How Many People Have You Been With?

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This whole “becoming one flesh” thing is a little confusing to me. I mean, what if a mother needs to pick her infant’s nose? By your twisted logic they have “become one flesh”… Is she then married to her infant? Has she committed adultery on her husband by becoming one flesh with her infant? I mean she stuck part of her body (finger) into a part of another person’s body (nose)…

So I’ll just assume that you’re going so say, “that’s not the same!!!”. To which it begs the question, if a penis entering a vagina makes two people “one flesh”, why doesn’t a finger entering a nose (or an ear, mouth, etc…) make two people one flesh? It’s a body part entering an orifice… Last time I checked, the only two people that are “one flesh” are Siamese twins. Now if one of THEM decides to get married, is it adultery?

What if you just get blow jobs or fuck bitches in the ass, is it one flesh then? I actually dated a chick who would only let me fuck her in the ass “cuz she was saving herself for marriage” LMAO. Lucky guy.[/quote]

Risible. Do you have a brain?
[/quote]

Do you have an explanation? Because clearly they are not “one flesh”. In reality it is a male body part ENTERING a female body part (uless she is sticking her finger up his ass to give a prostate massage… Does THAT count? And while we’re at it, how about finger banging a chick? If that’s the case, I got married when I was about twelve!). There are in fact TWOOOOO fleshes. They are not joining. There is no exchange of blood/nerve impulses/lymphatic signals/etc… There are TWO fleshes… NOT ONE FLESH…

Do YOU have a brain?

Your little book has it wrong.

Na not enough, I want the additional option of pretending to like a succesful woman for long enough so that I can take half her shit.

I also want her to pay for the rest of her life to keep me in a lifestyle I have become accustomed to, I deserve it, beautiful prince that I am.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This whole “becoming one flesh” thing is a little confusing to me. I mean, what if a mother needs to pick her infant’s nose? By your twisted logic they have “become one flesh”… Is she then married to her infant? Has she committed adultery on her husband by becoming one flesh with her infant? I mean she stuck part of her body (finger) into a part of another person’s body (nose)…

So I’ll just assume that you’re going so say, “that’s not the same!!!”. To which it begs the question, if a penis entering a vagina makes two people “one flesh”, why doesn’t a finger entering a nose (or an ear, mouth, etc…) make two people one flesh? It’s a body part entering an orifice… Last time I checked, the only two people that are “one flesh” are Siamese twins. Now if one of THEM decides to get married, is it adultery?

What if you just get blow jobs or fuck bitches in the ass, is it one flesh then? I actually dated a chick who would only let me fuck her in the ass “cuz she was saving herself for marriage” LMAO. Lucky guy.[/quote]

Risible. Do you have a brain?
[/quote]

Do you have an explanation? Because clearly they are not “one flesh”. In reality it is a male body part ENTERING a female body part (uless she is sticking her finger up his ass to give a prostate massage… Does THAT count? And while we’re at it, how about finger banging a chick? If that’s the case, I got married when I was about twelve!). There are in fact TWOOOOO fleshes. They are not joining. There is no exchange of blood/nerve impulses/lymphatic signals/etc… There are TWO fleshes… NOT ONE FLESH…

Do YOU have a brain?

Your little book has it wrong.[/quote]

It’s a spiritual oneness, not a literal oneness, silly.

What constitutes marriage? What creates, forms, establishes, makes, begins, commences a marriage? Sexual intercourse alone makes people ‘one flesh’ (1 Corinthians 6:16). We have seen that ‘one flesh’ is the marriage union (Matthew 19:6; Genesis 2:24). Therefore, sexual intercourse alone is the marriage union. The woman (wife) of one’s youth is the first one with whom one had sexual intercourse.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This whole “becoming one flesh” thing is a little confusing to me. I mean, what if a mother needs to pick her infant’s nose? By your twisted logic they have “become one flesh”… Is she then married to her infant? Has she committed adultery on her husband by becoming one flesh with her infant? I mean she stuck part of her body (finger) into a part of another person’s body (nose)…

So I’ll just assume that you’re going so say, “that’s not the same!!!”. To which it begs the question, if a penis entering a vagina makes two people “one flesh”, why doesn’t a finger entering a nose (or an ear, mouth, etc…) make two people one flesh? It’s a body part entering an orifice… Last time I checked, the only two people that are “one flesh” are Siamese twins. Now if one of THEM decides to get married, is it adultery?

