Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Hakons]

I basically agree with your position, then, although I feel that extramarital sex should only be a resort if marriage is for some reason not an available option and both parties intend the relationship to be a permanent one- essentially, a common-law marriage. I do understand that it is difficult in the modern world for Christians who are seeking a meaningful relationship to uphold traditional moral standards with regards to sex and marriage.

I'd rather use the term "premarital" than "extramarital", because the former is much more exclusive than the latter.

But yes, I think the genuine mutual desire to get married is enough to be married in a Christian sense, and as such relations between two such people are licit.

That's... very out of line with Orthodox teaching. Marriage is a sacrement, and not simply the desire to be together. But what is and isn't precisely sinful is a better held in the CDT. I'm assuming you're taking this position because, as we've had discussion on before, there's no dogmatic council ruling on it, so you can pick whatever position you want? To be okay with fornication is pretty heterodox in my opinion.

[Cappuccina]

How would you know what is conducive to me or not?

You have in the past revealed enough of your personal life to indicate such a system would be unlikely to treat you well.

Perhaps, perhaps not. All I know is that my life was profoundly worse before Islam, it has made me a much better person, and continues to improve me.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'd rather use the term "premarital" than "extramarital", because the former is much more exclusive than the latter.

But yes, I think the genuine mutual desire to get married is enough to be married in a Christian sense, and as such relations between two such people are licit.

That's... very out of line with Orthodox teaching. Marriage is a sacrement, and not simply the desire to be together. But what is and isn't precisely sinful is a better held in the CDT. I'm assuming you're taking this position because, as we've had discussion on before, there's no dogmatic council ruling on it, so you can pick whatever position you want? To be okay with fornication is pretty heterodox in my opinion.

It's not out of line, marriage wasn't conducted in the Church for the earliest parts of its existence and it wasn't until the 12th century that it was formalized as a sacrament. For much of Christian history, marriage was something that people simply agreed to do, as evidenced by common law marriage's survival in modern law. Moreover, many Church fathers express this view (i.e. that marriage isn't a sacrament).

[Fahran]

I don't even drink coffee, much less anything harder than that.

I wish Fahran were here so that I could remind her of the time that she told me I was the queerest Tory she'd ever met because I said physical fitness was overrated and enjoyed eating and drinking excessively.

I haven't forgotten. It is perfect bullying material.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Quite literally while German troops were marching into Luxembourg and Belgium,

Incorrect. German troops weren't even mobilized until after French mobilization; Luxembourg wasn't invaded until after the French mobilized in response to the ultimatum; and Belgium wasn't invaded until days after the ultimatum was delivered.

and don't forget Germany made the declaration of war, not France. Basically, you can pretend that Germany was somehow not responsible for bringing France into the war all you want, it's just not supported by the facts.

As I've said before, the French gave Germany little choice. By expressing support for Russia and Serbia early in the crisis, mobilizing in response to Germany feelers over their neutrality, and ignoring the ultimatum, they left Germany the choice of either mobilizing against France or leaving the border against a soon-to-be-enemy insecure.

As for the rest, imagine the worst scenario for Germany. Civil war, chaos, economic instability, what have you. It's nothing compared to WW2. The geopolitical changes and devastation it wrought makes any individual or national suffering petty by comparison.

And what if the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles sparked a war more total than even World War II? We have no way of knowing. It's all hypothetical.
From the point of view of the British and Americans, revising the Treaty was the right thing to do.
Of course you can look back as an armchair historian with perfect knowledge of what happened afterward, but that does not mean that what the British did wasn't correct.

Eh, while France did mobilize (necessary given its reserve and conscript based military at the time, it did not have sufficient active duty forces to defend itself) it ALSO pulled its forces BACK, away from the German border.
As a clear sign it intended no offensive operations.

And? It's clearly a mixed message, at least. The Germans could not risk redeploying their forces against Russia and leaving their Western border insecure. And, again, the French had been posturing for war ever since the beginning of the July Crisis; most prominent was Poincaré and Viviani reaffirming their alliance with Russia and threatening Austria-Hungary earlier in the July Crisis.

The German demands, which included France surrender control of border fortresses were unreasonable, but even then while France did not accept them (it obviously could not) it did not openly reject them either. It really was trying to avoid war.

I mean, the German ultimatum was pretty straightforward. Either they accepted the ultimatum, or there would be war; there was no middle-ground.

