isn't that ironic as Christians are rather hostile towards the idea of sex?

You atheists have to base your marriages on the specious and tenuous connections of mutual respect, regard, attraction, and happiness in your daily lives.

EXACTLY. Jesus Christ....

Without the supernatural chains of Heaven to keep you together in an unbreakable state of matrimony, you have to maintain your relationships with nothing but simple humane consideration, self-motivated co-operation, and sinfully experimental sex.

I think it is much better that you marry because you genuinely care about the person rather than because "God" told you.

You have to decide, every day, to really care for one another, in each moment, for yourselves and for each other. We Christians, on the other hand, stay together because God will spiritually ass-ram us if we divorce. THAT'S what you base a successful relationship on.

And yet statistics show that Atheists have a much less divorce rate than Christians

I urge all of you atheists here to abandon your willful and damning rejection of God, and if you're married, your spouse should do the same. For women, persuade your man that Jesus is the only way by respectfully requesting that he read the Bible to you. For men, just tell her you're both Christians now.

Not gonna happen

*(Remember, the most important relationship is between a person and Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior. Scripturally, the relationship between Christ and his Church is like that of a Groom to his Bride, except Christ's love doesn't taper off a few years after the wedding, becoming emotionally distant and resentful as the Church gains weight (both literal and figurative) with the heaviness of unfulfilled expectation, and eventually Christ forgets to close his IM Chat session with an old girlfriend from high school, and the Church finds it and gets really pissed off, and even though Christ wasn't having an affair with her or anything, and hadn't even really touched her, the Church is angry because its still "emotional intimacy", so then Christ gets fed up with the Church's bullshit and really does have an affair with some 24 year old goth chick who works as a paralegal. Its not like that. Probably.)

A direct relationship with you and your spouse is STRONGER. Your argument has been debunked.

I told myself that I wasn't going to do something like this cause it felt like spamming the thread, as unfortunately it's usually filled by it.

But, really? I mean, I can understand just reading the title or the first line and still not getting it...But, you really dissected the whole post!? I mean, damn,

Can you believe it? Honestly.

We actually have a human being here who is functional enough to find and post a link to the US Border patrol, yet couldn't grasp why those places were referenced. Its like having a anemone who can compose and send letters to the editor of a local newspaper, but the letters are still basically what you would expect from a sea anemone.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:Try. Give me something about people to believe in.

Logasiri wrote:

Maurepas wrote:

Logasiri wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:One of the many ways that Atheism is leading to the degradation of Western civilization and the decline of humanity in general is that Atheists have weak personal relationships, as opposed to the abiding and adamantine bonds between loving Christians.

I don't see how Atheist's marrying is "degrading" western civilization as you say.

For example, Christ commands us to love our neighbors, so we do.

Tell that to the Atheists, Secularists, Homosexuals, and pretty much everyone who is not a Christian.

Christian history is replete with affable coexistence, and to this day, there is not a single border between Christian nations that requires armed guard. From Northern Ireland to the Maginot Line, from Germany to Poland, from Mexico to America, the peace of Christ has rained a fiery barrage of tranquility down upon the blacked-out fortified bunkers of our neighborhoods.

American Border Patrol, UK Border Agency. They are armed, ready to repel illegal aliens if violence is necessary.

But on a far more important scale, Atheists have particularly failed at the second* most important relationship available to human beings: marriage. Marriage is what brings us together, today. And for Christians, it is a sacred bond, wherein a man is commanded to love and care for his wife and she is commanded to obey and make babies for him.

Man is not commanded to do anything. It all depends on hormones. Love and care are emotions caused by hormones. The will to make babies is caused by hormones.

If either fails in this most sacrosanct of duties, Jesus stands ready to punish them with eternal burning and flaying in hell, unless they have asked Jesus to forgive their sins, in which case Jesus just puts information on their credit report resulting in denial of financing for the purchase of appliances at Sears. This results in a truly loving bond.