What if you just get blow jobs or fuck bitches in the ass, is it one flesh then? I actually dated a chick who would only let me fuck her in the ass “cuz she was saving herself for marriage” LMAO. Lucky guy.[/quote]

Risible. Do you have a brain?
[/quote]

Do you have an explanation? Because clearly they are not “one flesh”. In reality it is a male body part ENTERING a female body part (uless she is sticking her finger up his ass to give a prostate massage… Does THAT count? And while we’re at it, how about finger banging a chick? If that’s the case, I got married when I was about twelve!). There are in fact TWOOOOO fleshes. They are not joining. There is no exchange of blood/nerve impulses/lymphatic signals/etc… There are TWO fleshes… NOT ONE FLESH…

Do YOU have a brain?

Your little book has it wrong.[/quote]

Actually, his little book has it right, the reasons given are not very convincing though.

People tend to conflate the reason some measures where implemented with the justification for them.

They think if they can dismiss the justification there can be no reason.

However, what happened is that some desert tribes stumbled into something that worked and justified it later, the Lord said so, in so many words.

The principles the Bible puts forward are principles of hard won experience, maybe even the shellfish, if you dismiss them along with the poetic stories explaining the “why” you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To clarify this:

If I tell my kids a story that if they do not brush their teeth the Toot Decay Fairy will come in their sleep and drill holes in their teeth, this is of course bullshit.

However, if they grow up and decide to not brush their teeth because they discover that the Toot Decay Fairy story is a bit unplausible, well, if they decide to not brush their teeth because of it, they will lose them.

The justification is bullshit, but the behavior it was meant to encourage makes a whole lot of sense.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This whole “becoming one flesh” thing is a little confusing to me. I mean, what if a mother needs to pick her infant’s nose? By your twisted logic they have “become one flesh”… Is she then married to her infant? Has she committed adultery on her husband by becoming one flesh with her infant? I mean she stuck part of her body (finger) into a part of another person’s body (nose)…

So I’ll just assume that you’re going so say, “that’s not the same!!!”. To which it begs the question, if a penis entering a vagina makes two people “one flesh”, why doesn’t a finger entering a nose (or an ear, mouth, etc…) make two people one flesh? It’s a body part entering an orifice… Last time I checked, the only two people that are “one flesh” are Siamese twins. Now if one of THEM decides to get married, is it adultery?

What if you just get blow jobs or fuck bitches in the ass, is it one flesh then? I actually dated a chick who would only let me fuck her in the ass “cuz she was saving herself for marriage” LMAO. Lucky guy.[/quote]

Risible. Do you have a brain?
[/quote]

Do you have an explanation? Because clearly they are not “one flesh”. In reality it is a male body part ENTERING a female body part (uless she is sticking her finger up his ass to give a prostate massage… Does THAT count? And while we’re at it, how about finger banging a chick? If that’s the case, I got married when I was about twelve!). There are in fact TWOOOOO fleshes. They are not joining. There is no exchange of blood/nerve impulses/lymphatic signals/etc… There are TWO fleshes… NOT ONE FLESH…

Do YOU have a brain?

Your little book has it wrong.[/quote]

I haven’t been keeping up with this thread. But, it’s not just a male body part entering a female body part that makes them become one flesh. It is a man’s cock entering a woman’s vagina that does. The man’s cock has stuff called sperm that shoots out of it that can hit and cum (<see what I did there?) together with the females egg. This is where babies come from. This doesn’t happen every time you have sex.

To answer your question on where “one flesh” cums (< did it again) from, the man and woman having sex, which is where babies cum (haha) from is pretty much the two becoming one flesh. The baby has parts of the man and parts of the woman. I am not sure if I am being clear here, let me know if I need to try and explain my thoughts better.

[quote]orion wrote:
To clarify this:

If I tell my kids a story that if they do not brush their teeth the Toot Decay Fairy will come in their sleep and drill holes in their teeth, this is of course bullshit.

However, if they grow up and decide to not brush their teeth because they discover that the Toot Decay Fairy story is a bit unplausible, well, if they decide to not brush their teeth because of it, they will lose them.

