Okay again, let me treat you like a baby then. Okay baby. First Heister writes:

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that... — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino asks Heister:

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion? — Agustino

Then Heister responds:

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino responds:

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

Then Heister responds:

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Then Agustino responds:

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;) — Agustino

So to summarise, Agustino asks Heister if casual sex is moral apart from religion - because Heister said he believes morality exists outside of religion (Agustino was glad to hear that - he was actually curious how Heister's attitude towards sex is determined by non-religious grounds to compare with his non-religious grounds). Then Heister seems to be confused and doesn't answer as Agustino expected. So Agustino clarifies and states that HE - Heister - mentioned morality outside of religion, and so Agustino was inquiring what he thinks about it. Then Heister replies that there are many Christians who think you can't be moral or can't even discuss morality if you're not religious. Then Agustino says he's not one of those Christians - who think you can't be moral or discuss morality if you're not religious. So baby, how can you then say that Agustino seems to think things are moral or immoral based on religion, authority and the Bible when he has in fact stated that he is one of those Christians who believes people can be moral outside of religion, and that morality doesn't need religious beliefs to be discussed??? I tell you how - because you didn't bother to read everything carefully. You acted on your prejudice. But you baby have such a big ego you can't even admit that, and give a simple apology. You'll instead look to wiggle out of it as you do every single time when you're wrong - you never admit it. Either that, or you are as Terrapin said, an Aspie - I can't conclude anything else...

What I said is based on watching you in this thread and others, ad nauseum, promoting an authoritarian model of morality, it's based on nothing more nor less than that, Agustino. — John

No it's based precisely on NOT watching me because if you had watched me you'd see that's not what I was advocating as my previous post CLEARLY illustrates providing evidence from my other posts within this thread. So it's based on your prejudice. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

Agustino seems to think that things are moral or immoral on the basis of some authority, religion, the Bible or whatever. The truth is that causal sex is immoral because it burdens, obscures and/or injures the spirit. — John

On what fucking ground do you claim such stupid nonsense huh? One gets sick and tired at some point of this superficial and uncharitable attitude you display. What's written below, please tell me:

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that... — Heister Eggcart

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;) — Agustino

This is about the third thread in which you're not listening to what is being said to you, I'm sorry for having to be so blunt about it.

The only "true" Stoic is the Stoic Sage. But some of us are trying to be Stoics. — Ciceronianus the White

Just like I'm trying to be Christian :P

Before the pussy grab remark video, the amount of animosity toward Trump at home across the entire globe (save in Russia it seems) was already staggering, and America in particular is perhaps nearing it's maximum potential emotional charge. — VagabondSpectre

The amount of animosity of the media, Hollywood and the academia (the three bastions of progressivism) to Trump is the same animosity cancer shows to chemotherapy. The progressives are so against Trump because Trump unmasks them - he unmasks their fakeness, their lies, and their immorality through himself. He is the product of their society - a society where your average Joe is a rapist like Trump. And your average woman is a power and fame hungry creature waiting to manipulate and abuse men through her sexuality. This is nothing but the cold truth. Now thanks to Trump we get to see it for the first time. We get to point at it - the mask has come off. The progressives can no longer go on pretending - even if Trump loses. Now everyone knows we have a BIG BIG problem - something that I had been saying for ages.

The freedom of the progressives is precisely the transformation of a certain social class - rich, white, heterosexual, male - into slaves - into objects of abuse. That's how the progressives propose to gain freedom for the homosexuals, for the women, for the blacks, for everyone else. By creating more war - that's how they'll achieve the noble end of freedom - by getting women to walk around dressed like sluts while men can't comment on it. Absurd.

I remember reading about Baden writing in some other thread how poor working class white males are having problems because of Tinder and the easy access females have to sex - that's why in the sex market they are starved. He writes all that without even being capable to see the abuse that is implied in there! It's like slave owners 200 years ago - that's what they want to make women into. And they call this freedom - how ridiculous! How utterly absurd. It's bad that men force women - but it's not bad when women force men. The philosophy of the LAST MEN as per Nietzsche - of the weak. We live in the times when weakness (vice) oppresses strength (virtue). The slut oppresses the decent man. The rapist oppresses the decent women.

