[Samseau]

(06-04-2015 08:31 AM)Frost Wrote:  

Great work Samseau, looking forward to more of this sort of research. It's been a while since I took a deep dive into this area, but my conclusion was the same as yours in your follow-up posts: fornication is a sin, like gluttony, akrasia, but it's certainly not adultery.

If you mean fornication in it's original sense of merely being whoring, then yes, I agree. Whoring is not as bad as adultery which involves betrayal of others.

Quote:

In fact - contra modern Churchians - marrying a non-virgin is a far greater sin than whoremongering:

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." - Matthew 5:32

This only applies if she's already been married. Marrying a divorced woman is a greater sin than marrying a slut, but both are still sins.

Quote:

And polygamy is clearly permitted. But, polygamy is also understood to be taking multiple virgin wives.

The Bible seems to divide women into three categories: 1) Virgins (potential wives), 2) Wives (seducing = adultery) and 3) Whores. There is no fourth category of liberated Sex and The City women, because the authors either couldn't conceive of the modern dating scene, or couldn't conceive of men unable to recognize them as whores.

There's no way they would have been able to conceive of this world.

Christ barely talks about sex, by the way. Most of New Testament sexual ethics comes from St. Paul, who was an asexual. The idea that an asexual was visited by Christ just so he could guide the modern on sexual matters is crazy, most of St. Paul's advice on sexual matters is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the Old Testament's view of whores and virgins anyways.

Paul was chosen for many reasons, one of them being an asexual so he could devote his life to God without any distractions. Obviously St. Paul would never understand shit like game or dealing with sluts, nor did he need too! God used him to convince his fellow Jews against their old customs, not because he wanted to ban premarital sex 2000 years into the future. I think people are so incredibly selfish today they simply cannot place themselves into the time period of when the Apostles wrote without believing that somehow St. Paul was only speaking to them and not the billions of other Christians that would follow St. Paul throughout the ages. Paul needed to give general advice that would last eternity, and not merely specifics for handling a hookup culture in the years 1960-20xx. Modern Christians are so self-centered it's absolutely shameful.

Moreover, that St. Paul does not condemn premarital sex with non-virgin sluts does not contradict anything else St. Paul said. But again, to make sure I'll be posting more from canon law soon. I do not rule out the possibility I am wrong, but where is the evidence to contradict me?

Quote:

So, I agree with scorpion and RawGod that there's no way around the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage to a virgin or widow. Would Jesus or anyone else have any trouble identifying nightclubs and mobile dating apps as 21st-century pornix? I'm pretty sure the Bible's authors would view modern women simply as whores with poor bargaining skills.

I doubt it. The intentions of a whore are completely different from a slut.

Slut: Wants pleasure and love.

Whore: Wants money, willing to use sex to get it.

Remember Christ judges us from the character of the heart, the desires of a slut although terribly misguided are still totally different the desires of a whore. Whores are MUCH more evil than a slut, because they are concerned with money. Christ spoke out against greed about 100x more than he spoke out against lust.

The reason sluts didn't exist in Christ's time was because:

- STD's
- Pregnancy without the father = death for the child
- Social ostracization

Being a slut for women back in the day was basically committing suicide, and suicide has always been listed as a one-way ticket to hell. There was no need to even consider the possibility of sluts back in the day. Today, a woman can be a slut with very little damage to her physical self, although the emotional and spiritual damage is the same.

Quote:

You make an excellent point that God views male promiscuity as much, much less serious than female promiscuity, and that modern Churches invert this. But you over-reach by saying that casual sex is 100% A-OK. Even in 2015, a good Christian man should be trying to find and marry a virgin wife. Is that impossible? Of course not. Is it difficult? No more so than being fed to lions or spending a few days on a cross.

First of all, I did not say casual sex is 100% A-OK. I'm saying casual no more sinful than any other bodily pleasure like having a glass of expensive wine or eating an expensive meal. In excess it is a sin but by itself, FOR MEN, it's just a good time. It doesn't bring you closer or further away from God.

Second, finding a virgin wife today IS impossible for most men. By my estimates, only 1 in 200 American women are virgins by the age of 20. This a tragedy, but the idea that only the Christian men who can have children or live satisfying lives are the lucky few who manage to snag a virgin is selfish and evil.

Satan has worked his lies across America and the idea we should just say "Every man for himself!" is unacceptable to any follower of God. We all have a duty to one another to help each other across the moral wasteland of modernity. There is a solution to this and I believe I already know it (hint: it's in the Bible), but more on this will be described in future articles.

Quote:

But, you know the Bible a lot better than I do and you have access to a priest who speaks Koine, so I'm guessing you'll have a lot more to teach me than vice versa. Looking forward to your follow-up posts.

Cheers,
Frost

Thanks. I believe this work is the most important thing I could be doing with my life right now so I hope you will not be disappointed.

Orion:

Quote:

You seem to be guessing too much here and jumping to conclusions based on arbitrarily drawn line.

Everything is a guess. No one knows anything for certain, except God. We are men and all men are fallible. Even Christ doubted his own father; "God why hath you forsaken me?" while he was on the cross, because Christ was part man and all men can be wrong and all men have doubts.

So to fault me for not knowing with 100% certainty is itself a fallacy and would require you to reject anything said by any man.

Quote:

How do you draw a line between slutiness, whoredom, sexual indecency, and so on ? I can already predict you will say "obviously, we know it from our own experiences in modern western dating world" but that exactly is the problem. Who gave western male a mandate to define sexual decency for Christians ? Based on mating patterns of broken western women ?

How do I drawn the line? See above my response to Frost. It all comes down to a person's intentions. God sees right through you - he knows your heart.