The justification is bullshit, but the behavior it was meant to encourage makes a whole lot of sense. [/quote]

Oh, I agree 100% that the bible is USEFUL for keeping ancient goat herders from fucking their sisters. Absolutely! It probably helped people avoid parasites as well with all the forbidden shellfish eating (you know, the one people seem to forget, but they remember FAGS are sinners!). It’s probably the most useful tool for population control ever devised. Buuuuuuuut, it was written by MEN. To control OTHER men (and women). I’ll even go as far to say that in some parts of the world it was necessary. Burning books, excommunicating scientists and throwing Europe into the Dark Ages we probably could have done without, but HEY - no one is perfect, right?

But I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if some fucking moron is going to convince me that “god” wrote the bible and that I’m “going to hell”. And in this case, that Melissa S (my first) was my “wife”. LMAO If that’s the case, at least she didn’t take half my shit!

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
To clarify this:

If I tell my kids a story that if they do not brush their teeth the Toot Decay Fairy will come in their sleep and drill holes in their teeth, this is of course bullshit.

However, if they grow up and decide to not brush their teeth because they discover that the Toot Decay Fairy story is a bit unplausible, well, if they decide to not brush their teeth because of it, they will lose them.

The justification is bullshit, but the behavior it was meant to encourage makes a whole lot of sense. [/quote]

Oh, I agree 100% that the bible is USEFUL for keeping ancient goat herders from fucking their sisters. Absolutely! It probably helped people avoid parasites as well with all the forbidden shellfish eating (you know, the one people seem to forget, but they remember FAGS are sinners!). It’s probably the most useful tool for population control ever devised. Buuuuuuuut, it was written by MEN. To control OTHER men (and women). I’ll even go as far to say that in some parts of the world it was necessary. Burning books, excommunicating scientists and throwing Europe into the Dark Ages we probably could have done without, but HEY - no one is perfect, right?

But I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if some fucking moron is going to convince me that “god” wrote the bible and that I’m “going to hell”. And in this case, that Melissa S (my first) was my “wife”. LMAO If that’s the case, at least she didn’t take half my shit![/quote]

Well, the Dark Ages were dark because we lack documentation.

The little we do have were provided by, um, Catholic monks.

The little we know about what came before was provided by, um, Catholic Monks.

They did not throw Europe into the Dark Ages, they did their very best to preserve the knowledge that existed.

The Catholic Church was the only force left to provide some order after the West Roman empire fell, they had nothing to do with the rot that brought it down.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Basically, the underlying TRUTH of the matter is that you can’t turn a ho into a housewife. Seriously. Why anyone disputes this is beyond me. Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny.

But despite our insistence as a culture that we can ALL be special snowflakes (cough, cough BULLSHIT!!!) it comes down to this: is she a “good” girl, or a “bad” girl? A good girl can be a lady in the living room and taught to be a whore in the bedroom. A bad girl is just a whore everywhere she goes. And everybody knows it. She betrays it with the looks she gives, her body language and her lack of boundaries.

I can spot a whore a mile away. It’s just a matter of seeing how she responds when I push a few buttons. And the sad sad truth of it is that in today’s society, where the MEDIA is conditioning our younger generations to care more about which guy XYZ Kardashian is fucking than who their state senator is, more and more young women are turning into whores. Before they are even old enough to think responsibly, they’ve already had a dozen dicks up in them. And they call it “progress”… LMAO

It’s fine by me. I like fucking strange pussy and these days it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I literally don’t have to try anymore. The biggest challenge is the schedule.[/quote]

I can’t agree with you wholesale on this issue, however anecdotally, in my experience you have a point. My sample is much smaller than your own, but I still reached a few conclusions.

I came VERY close to marrying a girl with, ahem… a very high “novelty seeking index”. By the time we got together at age 20, I was her number 12 as I recall, and that included some fairly exotic stuff. This was 15 years ago, so I expect that made her even more of an outlier than a girl of the same age and number would be today. We lasted 3 years, which I actually consider something of an accomplishment given her temperament.

She engaged in a lot of high risk activity (sexual and otherwise) and was dating somebody when we got together. Unsurprising, in hindsight, she was unable to “turn it off” despite her (IMO) heartfelt professions of undying love and desire to build a future together. She just wasn’t made that way. I don’t blame her, I should have known she was a scorpion when we started swimming across the river. Did I mention I was 20 and she was… very attractive.

Now I can recognize “that” girl in seconds, fractions of seconds even. There are clearly identifiable patterns that are unmistakable. I also agree that “that” girl is being heavily promoted in the media under the guise of empowerment etc. I personally don’t see how hedonism, drug abuse, promiscuity and lack of impulse control are especially empowering, but what do I know?