I remember reading an article awhile ago written by a stay at home father whose wife suddenly said she wants to have sex with other men. And he was describing how difficult it is for him, and how painful it is but how he must be strong and let it happen, because women are free and he is a feminist, etc. etc. Then when she would return home she would cuddle next to him and insisted to tell him in details about it... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? That's freedom? No - that's outrageous fucking slavery. That's like the slaves 200 years ago, who were happy with their chains "no we don't want to be free - we deserve being in these chains - these are our chains from birth! This is the place allocated to us by God". Now it is "Oh we deserve this because women are meant to be free, and we're just a stay at home father! This place has been allocated to us by the emancipation of women". This is disgusting - such women should be thrown in jail without question - deserving of the harshest of punishments. Such crimes scream to the Heavens for justice. Just like the crimes of the slave owners.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

There's the article. I found it again. Fucking abuse. This world is filled with such scum today. Now of course I predict that the progressives will come "uh just another white male wanting to keep his dominance" - no just another white male not wanting to be a slave sir - a white male deserving of dignity and justice - like all people.

Uhmmm... How exactly is, for instance, sitting in an air plane and having the bad luck of having Trump next to you, shameful behaviour? — Benkei

Well that's a loaded question isn't it? I doubt that the way you frame it is the way it actually happened.

I doubt he just started grabbing them without even saying a word. They must have been talking, and quite possibly the woman showed interest in him - and even allowed him to do it. The second video I posted gives the testimony of a British man who sat next to Trump and the woman in the plane, and did claim that she was interested in him - although he also claimed he saw no touching. I'm not saying all cases are like this. Just that quite a few are certainly like this. You're ignoring the fact that some women want to have sex with rich and powerful men as well - and are willing to do quite a lot to be able to - including let them grope them, etc. Some women later will also feel nice enjoying the spotlight that being a victim confers them. Maybe that's the only way they can appear on TV and get that kind of attention in their lives.

When I was young, as a teenager in Eastern Europe, I know for a fact that when an internationally famous man - say a famous footballer player - came for a match, and afterwards he showed up at some nightclub, many of the women would do ANYTHING for him. It's a power game for them (the women) as well. They're not just victims. I agree they're humiliating themselves by doing this - but it's what it is. They fully know that the person in question will use them - but then they can claim to their friends "Oh I got fucked by XX" - they feel superior - what kind of man they managed to get on with...

I also know people who've had sex with prostitutes and later the respective prostitute claimed she was raped, and got quite a bit of money off them. So it's not as simple as "Oh they're the victims, and the man is the abuser". In such "relationships" they are both objectifying and turning each other into victims - they are both abusing each other for power.

This is why I hate modern feminazis - it's not the peaceful feminism of getting votes for women, getting women to be respected, and so forth. It's actually trying to make the abuse of men by women - through different forms of sexual manipulation - moral. That's never gonna be moral. A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. That's just not decent - it's simply a power game. She shouldn't be allowed to play that power game, nor should men be allowed to play the power game of catcalling her, insulting her, and so forth.

Also, this type of abuse derives from an overblown sense of entitlement and a degradation of women as property and subservient to men. The claim by you that these women wanted this only demonstrates your lack of empathy. — Benkei

So doesn't a woman doing anything to get in the pants of a rich and powerful man derive from a lust for power and fame? Doesn't that derive from the desire of having the rich and powerful man as her property? Doesn't she use her physical attractiveness, and her personality as weapons of seducing the said man? The claim that all these women are completely innocent just demonstrates your ignorance of their own faults and vices. That's the problem with progressive culture - it's so blind. It only sees one side of the story. Many of these women derive an extraordinary sense of self-importance by claiming Trump raped them - they basically can think of themselves as THE people who brought the rich and powerful Trump down in this election! No one succeeded - not Jeb Bush, not Ted Cruz, not hundreads of millions of dollars! That's a massive source of motivation. It's their way of "owning" Trump.

The feminazis and Marxists can say what they want. Women want as much as men to have the other as property - which basically means under their control. It's not one oppressor and the other oppressed - it's oppressor against oppressor. History is not class struggle - it's not the rich against the poor, the bourgeois against the proletariat - it's man against man - it's the history of oppressor against oppressor. That's why the Machiavellian "oppress or be oppressed" is true to a certain extent, but if we all followed that, then nothing will change - the world will keep being a hell-hole. A different sort of thinking is needed - one based on virtue and morality - to escape this game.

And this idea that women are somehow weak - that's just false. If we look at Cleopatra - she was quite possibly more powerful than Caesar! She certainly had Caesar at her finger tips... and Mark Antony even killed himself because he thought Cleopatra had died. She abused those men like nothing ever seen before - they were in her palm. She was a very big serpent - and a very dangerous one too. The Ancient Greek culture called love of women as inferior precisely because they were afraid of the power women could wield - and so they sought to train their men to resist it. Now men are trained to give IN to women way too easily - this loss of virtue is one of the reason why we get Trumps. On the other side, women are trained precisely to SEDUCE men - their sense of self-esteem is tied to their capacity to do so - and therefore they are trained to be todays Cleopatras and turn the Trumps on the fingers of their hands. Abuser vs abuser - nobody is "not-guilty" here.