Is it a sin not to have sex now? Isn't that ironic as Christians are rather hostile towards the idea of sex?

You atheists have to base your marriages on the specious and tenuous connections of mutual respect, regard, attraction, and happiness in your daily lives.

EXACTLY. Jesus Christ....

Without the supernatural chains of Heaven to keep you together in an unbreakable state of matrimony, you have to maintain your relationships with nothing but simple humane consideration, self-motivated co-operation, and sinfully experimental sex.

I think it is much better that you marry because you genuinely care about the person rather than because "God" told you.

You have to decide, every day, to really care for one another, in each moment, for yourselves and for each other. We Christians, on the other hand, stay together because God will spiritually ass-ram us if we divorce. THAT'S what you base a successful relationship on.

And yet statistics show that Atheists have a much less divorce rate than Christians

I urge all of you atheists here to abandon your willful and damning rejection of God, and if you're married, your spouse should do the same. For women, persuade your man that Jesus is the only way by respectfully requesting that he read the Bible to you. For men, just tell her you're both Christians now.

Not gonna happen

*(Remember, the most important relationship is between a person and Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior. Scripturally, the relationship between Christ and his Church is like that of a Groom to his Bride, except Christ's love doesn't taper off a few years after the wedding, becoming emotionally distant and resentful as the Church gains weight (both literal and figurative) with the heaviness of unfulfilled expectation, and eventually Christ forgets to close his IM Chat session with an old girlfriend from high school, and the Church finds it and gets really pissed off, and even though Christ wasn't having an affair with her or anything, and hadn't even really touched her, the Church is angry because its still "emotional intimacy", so then Christ gets fed up with the Church's bullshit and really does have an affair with some 24 year old goth chick who works as a paralegal. Its not like that. Probably.)

A direct relationship with you and your spouse is STRONGER. Your argument has been debunked.

I told myself that I wasn't going to do something like this cause it felt like spamming the thread, as unfortunately it's usually filled by it.

But, really? I mean, I can understand just reading the title or the first line and still not getting it...But, you really dissected the whole post!? I mean, damn,

Well I get bored at 1AM at night, and I really need something to do.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:We actually have a human being here who is functional enough to find and post a link to the US Border patrol, yet couldn't grasp why those places were referenced. Its like having a anemone who can compose and send letters to the editor of a local newspaper, but the letters are still basically what you would expect from a sea anemone.

Gauntleted Fist wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Gauntleted Fist wrote:The amount of people taking you seriously seems to be increasing as you make new threads, RNOPL.

Yeah, check out Shanix above, or the real champ so far, Logasiri. Seriously, its simultaneously laughable and saddening.

It is a burden on both mind and morale to know that people out there are so incapable of distinguishing humor from seriousness. Though the comic benefits of seeing the mistakes are somewhat alleviating.

SaintB wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:Try. Give me something about people to believe in.

Something to Believe In

More of your threads should evolve into Glam Rock Power Gospel!

Conserative Morality wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:We actually have a human being here who is functional enough to find and post a link to the US Border patrol, yet couldn't grasp why those places were referenced. Its like having a anemone who can compose and send letters to the editor of a local newspaper, but the letters are still basically what you would expect from a sea anemone.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you expect from a sea anemone?

"Dear Editor, I anger greatly on the lack of coverage of clown fish squatters. These squatters are a menace to our society, our very way of life, and should be evicted with the full force of the law."?

Risottia wrote:That's because the poor guy lives on the wrong side of the pond.
I mean, seriously, look at Berlusconi. Do you think a REAL woman would want to have sex with him? Those girls around him are sex androids. It's sex androids all the time. State-owned sex androids... that's the real work of Statan.

Vonners wrote:Now do it in the style of a Sunni Muslim...

Conserative Morality wrote:Out of curiosity, what exactly do you expect from a sea anemone?