I believe we should deal with people on a case by case basis. However, I have also noticed that we fall into very definite “types” which exhibit extremely predictable patterns of thought and action. An individual, through self awareness and a concerted effort of will can break out of their type/pattern and on occasion anybody can surprise you, but more often than not, you can bet on the pattern.

Past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour.

I broke up with a man like this last year. He had a lot of good qualities and I believe with all my heart that he genuinely cared about me, but he was unable to exhibit reliability and fidelity. As he and I are both much older than your girlfriend, it should have been obvious to me that this was an enduring pattern for him.

He was not a man to marry. Which has nothing to do with his gender but rather my desire for a relationship built on intimacy and trust.

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]MementoMori wrote:
There are some real shitty people in this thread. Talking out 1 side of their face saying
“My number is personal”, “I should have had more” “look how many I’ve slept with”
and out the other saying
“a woman is a slut over 10” “cant put a ring on a woman who likes cock” “whore, slut, over 40!” etc etc

Screen names about getting the D and denigrating women give me a break.

Women aren’t sluts for enjoying sex; no more than men are.

I’d never judge a woman for their count because I wouldn’t want them to judge mine.

For you guys trashing the women who enjoy sex I’m sure your sex life is fan-fucking-tastic.
[/quote]
What?[/quote]

Anyway how is your sex life?

If a 150 pound man walked into another forum and gave advice on how to gain weight his credentials would immediately be questioned. You are proposing who and who is not capable of marriage with an 0-2 record.

Like I said I don’t care to ask or judge the details of your previous relationships. For all I know you were entirely blameless and I won’t use your other posts to discredit that stance.

YOU however,have no problem judging the capacity of total strangers to successfully maintain a marriage. I have every right to question you like I would a 150 pounder providing weightlifter advice.

You or I could just as easily contract HPV given our promiscuity, or get the “itch”. I have no problem with you leveling these accusations at women I just don’t see why they don’t apply to you.

Fine if you don’t think your metaphor was apt anymore and are backtracking I’ll drop it.

I think the women in this thread did a better job than I would in addressing this question.

But you are? But I am? If a woman with over 60 partners is incapable of marriage then you and I must be as well.

I don’t see what my politics has to do with anything here, but then I’m Canadian and we don’t just trot that dichotomy out at the drop of a hat.

Your premise is based on the idea that women are inferior and need a different standard than men. If that’s conservativism then go knock yourself out.

You said homosexuals in media are destroying the modern marriage and then follow it up with this?

OK

Again… but not a man.

I don’t know how else to answer these statements other than to say why is it than a woman only has sex due to “low self esteem and a bunch of baggage and daddy issues” but we do it for altruistic reasons.

Alright then I’ll continue to not talk about homosexuality here and you can show off your pro LGBT resume by doing the same?

More politics go figure. I think the fundamental dynamic between men and women has changed in the last 100-150 years. For example, they became “persons” under the law, got sufferage, the right to divorce, the right not to be domestically abused (as much), the wage gap has lowered and their right to education has grown enormously. And according to some they’ve also gotten the right to enjoy sex without being judged by absolutely everyone.

I hope to god fundamental dynamic has changed.

[quote]

Absolute gibberish. A MAN can’t have another woman’s baby, trick her into raising it and if he’s ever caught, take half her shit and STILL collect “palimony” and child support. The stakes of the game ARE NOT the same.[/quote]

He can get a woman pregnant pass abortion stifling laws and force her to raise it. He can rape her, he can withhold child support and his presence as a father.

If a man admitted 5 previous partners had had abortions that would in no one reflect on him, while it was would leave a woman with 5 abortions entirely illegitimate?

(don’t take that as an endorsement as using abortions as birth control in case your were hoping to twist the last example.)

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Oh, I agree 100% that the bible is USEFUL for keeping ancient goat herders from fucking their sisters. Absolutely! It probably helped people avoid parasites as well with all the forbidden shellfish eating (you know, the one people seem to forget, but they remember FAGS are sinners!). It’s probably the most useful tool for population control ever devised. Buuuuuuuut, it was written by MEN. To control OTHER men (and women). I’ll even go as far to say that in some parts of the world it was necessary. Burning books, excommunicating scientists and throwing Europe into the Dark Ages we probably could have done without, but HEY - no one is perfect, right?