Also, all identity politics are horseshit. Anyone can discover the Truth using the God given reason bestowed upon them at birth, it doesn't matter if you're a Western Male (there's no such thing) or not.

Quote:

Let me be rough and clear here. Western women (85%) have nothing to do with God. Judgmental ? Yes. So i can't see how teachings of Christ and other messiahs and apostles can be applied in a way to approve rampant mating with Godless creatures.

They are not Godless creatures. Everything in you see a creation of God. That they reject God or are unaware of God does not mean they are Godless. Hence, "Love thy enemy."

Quote:

As preachers would say "It's not part of God's plan".

False prophets. They don't know God's plan, no one knows other than what's contained in the Bible.

Quote:

Christian insistence on marriage has it's purpose. By committing to a Christian spouse, both of you can live separated from sinful world and produce Christian offspring, therefore, living in a sort of your own family "church". Bible would in no way advise a man to live separated from decent people and believers and go out there to freely fulfill his innermost desires.

Insistence on marriage is of course good and has it's place.

And yes Christians must segregate themselves from evil, hence, "Do not cast pearls before swine."

But you are mistaken to think the only purpose of Christians are to live in a bubble. You cannot ignore the rest of the world and expect the world to ignore you. Christian societies who have tried this in the past have all been conquered and wiped out. Not to mention, this ignores the orders of God. Christian men must go out, educate, and spread the faith, and this a command from God. Ignore God at your own peril.

Thus when you see that there are not enough virgins to go around, and that God has created man to desire woman, to condemn men for having sex with non-virgins outside of marriage looks to me to be evil and hypocrisy.

[Grodin]

This NLT translation seems badass. I might have to attend church now just to quote it. Show up at some singles group "FLEE THE WHOREDOM!"

[N°6]

Before I write anything else, I am not what is called a 'player'. I do however recognise that there is Game that all men must master if they are not going to have their lives emotionally and financially ruined. I do also recognise that sex is one of the elements of life that makes it worth living in this fallen world. On the other hand, sex is over-rated - especially for men. I also believe that a Creator gave men a sex drive which is not primarily for sex itself nor for the gratification of women. Look at the story of Samson, his supernatural testosterone levels were never supposed to be for the pleasure of a Philistine woman but for the deliverance of Israel.

There's the paradox of PUA, it puts sex and women on a pedestal and the more you invest in its study, the expensive nights out, the emotionally draining game that often ends in disappointment and rejection, the more you need to have valid returns in the form of sex and female approval - or social proof. That of course is not attractive to women unless drunk or unless she is on her horny sweet spot during her monthly cycle.

I think God's will is that one man pairs with one woman for life and has at least 2.1 children. At this point, I am going to explain why despite this, Christian men should learn Game and see sex in its context and as one of the positive elements of life that God created.

I hate to break it to you that many men reading this post will never marry. Either by choice or because their SMV is not high enough to attract a hypergamous wife whose own SMV is inflated by equality and the sexualisation of society. When the NT was written and during history up to the pill, a young man could marry a young wife without having the +2 SMV points as he would normally fulfil this potential after having his first children and still being young.

This is why Christian men must learn Game:

*LBGT...n ethics have infiltrated the churches and they should expect to hear a lesbian 'pastor' preach 'free love' for every group except heterosexual men who are expected to subsidise the carousel through marriage to an old girl.

*Alpha White Knight pastors will do the bidding of women and try to shame men into marriages by telling them to 'man up' to marry divorcées and take on their children. They will also try to shame them in to taking on the alpha widow's bastard children that the Alpha sired. That the old girl might have thrown her would-be firstborn and therefore her strongest offspring into the fires of Molech to shore up her SMV whilst still on the carousel, will be a question that no Christian gentleman should ever ask.

Sit back and watch what remains of traditional Christian teaching on divorce get thrown into the memory hole which will remove the last few restraints against hypergamy and harlotry. Traditional teaching held that marrying a divorcée is adultery because it involves a broken covenant. A covenant that was consummated with the blood of the marital bed. A casual look in the Bible shows that God is a god of covenants and the term 'harlot' was used to describe an oath breaker.

A Christian man breaks no oath during pre-marital sex with a never married woman. Pre-marital by its very definition implies that there is no oath to break.

[The Beast1]

Full stop. The reasoning in the OP is way off and the reliance on modern re-interpretations is unnecessary.

Per Jesus, "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

Now let's ask the question: Is it very loving of you to have sex with a woman who wants to be married one day?

Simultaneously, let's say a woman is cool having sex with you without marriage. If you loved yourself would you want to have sex with a woman who doesn't care love herself?

Maybe the first few times of banging you'll be fine, but keep doing it. Roosh has posted a few posts on the forum talking about how associating with so many low quality women had on his psyche and soul.

This is what sin is, the slow destruction of ones ability to feel connected to something beyond himself.

[scorpion]

The Beast1 raises a good point: even if fornication is not explicitly a sin in the same manner that adultery or prostitution are, that doesn't imply that fornication should be endorsed or passed off as harmless. Sex is the ultimate indulgence of the flesh, and the Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers of indulging the flesh and how doing so corrupts the spirit, since the spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other (Gal. 5:17).

Paul also explicitly writes that just because a thing is lawful, doesn't mean that it is necessarily good for us to do:

1st Corinthians 6:12 (NASB) Wrote:

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

So I think the best that we can say is that even if fornication is not explicitly a sin, at the same time it is not something that should be indulged in with reckless abandon, and to the extent that it is done at all it should be as a temporary measure with an eye toward marriage. What should certainly be avoided is becoming a slave to the desire to fornicate, which is very easy to do given how powerful the sexual urge is and how quickly and easily it can overcome the flesh. So even if fornication is not a sin, men do well to keep their sexual desire in check as much as possible, since indulging the flesh always damages the spirit and pulls us farther away from God.