"Dear Editor, I anger greatly on the lack of coverage of clown fish squatters. These squatters are a menace to our society, our very way of life, and should be evicted with the full force of the law."?

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:But that's the thing, its not just the humor that they're oblivious to. Its like they can't consider, even briefly, why a particular piece in the passage they're "reading" was placed there. They can't apply the simple logic of reading analytically, and so they are impermeable to even the most salient indicators of subtext. The word "dur" is overused on the internet, but some people...

Gauntleted Fist wrote:Thank you for brightening my day.

Gauntleted Fist wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Out of curiosity, what exactly do you expect from a sea anemone?

"Dear Editor, I anger greatly on the lack of coverage of clown fish squatters. These squatters are a menace to our society, our very way of life, and should be evicted with the full force of the law."?

Thank you for brightening my day.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:But that's the thing, its not just the humor that they're oblivious to. Its like they can't consider, even briefly, why a particular piece in the passage they're "reading" was placed there. They can't apply the simple logic of reading analytically, and so they are impermeable to even the most salient indicators of subtext. The word "dur" is overused on the internet, but some people...

And here you go leaving me with nothing to say, really. A thief of words, you are.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Dream Control and Food wrote:Read Ephesians 5:22-24: and see how it promotes equality and strengthens relationships.............................. "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as to the lord, For the husband has authority over his wife, just as Christ has authority over the Church; and Christ is himself the Saviour of the church, his body....And so wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands, just as the church submits itself to Christ"

Exactly. That's the way it should be.

Although don't forget that if a married slave* decides he loves his wife, his children, and his master, you should take him to a post and pierce his ear with an awl.

I'm not sure what an awl is, I think its some kind of bird.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Virabia wrote:You sir, are an idiot.

Oh? Why so?

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Vonners wrote:Now do it in the style of a Sunni Muslim...

I used to do a character, Jhahannam, who was supposed to be Muslim, but I forgot thats why I made him and he wound up being...maybe racist or something? I forget what his schtick was.

Slaytesics wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Virabia wrote:You sir, are an idiot.

Oh? Why so?

Because, you are clearly making a biased, unbackupable argument, with no research proving your points, and therefore your argument is faulty.

Risottia wrote:That's because the poor guy lives on the wrong side of the pond.
I mean, seriously, look at Berlusconi. Do you think a REAL woman would want to have sex with him? Those girls around him are sex androids. It's sex androids all the time. State-owned sex androids... that's the real work of Statan.

Risottia wrote:
I think it's referring to this awl, as the awl-pike would be a bit too unwieldy (fond memories of Adnd), and this other awl, while technically a "bird", wasn't likely to be available.

Slaytesics wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Virabia wrote:You sir, are an idiot.

Oh? Why so?

Because, you are clearly making a biased, unbackupable argument, with no research proving your points, and therefore your argument is faulty.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Gauntleted Fist wrote:Thank you for brightening my day.

I do my best.

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:I think best (deliberate) bit on this thread goes to CM. His anemone bit was awesome.

Vonners wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Vonners wrote:Now do it in the style of a Sunni Muslim...

I used to do a character, Jhahannam, who was supposed to be Muslim, but I forgot thats why I made him and he wound up being...maybe racist or something? I forget what his schtick was.

Shiite?

Slaytesics wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Virabia wrote:You sir, are an idiot.

Oh? Why so?

Because, you are clearly making a biased, unbackupable argument, with no research proving your points, and therefore your argument is faulty.

Risottia wrote:

Slaytesics wrote:

RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:

Virabia wrote:You sir, are an idiot.

Oh? Why so?

Because, you are clearly making a biased, unbackupable argument, with no research proving your points, and therefore your argument is faulty.

Excuse me?
Virabia starts calling names to the OP - and calling names is bad, m'kay, and he's done no research proving his point. As the rule is around here, it's attack the post not the poster.
Attacking the poster, aka ad hominem, is the last resort of the debate-wise incompetent.