[Hakons]

That's... very out of line with Orthodox teaching. Marriage is a sacrement, and not simply the desire to be together. But what is and isn't precisely sinful is a better held in the CDT. I'm assuming you're taking this position because, as we've had discussion on before, there's no dogmatic council ruling on it, so you can pick whatever position you want? To be okay with fornication is pretty heterodox in my opinion.

It's not out of line, marriage wasn't conducted in the Church for the earliest parts of its existence and it wasn't until the 12th century that it was formalized as a sacrament. For much of Christian history, marriage was something that people simply agreed to do, as evidenced by common law marriage's survival in modern law. Moreover, many Church fathers express this view (i.e. that marriage isn't a sacrament).

Yep, now we move to disparaging the sacrament of marriage altogether. Regardless of dubious historical claims, the Church says it's a sacrament now. It's not just a feeling between two people, but a clear sacrament. To abandon this teaching is clearly embracing the heterodoxy of our times. I know you want to dress up the claim as an appeal to history, but to ignore the pronouncements of your own bishops on marriage is putting your personal opinion above the Church's.

[Old Tyrannia]

I wish Fahran were here so that I could remind her of the time that she told me I was the queerest Tory she'd ever met because I said physical fitness was overrated and enjoyed eating and drinking excessively.

I haven't forgotten. It is perfect bullying material.

My point was that if I was the "queerest Tory you'd ever met" at that time, then surely Greater Loegria must have taken that title now, unless you think not exercising is a greater moral and philosophical failing than casual sex whilst high on psychoactive drugs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not out of line, marriage wasn't conducted in the Church for the earliest parts of its existence and it wasn't until the 12th century that it was formalized as a sacrament. For much of Christian history, marriage was something that people simply agreed to do, as evidenced by common law marriage's survival in modern law. Moreover, many Church fathers express this view (i.e. that marriage isn't a sacrament).

Yep, now we move to disparaging the sacrament of marriage altogether. Regardless of dubious historical claims, the Church says it's a sacrament now. It's not just a feeling between two people, but a clear sacrament. To abandon this teaching is clearly embracing the heterodoxy of our times. I know you want to dress up the claim as an appeal to history, but to ignore the pronouncements of your own bishops on marriage is putting your personal opinion above the Church's.

It wasn't a sacrament, it wasn't instituted by the Church, even the Church fathers don't reference it as something performed by clergy, and the Church fathers (including Paul) outright speak against many of the consequences of it being a sacrament. Christ didn't institute marriage, it was integrated into Christian teaching as a human institution, and the sacramental theology of marriage is a later innovation: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/2116

It wasn't even until 1563 that the Catholic Church required a priest to perform marriage.

[Novus America]

You have in the past revealed enough of your personal life to indicate such a system would be unlikely to treat you well.

Perhaps, perhaps not. All I know is that my life was profoundly worse before Islam, it has made me a much better person, and continues to improve me.

You have never lived under the governmental and legal system to claim to espouse.
It only works for you perhaps because it is not enforced on you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Even John Chrysostom, who did teach that marriage was a sacrament, explicitly says that it does not require the Church's blessing.

[Northern Davincia]

And they're wrong for doing so, but some passages are so crystal clear that there is no excuse for differing interpretations.

Meh, that is the problem. They would say you are wrong.
Murder is sin, but not everyone agrees on what is murder.

But anyways if you are harming no one, that is the big thing.
Golden rule, do unto to others.

Obviously no one is going to take the subjectivist stance seriously. The golden rule is important but when taken alongside St. Paul's definition of love, fornication cannot possibly fall under it. There is no verse which could possibly justify it.

[Novus America]

Quite literally while German troops were marching into Luxembourg and Belgium,

Incorrect. German troops weren't even mobilized until after French mobilization; Luxembourg wasn't invaded until after the French mobilized in response to the ultimatum; and Belgium wasn't invaded until days after the ultimatum was delivered.

and don't forget Germany made the declaration of war, not France. Basically, you can pretend that Germany was somehow not responsible for bringing France into the war all you want, it's just not supported by the facts.

As I've said before, the French gave Germany little choice. By expressing support for Russia and Serbia early in the crisis, mobilizing in response to Germany feelers over their neutrality, and ignoring the ultimatum, they left Germany the choice of either mobilizing against France or leaving the border against a soon-to-be-enemy insecure.