[The Beast1]

(06-04-2015 05:44 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The Beast1 raises a good point: even if fornication is not explicitly a sin in the same manner that adultery or prostitution are, that doesn't imply that fornication should be endorsed or passed off as harmless. Sex is the ultimate indulgence of the flesh, and the Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers of indulging the flesh and how doing so corrupts the spirit, since the spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other (Gal. 5:17).

Paul also explicitly writes that just because a thing is lawful, doesn't mean that it is necessarily good for us to do:

1st Corinthians 6:12 (NASB) Wrote:

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

So I think the best that we can say is that even if fornication is not explicitly a sin, at the same time it is not something that should be indulged in with reckless abandon, and to the extent that it is done at all it should be as a temporary measure with an eye toward marriage. What should certainly be avoided is becoming a slave to the desire to fornicate, which is very easy to do given how powerful the sexual urge is and how quickly and easily it can overcome the flesh. So even if fornication is not a sin, men do well to keep their sexual desire in check as much as possible, since indulging the flesh always damages the spirit and pulls us farther away from God.

Thanks Scorpion! Your post is succinctly what I was trying to convey.

[Samseau]

It is time to address the root of the courrption on Christian sexual ethics: Thomas Aquinas. This man has dominated Christian thought for over 700 years and has been the intellectual justification for Churches the world over on many issues. The following quote comes from Summa Theologica where Aquinas argues why the act of sex itself is a sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm

Quote:

Article 2. Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that simple fornication is not a mortal sin. For things that come under the same head would seem to be on a par with one another. Now fornication comes under the same head as things that are not mortal sins: for it is written (Acts 15:29): "That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." But there is not mortal sin in these observances, according to 1 Timothy 4:4, "Nothing is rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 2. Further, no mortal sin is the matter of a Divine precept. But the Lord commanded (Hosea 1:2): "Go take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 3. Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we read (Genesis 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further on (Genesis 30:5-9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of his wives; and again (Genesis 38:18) that Juda was with Thamar whom he thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 4. Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But simple fornication is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love of God, since it is not a sin directly against. God, nor as regards the love of our neighbor, since thereby no one is injured. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 5. Further, every mortal sin leads to eternal perdition. But simple fornication has not this result: because a gloss of Ambrose [The quotation is from the Gloss of Peter Lombard, who refers it to St. Ambrose: whereas it is from Hilary the deacon] on 1 Timothy 4:8, "Godliness is profitable to all things," says: "The whole of Christian teaching is summed up in mercy and godliness: if a man conforms to this, even though he gives way to the inconstancy of the flesh, doubtless he will be punished, but he will not perish." Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 6. Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least grievous of the aforesaid species.

On the contrary, It is written (Tobit 4:13): "Take heed to keep thyself . . . from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime." Now crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore fornication and all intercourse with other than one's wife is a mortal sin.

Further, nothing but mortal sin debars a man from God's kingdom. But fornication debars him, as shown by the words of the Apostle (Galatians 5:21), who after mentioning fornication and certain other vices, adds: "They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore simple fornication is a mortal sin.

Further, it is written in the Decretals (XXII, qu. i, can. Praedicandum): "They should know that the same penance is to be enjoined for perjury as for adultery, fornication, and wilful murder and other criminal offenses." Therefore simple fornication is a criminal or mortal sin.

I answer that, Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin, notwithstanding that a gloss [St. Augustine, QQ. in Deut., qu. 37 on Deuteronomy 23:17, says: "This is a prohibition against going with whores, whose vileness is venial." For instead of "venial" it should be "venal," since such is the wanton's trade. On order to make this evident, we must take note that every sin committed directly against human life is a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. For we find in all animals where the upbringing of the offspring needs care of both male and female, that these come together not indeterminately, but the male with a certain female, whether one or several; such is the case with all birds: while, on the other hand, among those animals, where the female alone suffices for the offspring's upbringing, the union is indeterminate, as in the case of dogs and like animals. Now it is evident that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother's care for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and external. Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were indeterminate.

This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however, the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that this union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work (Supplement,050, seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony. Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the child's upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin.

Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by fornication, make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the child: because a matter that comes under the determination of the law is judged according to what happens in general, and not according to what may happen in a particular case.

Reply to Objection 1. Fornication is reckoned in conjunction with these things, not as being on a par with them in sinfulness, but because the matters mentioned there were equally liable to cause dispute between Jews and Gentiles, and thus prevent them from agreeing unanimously. For among the Gentiles, fornication was not deemed unlawful, on account of the corruption of natural reason: whereas the Jews, taught by the Divine law, considered it to be unlawful. The other things mentioned were loathsome to the Jews through custom introduced by the law into their daily life. Hence the Apostles forbade these things to the Gentiles, not as though they were unlawful in themselves, but because they were loathsome to the Jews, as stated above (I-II, 103, 4, ad 3).

Reply to Objection 2. Fornication is said to be a sin, because it is contrary to right reason. Now man's reason is right, in so far as it is ruled by the Divine Will, the first and supreme rule. Wherefore that which a man does by God's will and in obedience to His command, is not contrary to right reason, though it may seem contrary to the general order of reason: even so, that which is done miraculously by the Divine power is not contrary to nature, though it be contrary to the usual course of nature. Therefore just as Abraham did not sin in being willing to slay his innocent son, because he obeyed God, although considered in itself it was contrary to right human reason in general, so, too, Osee sinned not in committing fornication by God's command. Nor should such a copulation be strictly called fornication, though it be so called in reference to the general course of things. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "When God commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done"; and afterwards he adds: "For as among the powers of human society, the greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in preference to all."