And I might add that quite frequently the reason why the powerful abuse the weak is because the weak always seek to abuse the powerful. Many servants of the rich seek to steal, abuse, and deceive whenever they can. These people aren't innocent. So the rich get scared of them. That's why they become mean and harsh - to defend themselves. You yell at your servant when you catch them alone in your room - because you know that they may be looking for something to steal. Maybe not them - but one of the many servants will certainly look for this. So it's a defense mechanism the brutality. But the whole thing isn't about how do we give the servants better ways to abuse the rich - or how do we keep the rich capable of controlling the servants - but rather how do we escape this abuser-abuser relationship? If we remove the capacity of the rich to control their servants, then we turn the relationship into abuser-abused - where the rich become abused (progressivism). If we remove the capacity of the servants to abuse the rich completely - effectively turning them into slaves - then again we have an abuser-abused relationship (far-right ideology). So to escape Machiavelli one has to escape this loop. That is the politics of the future.

If you look at the discourse of many men who speak nastily about women (and there are a ton of them out there), you will notice a common feature: all of them at one point became disappointed because they were manipulated and abused by women. So they decided to take matters in their own hands - now they would manipulate the women and abuse them. The women would no longer toy with them, give them signals that they love them, then signals that they don't, and so forth. They would become masters - they would shag one woman, then the next - why? Because no woman is loyal - and they don't wanna be abused. So to avoid it, they themselves become the abusers. Machiavelli - abuse or be abused. That is almost the entire history of man.

?? For him? Oh I see what you mean. No. I referenced a different post

This post isn't showing. Appears in my recent comments list and still shows me as the latest post in the discussion info. It'll probably appear when someone else posts, but for now it's invisible. — Michael

I noticed the same thing as well.

Trump is not an alpha male. Jimmy Savile was not an alpha male. Bill Cosby is not an alpha male. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Eric Trump apparently thinks that even Billy Bush is an alpha male >:O




More proof they let him abuse them. This corrupt society is built on abuse of men by women and women by men. People are so upset Trump abused them - I could give you hundreads of women who wish they were abused by Trump. Nothing more than lowly behaviour can be expected from both sides in such an immoral society. On the one hand people use their power like Trump to abuse women. On the other hand, women lust after Trump's power and they let him abuse them - to boast to their friends they did it with him. Shameful. Of course the feminazis only have a problem with Trump - not also with the women - who have also behaved shamefully. It is as shameful to lust after power and allow yourself to be abused for it - just as it is to use power to abuse the weak.

That's the problem, see. People trying to be funny. Didn't you read the guidelines? NO DELIBERATE HUMOR especially at the expense of any schools of thought known to be subject to all sorts of unfortunate and outrageous slings and arrows by privileged, white, male, Americans shites!!!. Who do you think you are, anyway? Why can't you understand the glaringly obvious TRUTH that post-modernism has immense liberatory value to oppressed people attempting to rebalance the power differentials inherent in Euro-technical oppressions exercised upon those afflicted by excessive melanin, estrogen, deficits, and haggis§?

You all can say what you want IF you have cleared it with us pontiffs. Otherwise, just stick to the gayly forward and narrow. And you specifically, just shut TFU about postmodernism already.

§A hideous concoction of low-value meat bits, noxious root vegetables, and horse meal boiled in goat guts. Beloved by the Scots, who else, even if they live in France and have paradis culinaire la porte à côté. (Probably too cheap to eat decent food.) Obviously a product of dour Presbyterian discipline from which they should have long since recovered in this post-modern age. — Bitter Crank

>:O Crank, you are the greatest, I swear!

It's possible for non-Christian religious folk to not go to hell? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I certainly believe so - and so do the main Christian Churches. I believe Christianity is the highest religion - not that it's the only possible path up the mountain.

But then you don't know if purgatory is real. If it isn't real then they must necessarily go to heaven because there's nowhere else for them to go. — WhiskeyWhiskers

That's your judgement, I'm just being honest and saying that I don't know.

So it's possible for devout non-Christian religious folk to go to heaven, regardless of whether they follow the bible (because a Buddhist is hardly going to be following the bible their whole life, they have different scripture) — WhiskeyWhiskers

Be careful. Buddhism isn't permissive of adultery, casual sex and the like. None of the major religions are. Neither were Stoics like Epictetus and Musonius Rufus. Neither was Epicurus funnily enough ;)

Because if devout non-Christian religious folk could go to heaven, and they do not follow the bible, then those who do not follow the bible could go to heaven. Or do they need to be devoutly religious regardless of religion? — WhiskeyWhiskers

They need to be moral people. And that includes sexual morality.