As for the rest, imagine the worst scenario for Germany. Civil war, chaos, economic instability, what have you. It's nothing compared to WW2. The geopolitical changes and devastation it wrought makes any individual or national suffering petty by comparison.

And what if the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles sparked a war more total than even World War II? We have no way of knowing. It's all hypothetical.
From the point of view of the British and Americans, revising the Treaty was the right thing to do.
Of course you can look back as an armchair historian with perfect knowledge of what happened afterward, but that does not mean that what the British did wasn't correct.

Eh, while France did mobilize (necessary given its reserve and conscript based military at the time, it did not have sufficient active duty forces to defend itself) it ALSO pulled its forces BACK, away from the German border.
As a clear sign it intended no offensive operations.

And? It's clearly a mixed message, at least. The Germans could not risk redeploying their forces against Russia and leaving their Western border insecure. And, again, the French had been posturing for war ever since the beginning of the July Crisis; most prominent was Poincaré and Viviani reaffirming their alliance with Russia and threatening Austria-Hungary earlier in the July Crisis.

The German demands, which included France surrender control of border fortresses were unreasonable, but even then while France did not accept them (it obviously could not) it did not openly reject them either. It really was trying to avoid war.

I mean, the German ultimatum was pretty straightforward. Either they accepted the ultimatum, or there would be war; there was no middle-ground.

France did posture, but it was posture.

The ultimatum was completely unreasonable and anyone sane would have known France would never accept it. And again Germany had operational plans, OST I and OST II to deal with the situation without attacking France.

The problem was German diplomatic and political intelligence was shit.
That was their downfall. The Zimmerman telegram the best example of this.

[Totally Not OEP]

While I'm fine with premarital sex, casual sex is disgusting.

Well fair enough, excessive promiscuity is problematic.

Yes

[Novus America]

Meh, that is the problem. They would say you are wrong.
Murder is sin, but not everyone agrees on what is murder.

But anyways if you are harming no one, that is the big thing.
Golden rule, do unto to others.

Obviously no one is going to take the subjectivist stance seriously. The golden rule is important but when taken alongside St. Paul's definition of love, fornication cannot possibly fall under it. There is no verse which could possibly justify it.

There is no universal agreement on what is fornication exactly is.
If the situation was clear there would be no disagreements.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not out of line, marriage wasn't conducted in the Church for the earliest parts of its existence and it wasn't until the 12th century that it was formalized as a sacrament. For much of Christian history, marriage was something that people simply agreed to do, as evidenced by common law marriage's survival in modern law. Moreover, many Church fathers express this view (i.e. that marriage isn't a sacrament).

Yep, now we move to disparaging the sacrament of marriage altogether. Regardless of dubious historical claims, the Church says it's a sacrament now. It's not just a feeling between two people, but a clear sacrament. To abandon this teaching is clearly embracing the heterodoxy of our times. I know you want to dress up the claim as an appeal to history, but to ignore the pronouncements of your own bishops on marriage is putting your personal opinion above the Church's.

I'm not abandoning any teaching, this view is fairly mainstream in the Orthodox Church, including among bishops. Our theology of marriage is very different from yours and many Orthodox Churches accept common-law marriage (i.e. marriage by cohabitation) without the need for officiation. John Chrysostom alludes to this himself when he refers to marital bonds:

For there is no relationship between man and man so close as that between man and wife, if they be joined together as they should be. And therefore a certain blessed man too, when he would express surpassing love, and was mourning for one that was dear to him, and of one soul with him, did not mention father, nor mother, nor child, nor brother, nor friend, but what? Your love to me was wonderful, says he, passing the love of women. [2 Samuel 1:26] For indeed, in very deed, this love is more despotic than any despotism: for others indeed may be strong, but this passion is not only strong, but unfading. For there is a certain love deeply seated in our nature, which imperceptibly to ourselves knits together these bodies of ours.

And even Augustine's theology of marriage accepts the validity of marriage without the Church's blessing (Augustine considers himself to have been validly married before becoming a bishop despite his marriage not even being legal, let alone with the Church's blessing).

[Totally Not OEP]

Excessive promiscuity is disgusting.

[Novus America]

Can that commandment even be achieved?
It is aspirational, not realistic.

It is almost impossible to be a perfect Christian, but fortunately the Lord is merciful and forgives our failings so long as we continuously repent of them and strive to improve in our faith. Even outside of a religious context, one should always strive towards perfection even though achieving it may be impossible; that is how we improve ourselves.