Reply to Objection 3. Abraham and Jacob went in to their handmaidens with no purpose of fornication, as we shall show further on when we treat of matrimony (Supplement,065, 5, ad 2). As to Juda there is no need to excuse him, for he also caused Joseph to be sold.

Reply to Objection 4. Simple fornication is contrary to the love of our neighbor, because it is opposed to the good of the child to be born, as we have shown, since it is an act of generation accomplished in a manner disadvantageous to the future child.

Reply to Objection 5. A person, who, while given to works of piety, yields to the inconstancy of the flesh, is freed from eternal loss, in so far as these works dispose him to receive the grace to repent, and because by such works he makes satisfaction for his past inconstancy; but not so as to be freed by pious works, if he persist in carnal inconstancy impenitent until death.

Reply to Objection 6. One copulation may result in the begetting of a man, wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.

Nor is it true that fornication is the least of the sins comprised under lust, for the marriage act that is done out of sensuous pleasure is a lesser sin.

There's a lot to evaluate here, as Aquinas was one of the smartest men to have ever lived. He's right next to Socrates, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle. Still, no man is beyond error. Only God is infallible. There are several errors above which I will now elaborate.

First of all, Aquinas seems to refer to the mere act of sex as "simple fornication," but not quite. As bolded at the bottom of the essay, he refers to "sensuous pleasure" that leads to marriage as a lesser sin. Is sensuous pleasure merely kissing, or does it involve more sex acts such as blow jobs or intercorse? It is unclear. Aquinas wrote in a dense, philosophical language and he used very specific definitions for all of his words. It appears he distinguished that simple fornication was not the same thing as fornication; fornication meant whoring for Aquinas, whereas simple fornication might be equivalent to a man banging a slut with no intention of marrying her or building any sort of life with her.

The fact Aquinas used "simple fornication" and "fornication" to refer to different acts is of course going to confuse most people, especially as he wrote in a time when 99.5% of people were illiterate. Most educated men could easily be confused by this sloppy use of verbiage, and for the illiterate masses there would be no chance. Hence the word fornication, which previously had always meant whoring then became understood to mean [i]all sex acts in general/i]. This is how the telephone game perverting the original message of the Bible on sexual ethics began.

In addition to the confusing use of language, Aquinas argues against "simple fornication" by claiming that since sex can beget children, sex should be avoided unless married so that the children would have a proper family environment to nurture them. This makes a bit of sense in a world without birth control but no sense at all in a world with birth control.

For even without birth control Aquinas's argument does not make the act of sex sinful, but the abandonment of children conceived via sex sinful. He fails to show that the sin of abandoning bastards is the same as the sin of mere sex. Obviously in Aquinas's time, he wouldn't have needed to show such a connection because the idea one could engage in casual sex with sophisticated birth control simply did not exist in his time. But even still, coitus interruptus (pulling out before ejaculating your load into a vagina) is an extremely effective method of birth control that Aquinas must have known about as it is mentioned in the story of Onan. So to equate all sex acts with pregnancy was already known not to be true even in his time.

I suppose this is why Catholics traditionally banned birth control was so that Aquinas's arguments would not be so easily contradicted. Obviously, this has worked against the Catholics as nearly all of Europe is atheist today in addition to the millions of other members who are Catholics in name only but actually engage in casual sex all the time.

In addition, Aquinas does not consider the possibility that a couple could conceive of a child outside of marriage and raise the child together even if they were not married. This is an error; it is entirely possible for two parents to raise a child together even if not under the optimal conditions of marriage. Of course determining paternity would have been a problem back in 1270 AD, but if the as long as the child was conceived not in a one-night stand type of scenario but instead via a relationship most doubts about the child could be eliminated. In 1270 AD even the sluttiest of women were extremely unlikely to sleep with more than one man at a time, due to both social and STD risks at the time.

Because of these errors, in addition to the confusing and dense philosophical language Aquinas used, Aquinas's use of the phrase "simple fornicaton" morphed the word "fornication" from prostitution into mere sex in general which has persisted until the present day.

Moreover, Aquinas's quotations of scripture is inadequate and never once does he quote anything in the Bible that shows anything beyond prostitution to be sinful.

This errors become highly apparent when we evaluate objection 6:

Quote:

Objection 6. Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least grievous of the aforesaid species.

Augustine's comparison of food to sex seems apt, and this is also consistent with what I've been arguing in so far: having a good bang is really no different than eating an expensive dinner and having an expensive dinner is in no way a serious sin. Indeed, sometimes it is good to fast from food for the sake of God, but this does not mean food is sinful. Likewise fasting from sex on occasion is also a good way to draw closer to God, but completely abstaining from sex makes about as much sense as completely abstaining from food.

The inadequacies of Aquinas's arguments are completely revealed in his reply to objection 6:

Quote:

Reply to Objection 6. One copulation may result in the begetting of a man, wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.

Here, Aquinas' rebuttal to food being good for the body with sex being good for the human race is to compare the impregnation of a random slut with that of Adam disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Wisdom. While I think many men probably feel the same way about impregnating a random slut, I do believe his comparison is absurd as having a child with an unmarried woman will not doom the human race, or the future of the child, in the same way as being cast out of the Garden of Eden.

To reiterate, there is a serious leap of logic from conceiving a child out of wedlock to abandoning the child completely. Conceiving the child is not the same thing as abandoning the child, and how Aquinas fails to consider this may just be a result of his asexual lifestyle; as a monk styled after St. Paul he is probably reaching for a conclusion to justify both the holiness of St. Paul and himself. Regardless of the failure of logic here, concluding that the mere act of sex is sinful because it may result in an uncared for bastard child is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow.