Take Socrates for example. He might be going to heaven, according to your logic. You might meet him one day. Do you believe that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Absolutely!

I would ask to see you back this up with actual scriptural analysis, but I'm not in a position to verify it, not being a biblical scholar myself. You can breathe a sigh of relief. — WhiskeyWhiskers

You can be assured that the Catholic Church for one does hold similar positions about virtuous men and women through history. Check what some Catholics think here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1010299
(I do not participate on their forum as I am not a Catholic - but I have followed it for quite awhile)

In my religion, Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe likewise about virtuous men and women. We believe some to be saints actually.

So, again, what is the point of Christianity if it is unnecessary? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What is the point of Buddhism if it's not necessary? It's a structured path for connecting with a spiritual reality and living a moral life that guarantees you the greatest happiness both here on Earth and in the afterlife. It includes the same core morality as Christianity does. The same that Islam does. The same that Hinduism does. It's no different.

See this is how I know you don't genuinely believe any of this Christianity nonsense. If you genuinely believed you might be going to hell, you'd be infinitely more terrified by that than by anything that can happen to you in this life. And some pretty awful things can happen to you. "Fear" would not begin to describe that feeling. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Maybe for you. For me no - because while I feel fear, I also feel God's justice, and I desire God's justice. I desire that God smite all the sinners, including me. And I don't feel worthy of God - why should I be in Heaven if I'm not worthy? That would be disgusting.

You are not a Christian, regardless of your "inner life". If you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, you're not a Christian. What do you have to say about that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I do my best to follow the teachings of the Bible. I aspire to follow all the teachings. Maybe it's not in our power to reach up to God - but it is in our power to aspire to it.

maybe even Socrates, depending how you wriggle yourself out of this one — WhiskeyWhiskers

I would be disappointed if I don't see him in there! And Musonius Rufus, and Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, and so forth!

Here's the ironic corner you've painted yourself into: you are not a Christian — WhiskeyWhiskers

I may not be one - but like Kierkegaard, I aspire to be one, and attempt to follow and live according to the teachings of my Bible. It's not as easy as you think to be a Christian....

I second your motion.

Okay no problem. Enjoy the game! :) Also let me know what you think about:

"Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love" -Proverbs 5:18-19 :)

Red flag! — Heister Eggcart

Do you think married people preferably shouldn't have children then, or what do you mean by red flag? :P

No. — Heister Eggcart

Interesting position. It is indeed Biblical and in accordance with Scripture - although I hold to the opposite idea, which I also think has Biblical support and is in accordance to Scripture. Why do you think sex in and of itself doesn't have the possibility of being a moral activity? Do you concur with St. Paul that people should strive for complete celibacy if this is possible, and if so why?

Wouldn't know what this means. Empty words and hokus pokus to me. — Heister Eggcart

Two married people having sex because they either want to have children or they just love each other. They do this freely, not because they are compelled and therefore enslaved by their lust. Do you not think this is a possibility?

What do you think about that? What do you think of the possibility of going to hell for not being a Christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I think that if that's what I deserve and that is God's will, then I shall go to hell. I wouldn't want that to happen - quite obviously - but if that's what it ends up being that's what it is. What do I think of the possibility? Well I feel fear and repulsion. I might add that I feel weakness, and I feel nothingness too. But I don't feel disgust, I don't feel injustice, I don't feel hatred towards God. It would only be what I deserve afterall.

And if you're not sure if non-Christians will even go to hell, what the bloody hell is the point of Christianity? I might as well become one of those raunchy cancerous progressives and have lots of blasphemous sex because for all you know I might not even go to hell. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I'm quite sure if you do that you will go to hell. I'm not so sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist, etc. that you'll go to hell after you die. And it depends on your inner life to be honest. It is possible for someone to be very sinful and afterwards find repentance and be saved by God's grace.

Is Purgatory real? If I'm a sinner I might end up there, I don't mind waiting around a while before I go to heaven. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I'm not sure. The only problem is that you don't make deals with God. If this is what is in your heart - then you won't ever go to Heaven. Purgatory nor anything else are licenses to sin.

My clarification is this - sex and sexual tension is a two way street. — Heister Eggcart

What do you mean a two-way street in this case?