Though I will say if I go to be judged, if the afterlife does go that way, I will not try to defend myself or make excuses. Why? If you are facing an all knowing, all just judge, not arguments or excuses could help you.

I sure hope purgatory is real though.

Unfortunately for you, purgatory was made up by the Roman Catholic Church and has no real scriptural basis.

I think I deserve it. But certainly not Heaven.

Only saints and martyrs await the resurrection in Heaven. The Anglican church deliberately refrains from establishing as doctrine any particular teaching regarding the specifics of the afterlife, owing to the lack of clear information on the matter in the Bible, but I personally tend towards the view of that the majority of the dead await their final judgement in Hades, itself divided into Paradise and Gehenna. The ultimate concern of the Christian is not where they end up following death and their particular judgement; the ultimate reward for the faithful is resurrection and eternal life in the New Earth.

If not well we may all see each other in Hell.

Personally I sincerely hope that none of us end up in Gehenna. Indeed I hope and pray that everyone will in the end be saved.

But would we even know a difference between that and the RWDT?

I expect so. Gehenna is not something to be taken lightly, even if I don't expect it to be a place of active punishment in the way many Christians do.

So no one here is a good Christian then.
“but I personally tend towards the view of that the majority of the dead await their final judgement in Hades, itself divided into Paradise and Gehenna.”
sounds a lot like purgatory to me, at least in practice.

If part the afterlife is not as bad, and you can be saved from it, what is the functional difference?

[Cappuccina]

Excessive promiscuity is disgusting.

No such thing as excessive promiscuity, it's simply disgusting.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Excessive promiscuity is disgusting.

Any promiscuity is excessive promiscuity.

[The New California Republic]

I haven't forgotten. It is perfect bullying material.

My point was that if I was the "queerest Tory you'd ever met" at that time, then surely Greater Loegria must have taken that title now, unless you think not exercising is a greater moral and philosophical failing than casual sex whilst high on psychoactive drugs.

The queerest Tory is clearly Ruth Davidson.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It is almost impossible to be a perfect Christian, but fortunately the Lord is merciful and forgives our failings so long as we continuously repent of them and strive to improve in our faith. Even outside of a religious context, one should always strive towards perfection even though achieving it may be impossible; that is how we improve ourselves.

Unfortunately for you, purgatory was made up by the Roman Catholic Church and has no real scriptural basis.

Only saints and martyrs await the resurrection in Heaven. The Anglican church deliberately refrains from establishing as doctrine any particular teaching regarding the specifics of the afterlife, owing to the lack of clear information on the matter in the Bible, but I personally tend towards the view of that the majority of the dead await their final judgement in Hades, itself divided into Paradise and Gehenna. The ultimate concern of the Christian is not where they end up following death and their particular judgement; the ultimate reward for the faithful is resurrection and eternal life in the New Earth.

Personally I sincerely hope that none of us end up in Gehenna. Indeed I hope and pray that everyone will in the end be saved.

I expect so. Gehenna is not something to be taken lightly, even if I don't expect it to be a place of active punishment in the way many Christians do.

So no one here is a good Christian then.
“but I personally tend towards the view of that the majority of the dead await their final judgement in Hades, itself divided into Paradise and Gehenna.”
sounds a lot like purgatory to me, at least in practice.

If part the afterlife is not as bad, and you can be saved from it, what is the functional difference?

A good Christian would not consider themselves a good Christian.

[Novus America]

Excessive promiscuity is disgusting.

Any promiscuity is excessive promiscuity.

And what is promiscuity then? At this point we have to define what is the term first.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Any promiscuity is excessive promiscuity.

And what is promiscuity then? At this point we have to define what is the term first.

Sex outside of a long-term committed relationship.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

The problem was German diplomatic and political intelligence was shit.
That was their downfall. The Zimmerman telegram the best example of this.

Okay?

My argument with Jack was about the Treaty of Versailles, not the start of the war, and I don't even remember how it came to this.
I digress.

[Novus America]

The problem was German diplomatic and political intelligence was shit.
That was their downfall. The Zimmerman telegram the best example of this.

Okay?

My argument with Jack was about the Treaty of Versailles, not the start of the war, and I don't even remember how it came to this.
I digress.

Fair enough, though I am more interested in the latter.