This error of logic, which really wasn't of much consequence in 1260 AD, results in terrible absurdities in the post sexual-revolution hookup culture that has caused many men incredible suffering. Often times the most obedient men to God are finding themselves without any families to raise or married to a slut who promptly divorce rapes him later because they sincerely believed that having sex outside of marriage was a sin and thus betatify themselves by refusing to fuck low-quality women and dominate them for the sluts that they are. Instead they get married to sluts, erroneously thinking they are obeying the will of God and having sanctified sex under the banner of Holy marriage, when in fact they were sinning tremendously by marrying a woman undeserving of marriage and casting pearls before swine. And because they gave what was sacred to dogs, they were trampled underfoot and torn to pieces.

Had many Christian men understood what the Bible said about women when the sexual revolution was occurring, then perhaps they would have been able to secure more children out of the slut-generation in the 1960's and raise more Christians to better combat the current move toward greater Godlessness and destruction America faces today.

However, in spite of these past losses I believe it is time for Christian men to take their balls back and handle low-quality women for what they are while securing some sort of progeny out of the modern slut. How Christen men can do this I will elaborate further in future articles after I collect some more information out of American family lawyers and figure out a way for men to beat the system.

Till then, God bless.

[Samseau]

N6 Wrote:

Look at the story of Samson, his supernatural testosterone levels were never supposed to be for the pleasure of a Philistine woman but for the deliverance of Israel.

I agree with you on everything else you said, but I think you have the story of Samson wrong.

He fucked a whore for free. He was not sinning by banging the whore, he was sloring. He also never married her, but he did make the mistake of falling for a cheap traitorous slut. He redeems himself at the end by killing all of his enemies. It's a great story of how a manly man should be.

(06-04-2015 02:42 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Full stop. The reasoning in the OP is way off and the reliance on modern re-interpretations is unnecessary.

Per Jesus, "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

Now let's ask the question: Is it very loving of you to have sex with a woman who wants to be married one day?

To answer your question: yes, without a doubt. In fact, if you didn't have sex with her she probably wouldn't love you in the first place as all of my research on securing girlfriends has revealed.

Quote:

Simultaneously, let's say a woman is cool having sex with you without marriage. If you loved yourself would you want to have sex with a woman who doesn't care love herself?

In fact, I think you have it backwards. If I was a broken woman then I'd want men to fuck me anyways because there's no way to go back in time and unfix me. Therefore as a broken slut I'd want to be fucked to eke out a bit more happiness out of my fucked up life before I die, and perhaps have children with a good man.

Quote:

Maybe the first few times of banging you'll be fine, but keep doing it. Roosh has posted a few posts on the forum talking about how associating with so many low quality women had on his psyche and soul.

This is what sin is, the slow destruction of ones ability to feel connected to something beyond himself.

There is a huge difference between engaging with sex every so often to satisfy a man's natural urges and binging on non-stop sex, just as it is with healthy eating and gluttony.

How Roosh once lived was really no different than the fat women he criticized for eating like pigs all the time. (Obviously, no offense Roosh!) Roosh realizes this now and he's better off for it.

Also, even though how Roosh lived wasn't a model for other men, what came out of it was good for other men (his research on banging girls). This is a great example of how God can make good things come out of evil just as Satan can make evil things come out of good.

Hence, God has the "sun rise on both evil and good people, and he lets rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Scorpion Wrote:

The Beast1 raises a good point: even if fornication is not explicitly a sin in the same manner that adultery or prostitution are, that doesn't imply that fornication should be endorsed or passed off as harmless. Sex is the ultimate indulgence of the flesh, and the Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers of indulging the flesh and how doing so corrupts the spirit, since the spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other (Gal. 5:17).

But Beast1's point contradicts nothing I've said so far. Nowhere have I said that it's okay to chase sluts each day. Indulgences in general are sinful - spending too much time on money is greed. Spending too much time on food is gluttony. Spending too much time on destroying your enemies is wrath. Spending too much time on what your neighbors have over you is coveting. Spending too much time on anything is idolatry.

Quote:

So I think the best that we can say is that even if fornication is not explicitly a sin, at the same time it is not something that should be indulged in with reckless abandon, and to the extent that it is done at all it should be as a temporary measure with an eye toward marriage. What should certainly be avoided is becoming a slave to the desire to fornicate, which is very easy to do given how powerful the sexual urge is and how quickly and easily it can overcome the flesh. So even if fornication is not a sin, men do well to keep their sexual desire in check as much as possible, since indulging the flesh always damages the spirit and pulls us farther away from God.

No where have I denied any of these things. I think so many guys are upset by what I have found that they are grasping for any sort of straws to try and refute or temper my arguments when in fact I have not contradicted any other teaching of the Bible, in either the NT or OT. A lot of guys are missing the nuance of my arguments.

I don't blame you guys for doing this, though. These findings were just as upsetting and shocking for me as they are for you. As I talked about in the OP, I remained a virgin until the age of 24 while trying to find a good virgin wife for myself to marry before I finally gave up in despair. I now realize there was no reason for me to ever despair, since the answers to today's problems were already written about over 2000 years ago. I just needed to actually read the Bible instead of taking it on authority from others!

Right now, my attitude is to chase pussy no more than once per week in my chosen niche. I believe this is enough to keep my sexual appetite sated while I focus on more important things.

[Orion]

(06-04-2015 10:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

How do I drawn the line? See above my response to Frost. It all comes down to a person's intentions. God sees right through you - he knows your heart.