But I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if some fucking moron is going to convince me that “god” wrote the bible and that I’m “going to hell”. And in this case, that Melissa S (my first) was my “wife”. LMAO If that’s the case, at least she didn’t take half my shit![/quote]

Reveling in the radiance of your ignorance, I see (HT: Berlinski). One striking instance of your ignorance (and extreme confusion) is the confounding of Roman Catholicism (e.g., “burning books,” “excommunicating scientists”) with true Biblical Christianity.

“What then? Do we excel? Not at all! For we have charged both Jews and Greeks before, all with being under sin; according as it has been written, There is not a righteous one, not even one! There is not one understanding; there is not one seeking God. All turned away, they became worthless together, not one is doing goodness, not so much as one! Their throat is a tomb being opened; they used deceit with their tongues; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their way; and they did not know a way of peace; there is no fear of God before their eyes. But we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those within the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment to God. Because by works of Law not one of all flesh will be justified before Him, for through Law is full knowledge of sin. But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ toward all and upon all those believing; for there is no difference, for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith. Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law. Or is He the God of Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law” (Romans 3:9-31).

EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION by nature is guilty, defiled, and under the curse of God, even those who have the Law of God. And this all leads up to the precious truth that a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ. NOBODY can come to God with his own righteousness. Jesus Christ said that no one comes to God except through Him. The only way to God is through the righteousness of His Son. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Believe that His work alone makes the ONLY difference between salvation and damnation. Believe that God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Christ ALONE. Believe that Jesus Christ, the only God-man mediator, came to live a perfectly righteous life so His righteousness would be charged to the account of His people to make them acceptable before God. Believe that all the sins of all the elect were charged to Christ on the cross, and he paid the penalty in full for them, and God was satisfied with what Christ did, and peace between God and His people was accomplished. Believe that the atonement actually accomplished and ensured salvation for everyone He represented. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

A common chain of immorality: lust leads to fornication, and fornication leads to murder.

The Humanist Manifesto says this: ‘We assert that humanism will … affirm life rather than deny it …’ and also, ‘The right to … abortion … should be recognized.’

The humanist will affirm their own life while denying life to the little ones who have absolutely no say in the matter: “The right to … abortion …should be recognized.” The right to MURDER millions of babies should be recognized.

Regarding the chain of immorality, I thought of this Gordon Clark quote (commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:3-6):

‘In view of contemporary demands for abortion it is interesting to note that the New Testament disallows one of the women libbers’ [1] frequent arguments: Should not a woman have control over her own body! The answer is, No. So far as married persons are concerned, Paul points out some mutual responsibilities. One of the purposes of marriage is to beget and rear children. A wife has no right to deny her husband this fulfillment of the marriage obligation. As for contemporary unmarried abortionists, it is clear that these women had previously decided what to do with their bodies. That is how they got pregnant. They should now be held responsible and prevented from committing murder" (Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians Commentary, pp. 96-97, Trinity Foundation 1975).

[1] Two or three centuries from now, if someone should come upon this volume as an antique, he may be puzzled by the contemporary phrase ‘women libbers.’ Libbers are people who want to be liberated. Women’s Lib, at the present time, is a movement whose members demand the civil right to promiscuity with the subsequent murder of the child conceived.

The millions of babies whom these ‘liberated’ women desire to maliciously murder are NOT ‘their own bodies’ that they can have the kind of control over in order to murder at will. God through the apostle James says:

‘From where do wars and fightings among you come? Is it not from this, from your lusts warring in your members? You desire and do not have. You murder, and are jealous, and are not able to obtain. You fight and you war, and you do not have, because you do not ask. You ask, and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order that you may spend on your lusts. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whoever, then, purposes to be a friend of the world is put down as hostile to God’ (James 4:1-4).

The lust of multitudes ends in much murderous blood shed. James says that people war and fight because of lust. In the case of abortion, multitudes of lustful, whore-mongers are also war-mongers who are warring against 50 million infants.

Reminds me of the following words in the song ‘A Malediction’ by Kemper Crabb:

“Conceived in lust to their own ruin - a sacrifice to pleasure.”

Just eleven words, but packed full. I don’t know of any other eleven words that encapsulate the victimhood of murdered unborn babies more than these eleven words. Just think about it.