The only reason two people would have sex is to do so out of compassion for the other's struggle with it, which they also must share. — Heister Eggcart

So I suppose you must necessarily be talking at least of couples and more likely of married people here given that they must "share the struggle" am I right? So this would agree with the statement that sex before marriage (or at least before being a couple) is wrong.

It has to be an honest coming together, and for the right reasons. — Heister Eggcart

What would you think about married people having sex because they enjoy the intimacy and spiritual relationship they have with each other?

Yes, and there are some conservatives out there batty enough to vote for Trump O:) — Heister Eggcart

Indeed :P

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;)

Nope. — Heister Eggcart

Ok so then I suppose your previous definition wasn't quite what you meant:

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by — Heister Eggcart

So what really is your idea about when sex is moral then?

You're not a true Christian if you don't follow the Bible.

If you're not a true Christian, what happens to you after you die? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What you deserve shall happen to you - and I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other of the major faiths you'll end up in hell. I hope God will have mercy of me and give me the strength and wisdom to be a true Christian until I die, although I probably wouldn't deserve it by myself.

No. Answer my question. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Answer my question. Are you a true Christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Your question seems silly to me my friend. I would hope I'm a true Christian - although I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times. So I'm not sure if I'm a true Christian - I would hope so, and if I'm not, I would hope that one day I can be.

Uh, no, I don't think so. — Heister Eggcart

I should've said OR adultery, or bla bla. There are some progressives which are encouraging of even adultery, just not most.

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it.

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by — Heister Eggcart

So. Suppose you are married to a woman, and she becomes crippled and can't have sex anymore. You are overcome by your sexual desires, etc. is it moral in that case to have sex with another woman to release the sexual tension you are troubled by?

Furthermore, if you are a regular husband, and your wife simply doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, is it moral for you to have sex with other women to release the tension you feel?

If a couple, say, must have sex in order for them to keep "loving" them, then to me that quite distinctly tells me that they don't actually love each other. They're only lusting after the other's body. — Heister Eggcart

I agree.

Are you a true Stoic?

What does what I want have to do with what is right? This is a non sequitur. — Michael

Well if in society we were all to do what others and we ourselves don't want, we'd live in an utter hell-hole.

Furthermore, even though I wouldn't want my would-be wife to have slept with a thousand men, I also wouldn't want her to be a virgin. So if what I want is the measure of what is right, it then follows that the issue isn't with casual sex tout court but with excessive casual sex. It is right (or at least acceptable) to have had some casual sex. — Michael

For you maybe that's acceptable. For Christians definitely it's not, and for most people that I've met it's also not. Most guys that I've met enjoy shagging other women - but if I were to ask them if they would like others to do the same to their future wives they always are a bit shocked and say "of course not!". Most women that I've met want a man for whom they are special, and no woman is like them to their man. These are just natural human desires in that most people have a clear emotional reaction to them.

Now a question that you should ask yourself - and you don't have to tell me nor do I care to know - is whether you don't want your wife to be virgin because you actually don't think this would be good - or you don't want her to be a virgin because you're not a virgin either? For me, I made the mistake of having sex with two girlfriends I had when I was a teenager, and I admit that they were mistakes and I wouldn't do them if I could live again. But anyway, for a time I also felt negatively about a woman being a virgin. But I realised I was just upset at my own behaviour - that I couldn't be that for her. Now I look at virgin women with nothing but admiration and respect.

It's hardly clear. The term usually used is "adultery", which refers to a man (whether married or unmarried) having sex with a married woman. — Michael

No the term used for casual sex in the Bible isn't adultery. It is fornication.

There's also mention of "sexual immorality", a translation of the Greek word "porneia" which means "illicit sexual intercourse", i.e. sexual intercourse which is forbidden by law, rules, or custom. This doesn't prima facie include pre-marital sex (and certainly doesn't in today's age where there are no laws or rules or customs against it). — Michael

In the culture in which the Bible was written it does imply that. Maybe in modern culture it doesn't. Furthermore, fornication is the term we were previously talking about not adultery just to make that clear.

All who follow the Bible - I answered that before. I don't know what all the denominations follow because I haven't studied them, so don't ask me useless bullshit. But for example I can tell you that Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics are true Christians, because I have studied them, and their teachings are in accordance with the Bible.

So there is an infallible definition of a true Christian, we don't know what it is, but we've compared it with all the previously tried definitions and we know it isn't the same thing. How do you even know there is one if we haven't found it? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I never agreed there are problems with all definitions of true Christians :) I said even if there are, it would still only mean that we realise its a problem because we understand when we look at each definition that it is missing something. How do we understand this? By comparing it to some standard, otherwise it would be impossible.