Also, all identity politics are horseshit. Anyone can discover the Truth using the God given reason bestowed upon them at birth, it doesn't matter if you're a Western Male (there's no such thing) or not.

What are intentions of a man engaging in premarital sex ?

As far as i know, sexual pleasure and feeling of conquest and domination.

Yeah sure, some cuddling and couple of coffees you get to drink at her's in the morning makes your day as well, but sincerely, that's not commitment.

Particularly taken into account shallow nature of western women. And that's hugely important. Places that contain less shallow and more feminine women are usually also more conservative and hence more hostile towards casual sex. One can only spend so much time with western women without becoming a misogynist. Fortunately, we also remind ourselves that it's not women who are so corrupt, it's entire culture.

Hence pretending that there's more to casual sex than satisfaction is well, pretending. I don't think that's like eating a 50 dollar steak. Casual sex culture has serious social consequences. Mind you also that 10% of alpha's satisfy most of that demand.

Quote:

False prophets. They don't know God's plan, no one knows other than what's contained in the Bible.

Which speaks heavily in favor of monogamy, marriage, chastity and against whoredom, fornication, indulgence in pleasure.

And let's get not technical here. So sniffing cocaine from a girl's butt on a poker table would not be sinful since Bible apparently has nothing against gambling, drugs and casual sex.

Quote:

But you are mistaken to think the only purpose of Christians are to live in a bubble. You cannot ignore the rest of the world and expect the world to ignore you. Christian societies who have tried this in the past have all been conquered and wiped out. Not to mention, this ignores the orders of God. Christian men must go out, educate, and spread the faith, and this a command from God. Ignore God at your own peril.

Christians don't need to live in a bubble, they need to be decent according to their religious teachings. Not succumbing to consumerism would then also be living in a bubble, but that's what we need to do today to remain civilized and human.

Quote:

Thus when you see that there are not enough virgins to go around, and that God has created man to desire woman, to condemn men for having sex with non-virgins outside of marriage looks to me to be evil and hypocrisy.

To condemn men for having sex would be evil. Hence marriage.

[didaskalos]

(06-04-2015 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I don't blame you guys for doing this, though. These findings were just as upsetting and shocking for me as they are for you. As I talked about in the OP, I remained a virgin until the age of 24 while trying to find a good virgin wife for myself to marry before I finally gave up in despair. I now realize there was no reason for me to ever despair, since the answers to today's problems were already written about over 2000 years ago. I just needed to actually read the Bible instead of taking it on authority from others!

Good post and thread. I came to the same conclusions during my high school angst (but wasn't able to act on them). No one was able to clearly show me in the Bible where premarital sex was prohibited; but the teaching from others was that it was wrong. And taboo.

It's amazing what you find when you read the Bible for yourself.

[Frost]

"I'm saying casual sex is no more sinful than any other bodily pleasure like having a glass of expensive wine or eating an expensive meal. In excess it is a sin but by itself, FOR MEN, it's just a good time. It doesn't bring you closer or further away from God."

Disagree. It's blatantly obvious that God would prefer you stop having casual sex, and devote all your energies to finding one virgin wife - Timothy 3:2, Leviticus 21:13.

The Christian ideal, particularly for one who teaches (even in a digital Church) is marriage or celibacy. If you don't want to do this, I think you're much better off accepting yourself as an imperfect Christian, than contorting scripture to convince yourself otherwise.

"Second, finding a virgin wife today IS impossible for most men. By my estimates, only 1 in 200 American women are virgins by the age of 20. This a tragedy, but the idea that only the Christian men who can have children or live satisfying lives are the lucky few who manage to snag a virgin is selfish and evil.

Thus when you see that there are not enough virgins to go around, and that God has created man to desire woman, to condemn men for having sex with non-virgins outside of marriage looks to me to be evil and hypocrisy."

I don't get your defeatism. It's one thing to make our peace with the fact that most men won't find proper wives, another thing to give up all hope and counsel other men to do the same.

Even if that 1 in 200 number is true (I doubt it) why arbitrarily cut the population off at 20? A quick Google suggests the median age of first sexual intercourse is 17, hence 1/2 of all seventeen-year-olds are virgins.

Personally, my policy is to:

a) accept that the only worthy pursuit is finding a proper wife
b) not waste time pursuing or sleeping with women who don't meet that criteria
c) accept that I'm human and not beat myself up over it when I fail to live up this ideal

Then again, I'm not entirely convinced Christ wasn't a false god invented to weaken and destroy the Roman Empire, so feel free to take my theologizing with a grain of salt. In any case, what sort of dating/courting protocol would you recommend to the modern twenty-one year old man?

[Samseau]

(06-06-2015 04:03 PM)Frost Wrote:  

"I'm saying casual sex is no more sinful than any other bodily pleasure like having a glass of expensive wine or eating an expensive meal. In excess it is a sin but by itself, FOR MEN, it's just a good time. It doesn't bring you closer or further away from God."

Disagree. It's blatantly obvious that God would prefer you stop having casual sex, and devote all your energies to finding one virgin wife - Timothy 3:2, Leviticus 21:13.

Timothy 3:2 (YLT): "for men shall be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, evil-speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unkind,"

What does this have to do with casual sex in a world full of sluts? According to the above passage, eating a big expensive juicy meal is as sinful as banging a hot slut. Both are just ways to glorify the self, which again is only bad in EXCESS. Having a good time every now and then isn't not bad.

Didn't Jesus have a great feast before he was sent to the cross with his disciples? Complete with alcohol? Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn't mean you can't have a drink.