Conceived in lust - The circumstances surrounding the conception of the ‘unwanted’ unborn baby are those of lust and fornication. They were conceived because those who conceived them acted on their immoral desires. Whatever feels good, right? And this ‘good feeling’ resulted in the conception of a human being.

To their own ruin - Although these unborn babies did not choose to be conceived in lust, their conception was to their own demise because of the wickedness of those who conceived them.

A sacrifice to pleasure - That unborn baby was sacrificed to the god of pleasure. To fulfill the desires of the god of pleasure, an unborn baby, a human being, is ripped apart. It is a child sacrifice on the altar of pleasure. The ones who conceived him/her didn’t want this ‘thing’ to ruin their wicked pleasure. So when it came to the choice to fulfill their wicked lusts and murder a human being who was the product of that fulfillment or abstain from fulfilling their wicked lusts and not conceive a human being to murder it, they chose their lusts over human life. That’s ‘pro-choice’ for you. They chose to fulfill their pleasure, and then when a human being was the result, they chose to murder that human being.

How is it that all who advocate sexual promiscuity are also advocates of abortion? Why are all the ‘free love’ and ‘free sex’ people advocates of abortion? Why are all the humanists advocates of abortion? Well, it’s easy enough to see, isn’t it? What feels good, including the wicked pleasure of sexual intercourse outside of Christian marriage, trumps everything, even the life of a helpless baby. Consequences? What consequences? Responsibility? What responsibility? If you can murder the consequence of your irresponsibility, then the consequences and responsibility just go away in their minds. Pleasure is everything. Whatever makes me feel good, no matter what or who else gets sacrificed.

A sacrifice to pleasure.

Yet there are consequences. God says this:

‘But outside [are] the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving a lie, and making it.’ (Revelation 22:15)

‘But for the cowardly and unbelieving, and those having become foul, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the lying ones, their part will be in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’ (Revelation 21:8)

What human being with a conscience would say that abortion is not murder? What kind of monsters could defend and even perform such procedures? What kind of Supreme Court Justice scum could say that a woman has a ‘right’ to have such a thing done to her child? Yet this is the law of the land. And not only of this land, but all around the world.

Do you love this wicked, humanistic, lustful, adulterous, murderous world? I hate the world.

‘Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because all that which [is] in the world: the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world’ (1 John 2:15-16).

Amen.

'And call on Me in the day of distress, and I will save you; and you shall glorify Me. But to the wicked, God says, What is it to you to proclaim My statutes, and to take up My covenant on your mouth? Yea, you hate instruction and toss My Words behind you. When you saw a thief, you were pleased with him; and with adulterers is your portion" (Psalm 50:15-18).

I’m generally happy to read any well-written wall of text because my curiosity about the thoughts and viewpoints of others is pretty much bottomless. But opeth7opeth, your thoughts are completely lost to me due to your heavy block quoting and my inability to maintain focus through it.

Not that it matters or should matter to anyone whether I maintain focus or not, but just some feedback. Imagine debating in person with someone by sonorously reciting the bible aloud, delivering a series of heavy sermons in response to someone else’s expressed thoughts.

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
Reveling in the radiance of your ignorance, I see (HT: Berlinski). One striking instance of your ignorance (and extreme confusion) is the confounding of Roman Catholicism (e.g., “burning books,” “excommunicating scientists”) with true Biblical Christianity.

“What then? Do we excel? Not at all! For we have charged both Jews and Greeks before, all with being under sin; according as it has been written, There is not a righteous one, not even one! There is not one understanding; there is not one seeking God. All turned away, they became worthless together, not one is doing goodness, not so much as one! Their throat is a tomb being opened; they used deceit with their tongues; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their way; and they did not know a way of peace; there is no fear of God before their eyes. But we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those within the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment to God. Because by works of Law not one of all flesh will be justified before Him, for through Law is full knowledge of sin. But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ toward all and upon all those believing; for there is no difference, for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith. Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law. Or is He the God of Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law” (Romans 3:9-31).

EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION by nature is guilty, defiled, and under the curse of God, even those who have the Law of God. And this all leads up to the precious truth that a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ. NOBODY can come to God with his own righteousness. Jesus Christ said that no one comes to God except through Him. The only way to God is through the righteousness of His Son. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Believe that His work alone makes the ONLY difference between salvation and damnation. Believe that God is just to justify the ungodly based on the work of Christ ALONE. Believe that Jesus Christ, the only God-man mediator, came to live a perfectly righteous life so His righteousness would be charged to the account of His people to make them acceptable before God. Believe that all the sins of all the elect were charged to Christ on the cross, and he paid the penalty in full for them, and God was satisfied with what Christ did, and peace between God and His people was accomplished. Believe that the atonement actually accomplished and ensured salvation for everyone He represented. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

[/quote]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I broke up with a man like this last year. He had a lot of good qualities and I believe with all my heart that he genuinely cared about me, but he was unable to exhibit reliability and fidelity. As he and I are both much older than your girlfriend, it should have been obvious to me that this was an enduring pattern for him.

He was not a man to marry. Which has nothing to do with his gender but rather my desire for a relationship built on intimacy and trust.[/quote]

Yeah, I am a big believer in free will and self determination. I need to believe that I choose the direction of my life.

However our “free will” often seems to be heavily influenced by our nature. A cheater will cheat despite a conscious desire to be faithful in much the way an addict will use despite a conscious desire to stay clean, a doormat will often be a doormat despite a conscious desire to stand up. Most patterns are also self reinforcing, for better or for worse.

This isn’t an absolution of responsibility, especially when it comes to consequences. It does however make it harder to make emotional value judgments about people. How angry can you stay at a person for acting in accordance with their nature? You can certainly choose to arrange your life so you will not be affected by those actions, but stay angry?

To use AC’s metaphor, it’s like getting angry at the dog for eating the steak.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m generally happy to read any well-written wall of text because my curiosity about the thoughts and viewpoints of others is pretty much bottomless. But opeth7opeth, your thoughts are completely lost to me due to your heavy block quoting and my inability to maintain focus through it.

Not that it matters or should matter to anyone whether I maintain focus or not, but just some feedback. Imagine debating in person with someone by sonorously reciting the bible aloud, delivering a series of heavy sermons in response to someone else’s expressed thoughts.
[/quote]

Agree. His argument is totally inaccessible to anybody who didn’t already share his opinions/beliefs.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I broke up with a man like this last year. He had a lot of good qualities and I believe with all my heart that he genuinely cared about me, but he was unable to exhibit reliability and fidelity. As he and I are both much older than your girlfriend, it should have been obvious to me that this was an enduring pattern for him.

He was not a man to marry. Which has nothing to do with his gender but rather my desire for a relationship built on intimacy and trust.[/quote]

Yeah, I am a big believer in free will and self determination. I need to believe that I choose the direction of my life.

However our “free will” often seems to be heavily influenced by our nature. A cheater will cheat despite a conscious desire to be faithful in much the way an addict will use despite a conscious desire to stay clean, a doormat will often be a doormat despite a conscious desire to stand up. Most patterns are also self reinforcing, for better or for worse.

This isn’t an absolution of responsibility, especially when it comes to consequences. It does however make it harder to make emotional value judgments about people. How angry can you stay at a person for acting in accordance with their nature? You can certainly choose to arrange your life so you will not be affected by those actions, but stay angry?

To use AC’s metaphor, it’s like getting angry at the dog for eating the steak.[/quote]

I agree. I would say I was hurt more than angry, though angry too, initially. But mostly I was puzzled at myself because looking back at the two year relationship, there were so many clear indicators that integrity and character were lacking. Because my marriage was similar in some regards (different red flags, same foolish belief in change) I took a long hard look at what drew me (which was their need for me) and what kept me (their need for me combined with my own history of loss).

I actually don’t disagree with AC in anything but the part about it being specific to women. I also think that change is possible, but the change should come from within and happen well before one engages in a committed relationship with another. A woman can do the work needed to understand why she was looking for emotional intimacy in bars and make the changes needed to become a good partner. So can a man. But relationships - finding “the right one” - don’t make that happen. Honest self-examination and hard work to change habits and patterns make it happen.

To expand on this a little. You don’t forgive them or stop being angry at them, for them. You forgive them and stop being angry at them for yourself.

If there is a person in your life that is causing you issues, you can cut them out of your life if they wont change and still forgive them and no longer be angry at them. Being and staying angry at someone affects you more than it will ever affect them.

Of course there are exceptions to this. Life threatening situations, terrorist actions, or things along those lines call for a little different approach. Rip their fucking head off them, but let your anger towards them die with the snapping of their neck.

Just do your best to never hold onto anger, let it go man