Given that there are those who follow the Bible but who argue that casual sex isn't wrong, I'm right in believing that there are such people. But, of course, according to you they're not really Christians because they're following a wrong interpretation of the Bible. And you know what the correct interpretation is because you've looked at what self-professed Christians believe. — Michael

I doubt there are such people who understand the Bible and argue that way. But of course you can go on pretending. If they do exist, then yes their interpretation is wrong (because it flat out contradicts the Bible - that's why). It's one of the many interpretations which are wrong. There's also many correct interpretations - this just isn't one of them.

Again, it's circular, and you haven't explained to me how you determine which interpretation(s) are correct? When two Christians disagree, how do you figure out who is right? — Michael

Depends what kind of disagreement there is. If it's a doctrinal disagreement - should priests marry or not? Then you look at the relevant Bible passages, you see what is said, as well as your own knowledge and understanding of life and you discuss. Which interpretation is likely to be closest to the truth - which agrees with the whole of the Bible the most? And that's not necessarily a black and white answer on such a matter. I have views on it - other Christians I know disagree, and that's fine. I understand their reasons for disagreement, and I see how they could disagree and still be within the framework of the Bible. But on casual sex (known as fornication) there are multiple very very clear answers in the Bible, and also in your own life by the way. I mean do you want your wife to have been shagged by a thousand men? Does your wife want you to have shagged a thousand women before her? Let's be real - none of us like that - that's disgusting actually.

I think you mistake me for Whiskers. I've never disputed this. — Heister Eggcart

Ok my apologies.

Also, how encompassing are you using these terms "conservative" or "liberal"? — Heister Eggcart

For the sake of this specific discussion in this thread...
Progressive/Liberal = permissive when it comes to sexual morality - permissive (and encouraging) of casual sex, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.
Conservative = the opposite position. Restrictive and discouraging of casual sex, adultery, fornication, etc.

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. — Heister Eggcart

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion?

This is circular. You define a Christian as someone who follows the (correct interpretation of the) Bible but then determine which interpretation of the Bible is correct by looking to see what self-professed Christians believe. What do you do when two self-professed Christians disagree on the correct interpretation of the Bible, as is the case when it comes to sexual morality? — Michael

Oh yeah as if I hadn't heard that argument from clueless atheists a billion times before. There isn't only one correct interpretation of the Bible. That's why both Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are following the Bible for example. But there's quite a lot of wrong interpretations of the Bible, and yours are amongst them if you believe that anyone who follows the Bible could argue that casual sex for example isn't wrong.

Do you know how to tell who is and is not a true scotsman true christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Do they follow the Bible? If yes then they're true Christians. If no, then they're not. How do you determine this? By understanding what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. About sexual morality matters are clear. About whether clergy should marry or not matters aren't so clear. About whether condoms or similar devices should be used, the matters are also not so clear. So it is conceivable that differences can exist between believers on these matters.

So that's the game you're going to play? When something in the Bible tells you to do something that you disagree with you'll just counter by saying that it doesn't apply to you? But when it tells you to do something that you agree with then you'll say that it's a universal decree? — Michael

No that's how you frame it. The Bible doesn't tell me to do that at all. That's what you - who don't understand the Bible - thinks it is telling me. So stop with this nonsense.

How do you determine which of the teachings are directed only at specific communities in specific circumstances and which are directed at us all? What if I were to say that the condemnation of fornication and adultery only applies to those to which swstephe's passages apply? — Michael

By understanding the Bible my dear. You have to read it in context, and understand what the message is. The 10 Commandments for example - which say don't commit adultery, don't covet your neighbour's wife or engage in fornication - and other such instances refer to universal commands which apply in all cases. Some of the letters to specific communities refer to practices which are encouraged in that case in regards to a specific problem. You read in context and use your God given brain to understand.

Furthermore, the passages quoted have nothing to do with voting for Trump. The Bible doesn't say if you vote for Trump in this particular situation you're doing something wrong - although I would agree it is a possible argument to make based on the Bible - but it's not as clear cut as you want to make it, nor would you, most likely, be able to make it because your knowledge of the Bible and Judaic culture is insufficient.

Would you be surprised if I told you there isn't one perfect way of defining who is and isn't a Christian because there are issues with them all? — WhiskeyWhiskers

No the fact there are problems with all means that we have a standard, which we haven't yet found, with which we're comparing them when we say there are issues with all.

Although, all this is merely academic given that, according to Romans 13:1-7, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.".