Leviticus 21:12-14 (YLT): "12 nor from the sanctuary doth he go out, nor doth he pollute the sanctuary of his God, for the separation of the anointing oil of his God [is] on him; I [am] Jehovah.
13 `And he taketh a wife in her virginity;
14 widow, or cast out, or polluted one -- a harlot -- these he doth not take, but a virgin of his own people he doth take [for] a wife,"

Again, this passage does not contradict what I have said so far in this thread, but supports me completely. Keep in mind this is Old Testament; everything in the OT must be clarified when possible with the NT.

First it says a man respects his home and his people. Then it says he goes forth and finds a virgin from his own people to wife up. He does NOT wife up a slut (the polluted one), whores, or widows. It says NOTHING about whether or not a man should have fun with polluted ones, other than not to wife her up.

Since we are in a world where the polluted ones outnumber the non-polluted by an astronomical amount, let's just accept the facts: most Christian men should not marry if he cannot find a good virgin wife from his own people. It is still okay if he finds a good virgin from another people (which is allowed after Jesus extended the sacred covenant to all people) who is willing to convert but that's about as far as wife material goes. #nohymennodiamond.

Thus, what should Christian men do if virgins are in such short supply because of insane cultural corruption? I know the answer to this, but I don't want to talk about it here. I will soon make another thread about this once I get back to my priest. This thread is just to talk about what the Bible says on premarital sex. However, I can tell you right now there is nothing sinful about a man sating his desires on polluted women providing he isn't idolizing them. Like I said before, hunting sluts with minimal time investment (no more than 3-5 hours per week, really) is not a sin. It's no different than taking the time to eat good food and train your body. And if you fail to get laid with a slut, then again, no big deal either because sluts are just there to help men get by until they can find a good virgin to wife up, or if the slut proves to be a good enough partner for something else (this 'something else' will be discussed in another thread).

Quote:

The Christian ideal, particularly for one who teaches (even in a digital Church) is marriage or celibacy. If you don't want to do this, I think you're much better off accepting yourself as an imperfect Christian, than contorting scripture to convince yourself otherwise.

But this teaching is false and I have carefully demonstrated in this thread where this false teaching originated from Thomas Aquinas, and then made mainstream after the destruction of the Orthodox Church. It's been a big telephone game where a false teaching got passed down as true for the last 700 years.

Quote:

"Second, finding a virgin wife today IS impossible for most men. By my estimates, only 1 in 200 American women are virgins by the age of 20. This a tragedy, but the idea that only the Christian men who can have children or live satisfying lives are the lucky few who manage to snag a virgin is selfish and evil.

Thus when you see that there are not enough virgins to go around, and that God has created man to desire woman, to condemn men for having sex with non-virgins outside of marriage looks to me to be evil and hypocrisy."

I don't get your defeatism. It's one thing to make our peace with the fact that most men won't find proper wives, another thing to give up all hope and counsel other men to do the same.

This isn't defeatism. This is accepting the truth, which is a God given duty.

Quote:

Even if that 1 in 200 number is true (I doubt it) why arbitrarily cut the population off at 20? A quick Google suggests the median age of first sexual intercourse is 17, hence 1/2 of all seventeen-year-olds are virgins.

Good luck getting a seventeen-year-old without going to jail. Oh, and by the way, 80% of young girls are brainwashed into believing that the first man they have doesn't need to be their husband so nearly all of them aren't virgins by the time they are 20.

Quote:

Personally, my policy is to:

a) accept that the only worthy pursuit is finding a proper wife
b) not waste time pursuing or sleeping with women who don't meet that criteria
c) accept that I'm human and not beat myself up over it when I fail to live up this ideal

I used to think this way too, but I realize the more accurate way is:

a) #nohymennodiamond
b) Chase sluts when necessary, have children with a slut if one cannot find a virgin.

Notice c) is gone? That's because there's nothing to suggest premarital sex was EVER a sin in the first place.

Quote:

Then again, I'm not entirely convinced Christ wasn't a false god invented to weaken and destroy the Roman Empire, so feel free to take my theologizing with a grain of salt. In any case, what sort of dating/courting protocol would you recommend to the modern twenty-one year old man?

If Christ was a false God then why did the Jews kill him if they wanted to destroy the Roman empire? Contradictions abound.

[Samseau]

Scratch what I said earlier. The polluted one and the whore are the same thing. We are still left with the question if the Bible makes any distinction between a whore and a slut. More research forthcoming tomorrow hopefully after I speak again with my priest.

[Samseau]

Okay, I spoke with my priest today but he was too busy last week. Being a minister is super time consuming so of course I said it's okay. I did tell him however at least 450 men were waiting on his answer and he seemed to light up a bit. Hopefully that will motivate him to translate ancient canon law.

Also, just to remember, the reason we need the canon law is to see how the words themselves were understood by the men of that time. Scorpion brought up the objection that whore may be a universal word of that time that referred to both sluts and prostitutes, which is a legit objection and would destroy my argument. By looking up the canon law, we can see how the word was interpreted by the men who spoke Koine Greek and also to see if married men with female slaves were allowed to fuck them or not. If the answer is yes, then my original findings will stand and we will know for sure that the teachings of the Bible were corrupted over time; St. Paul was specifically referring to prostitutes and not sluts.

In the meanwhile, I have found some more Biblical evidence to consider: the "tainted virgin" within the OT.

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you"

- (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Let's translate the bolded into YLT:

Quote:

20 `And if this thing hath been truth -- tokens of virginity have not been found for the damsel --
21 then they have brought out the damsel unto the opening of her father's house, and stoned her have the men of her city with stones, and she hath died, for she hath done folly in Israel, to go a-whoring [in] her father's house; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.

Now, I don't think we should stone whores or sluts. But two things are noticed here which support both my view and Scorpion's:

1. A man could annul a marriage if she was not a virgin.
2. The tainted virgin is referred to as a "whore" in the (YLT) translation.