Whoever is in (and achieves) authority is endorsed by God. So it doesn't really matter who we vote for. And given this, how can a Christian criticise the laws and policies and Supreme Court decisions that those in authority make? If Row vs Wade didn't have God's support then it wouldn't have been made. — Michael

You're misunderstanding the Bible - if you want, open a thread, and we will discuss the meaning of Bible passages. The fact is that the beleivers - who follow the Bible - and their authorities - including the Catholic Church amongst many others are against Row vs Wade. So if what you were saying were true, they wouldn't be against it. It's very likely you don't understand the Bible. You just snip a piece from here and a piece from there. What a joke...

Really? — swstephe

Would you not say so? Can you go around raping women and be a Christian? Would you call someone who goes and beats people on the street but says he believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour a Christian?

I would agree that if they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not Christians, so I recently concluded that anyone supporting such an ungodly man like Trump is not a Christian. Christian authorities are pretty unanimous that God's law is a form of absolute morality, therefore these strange appeals to consequentialism, (the ends justify the means), ought to be rejected. — swstephe

>:O Yes you should know that those passages are passages of advice to specific communities in specific circumstances. Furthermore I am not supporting Trump. So I have no clue what you're talking about. Voting for him isn't the same as supporting him.

As I said the old progressive tropes - "you're too moral to beat us - let us take over your world and your society you just sit down". Lies. Sitting down in the face of immorality is immoral.

New Testament or Old? Or both? — Michael

Both.

According to Agustino, there is a single belief that unites all Christians, and it's the belief in sexual morality (whatever that means once you look into the details). If you don't believe in this 'sexual morality', then you're not a real Christian. Even if you were to believe 99.9% of the rest of the Bible. That's the depth and breadth of the entire Christian religion throughout the world and the ages, in all it's wonderful nuance. Boiled down to a single necessary and sufficient condition that Agustino from the internet has divined all on his lonesome.

It is entirely down to projection and fallacies. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No I never said a single belief. I said sexual morality is one of them. So don't lie. Have some honor in this discussion. Sexual morality is one of the core tenets of Christianity. Not the only one. If you disagree with that, I'd advise you to go to a Roman Catholic and ask them. Go to an Eastern Orthodox Christian and ask them - see for yourself.

You don't make for much nuance here. You're either a social conservative like you, or a deluded liberal. There's zero fine-line. — Heister Eggcart

Okay let me illustrate. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe priests should be married. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the use of condoms as non-abortive contraception. Catholics don't. And on and on. But both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics consider promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex outside of marriage immoral. Now do you Mr. Heister Eggcart disagree with any of this? If you don't - then you should recognise that your characterisation "you're either a social conservative like you or a deluded liberal" is nothing but slander.

And I also don't know what discussion you're after anymore here. Seems to just boil down to projection. — Heister Eggcart

Why should religious believers sit down? — Agustino

Why should we keep on losing? Because they're telling us, and brainwashing us from childhood that we've already lost, not to bother? I will bother - because even if we have already lost, it's honorable that we fight to the end - upholding the truth and the light. Isn't that what we're called to do as religious believers? That we will live proclaiming the truth, and fighting for the truth? — Agustino

I'm looking for your answer to these questions my friend. And if you think the questions are wrongly phrased - or they're the wrong questions - then I'm looking for your position, as a religious person, on these issues that the questions attempt to tackle.

It may be true, but it doesn't follow that therefore all Christians share those beliefs. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Is someone a Christian if he doesn't believe in the teachings of Christianity's foundational text? Can someone be a Christian while not following Christian practicies? Really? Then in what sense are they Christians?

Some Christians liberaly in their sexuality — WhiskeyWhiskers

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians - that much is self-evident, because we call someone a Christian who follows the Bible. Catholics differ from Eastern Orthodox - but they both follow the Bible. Teachings which aren't in the Bible are different from one group to the other. But those teachings which are in the Bible are shared. Sexual morality is one of them.

Even those who have read the Bible pick and choose the bits they want to follow; no one can believe everything in the Bible because there are so many contradictions. — WhiskeyWhiskers

St. Thomas Aquinas and many other thinkers who have studied the Bible would not agree with you. So please - state that it's your opinion that there are contradictions. This isn't shared by many people - some of whom are very intelligent people.

There are so denominations within Christianity all with different beliefs, and there are as many types of Christian as there are Christians in America. — WhiskeyWhiskers

As I said, there are differences and similarities. There is a core which is common. You ignore this. You only emphasise the differences. I agree there are differences.

There might be strong correlations among close-knit groups (even then they won't all believe the same thing 100% of the time), but if you compare them to the other Christians in the rest of America, the world, or other tight-knit groups in either, you'll find there's probably more differences than there are similarities and there is not a defining commonality between them — WhiskeyWhiskers

This is not true. The Orthodox and the Catholic traditions are different in rituals, etc. but in terms of sexual morality for example, they are the same. Because that's what the Bible teaches. You can't ignore the teachings of the Bible and call yourself Christian.

I also find it toilsome that you have the nerve to assume me some liberal peasant that has been brainwashed and manipulated — Heister Eggcart

I haven't assumed you to be that, I said there's the tendency for all of us to be manipulated this way. Also what makes you think that I think of you as a "liberal peasant"?

Sorry, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've sipped from a spiked glass of kool-aid and now cannot think freely. — Heister Eggcart

Sure. So I've asked you some questions in that post, so that we can have a conversation and think freely. Why don't you let me know what your position is on these issues. I'm curious honestly to know.

No it isn't! This is completely your own projection. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Does the Bible state that promiscuity, fornication, adultery and sex with women other than your wife is immoral?

Once you actually start to define the terms in detail, and point to the populations of actual people holding to those strict definitions, you begin to realise that these are extremely vague concepts that are significantly grey in reality because peoples diverse range of beliefs don't neatly map onto your simplistically defined categories. — WhiskeyWhiskers

There are differences amongst, say Evangelical Christians, of course. But there is a core which is shared by all. Sexual morality for example is shared by all Christians - because it's part of their Holy text which guides them.

You don't seem to possess the self-awareness to realise how revealing that admission was to the rest of us. Which is why I compared your thought to a child's when they feel comforted by the lack of complexity their understanding is required to grasp. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No I deliberately ignored what you've said because I think it's a mischaracterisation and doesn't reflect the truth. What can I say about it other than that? It's just false. There are beliefs which unite entire groups of people. Not all beliefs will be shared, there will be many differences. But there are also similarities - which is what you ignore. If there was no common thing that all Christians shared - we couldn't call them Christians in the first place!

Name an example. — Thorongil

Russia for starters. Or China.

Look at how the moderator says she's never heard people talk like Donald Trump. I really wonder what world she's living in. My biggest problem isn't that Donald Trump is like that - my biggest problem is that most men are like that. Almost everywhere I went I've heard men talk about their sexual exploits. How they grabbed this and that, what they did, etc. Hell even a work colleague while I was in UK asked me to grab his friend's ass when I was going to meet her for the first time! The media is so fucking fake pretending they don't know what world we're living in. They pretend like this sexual exploitation of women by men and the other way around doesn't go around daily in our societies. Like this isn't a source of self-esteem for people created by this very progressive society, which encourages one to get ask many men or women as possible. When a man asks them to go for a drink to his place - they know very well what it means - but they never admit it. Such hypocrisy! Unbelievable... unbelievable...

When they go to nightclubs and ask a girl to their home - and then they start kissing her, and she doesn't refuse, they don't call this sexual abuse (although it really is!). But when Donald Trump does it - "ahhh he abused them!!! He forced them! They thought they were going for employment!!". How shameful - and even more shameful that these people don't realise that it's not Donald Trump it's this disgusting immoral society that is the biggest problem (and they are part of it - very important!)

That they're educated badly. — Thorongil

I agree so how to educate them better?

I naturally agree, but when it comes to human rights violations, I take a pretty firm stand that they must be stopped and the perpetrators of them punished, no matter if the surrounding culture changes. — Thorongil

What if this isn't possible? You need alternatives for scenarios in which this injunction cannot be followed through successfully.

Look it's relatively simple. Progressives and conservatives agree on many things - including racism, discrimination, poverty, etc. They disagree on some profound aspects though - that have to do with society. These - in concrete terms - do not revolve in abstract disagreements - such as moral absolutism vs moral relativism, etc. These latter are just justifications for it. Do you agree? Ok, so if they don't lie in abstract disagreement, they must lie in practical ones. What are the practical disagreements? It's over behaviour - more specifically sexual behaviour because we agree on all other behaviour like theft, rape, murder, etc. The conservative wants to live in a society where sexual morality is respected. The progressive says well and good, do that, but we don't want to do that as well. Now this is itself is not a problem. But it does become a problem when we live in an infected culture like today's where having promiscuous sex has been turned into a virtue - you're the alpha male, you're desired, you're strong, you're sexually potent, etc. Why? Because conservatives cannot live in such a society. How can you raise up your children in such a world? They will learn that to be amongst the "cool" people, to have social status, you need to engage in immorality. That's the culture that is dominated by progressives. It's just the truth. So they shouldn't shy away from it. It's like having a community in your society which doesn't eat beef, but your society says that to have social status you must eat beef. There's a conflict there. So why do you refuse to recognize it?