However, did she sell herself for money or did she merely fuck a guy she was hot for? Again there is ambiguity here.

[Giovonny]

The bible is not an authority on sexual rules.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

The bible is not an authority on sexual rules.

Biblical law on sexuality boils down to:

- Don't cheat.
- Don't buy hookers.
- Don't divorce for trivial reasons.

There's fine print of course, but even by contemporary secular standards, these rules can hardly be considered objectionable or controversial.

[Enigma]

And since it doesn't explicitly forbid premarital sex in the Bible, we can obviously extrapolate that into justification for sleeping with hundreds of sluts throughout our lifetimes.

Good to know that I can still meet women on Tinder for casual sex and remain a good Christian man.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-07-2015 02:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Okay, I spoke with my priest today but he was too busy last week. Being a minister is super time consuming so of course I said it's okay. I did tell him however at least 450 men were waiting on his answer and he seemed to light up a bit. Hopefully that will motivate him to translate ancient canon law.

You may have laid it on a tad thick there.

[Suits]

Samseau, do you sleep around?

[Frost]

(06-06-2015 05:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 04:03 PM)Frost Wrote:  

"I'm saying casual sex is no more sinful than any other bodily pleasure like having a glass of expensive wine or eating an expensive meal. In excess it is a sin but by itself, FOR MEN, it's just a good time. It doesn't bring you closer or further away from God."

Disagree. It's blatantly obvious that God would prefer you stop having casual sex, and devote all your energies to finding one virgin wife - Timothy 3:2, Leviticus 21:13.

Timothy 3:2 (YLT): "for men shall be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, evil-speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unkind,"

What does this have to do with casual sex in a world full of sluts? According to the above passage, eating a big expensive juicy meal is as sinful as banging a hot slut. Both are just ways to glorify the self, which again is only bad in EXCESS. Having a good time every now and then isn't not bad.

Didn't Jesus have a great feast before he was sent to the cross with his disciples? Complete with alcohol? Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn't mean you can't have a drink.

I was referring to 1 Timothy 3:2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

And that's just referring to taking multiple (presumably virgin) wives.

Our disagreement is a minor one, but it's still important. I'm 99% with you on the need to teach young Christian men that whoremongering is not so bad a sin as adultery, but I still think you go too far when you say casual sex doesn't bring you further away from God. Casual sex, fornication, whoremongering - whatever we call it - is pretty clearly sub-optimal. Celibacy and marriage are clearly only two approved options.

[Frost]

Quote:

Then again, I'm not entirely convinced Christ wasn't a false god invented to weaken and destroy the Roman Empire, so feel free to take my theologizing with a grain of salt. In any case, what sort of dating/courting protocol would you recommend to the modern twenty-one year old man?

If Christ was a false God then why did the Jews kill him if they wanted to destroy the Roman empire? Contradictions abound.
[/quote]

Feel free to avoid derailing the thread by ignoring this comment, question: The core message of Christianity is that men should be weak, humble, eschew worldly wealth and power, and abide a deep and permanent respect for the Israelites, God's disobedient and unworthy - but nonetheless chosen - people. Cui bono?

[Disco_Volante]

I think I'd rather burn in hell than get married out of a sense of player guilt.

It's clear to me women simply don't care about you the way you care about them. Your wife only married you because you demonstrated value and resources, even the legit nice Christian girls require gaming to some degree.

And the church's insistence that you don't chase money is directly opposed to being able to attract a quality virgin. The more 'worldly' successful you are, the better your chances of attracting a quality wife.

I was a good catholic boy for 18 years but once I hit the real world and saw the nature of women (plus my natural ambition for success), I find Catholicism's insistence that every goddamn thing is a sin pretty exhausting.

It was that 'I need to be meek and selfless!' attitude that allowed girls to just fuck me over relentlessly

[Samseau]

(06-12-2015 01:09 PM)Frost Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 05:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 04:03 PM)Frost Wrote:  

"I'm saying casual sex is no more sinful than any other bodily pleasure like having a glass of expensive wine or eating an expensive meal. In excess it is a sin but by itself, FOR MEN, it's just a good time. It doesn't bring you closer or further away from God."

Disagree. It's blatantly obvious that God would prefer you stop having casual sex, and devote all your energies to finding one virgin wife - Timothy 3:2, Leviticus 21:13.

Timothy 3:2 (YLT): "for men shall be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, evil-speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unkind,"

What does this have to do with casual sex in a world full of sluts? According to the above passage, eating a big expensive juicy meal is as sinful as banging a hot slut. Both are just ways to glorify the self, which again is only bad in EXCESS. Having a good time every now and then isn't not bad.

Didn't Jesus have a great feast before he was sent to the cross with his disciples? Complete with alcohol? Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn't mean you can't have a drink.

I was referring to 1 Timothy 3:2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

And that's just referring to taking multiple (presumably virgin) wives.

Our disagreement is a minor one, but it's still important. I'm 99% with you on the need to teach young Christian men that whoremongering is not so bad a sin as adultery, but I still think you go too far when you say casual sex doesn't bring you further away from God. Casual sex, fornication, whoremongering - whatever we call it - is pretty clearly sub-optimal. Celibacy and marriage are clearly only two approved options.

That's for clergy, your quote. They are held to much higher standards than the layman, in order to set an example.

As for casual sex - wait until we clear up the whore ambiguity. Waiting on ancient Greek translations. We're going to have this figured out soon enough, by latest the end of the summer. The Patriarch of Constantinople is coming to Boston this July and is sucking up all the priest's time in the area. I bet you the translations won't be done and I'll need to offer cash to get my priest to hurry.

Disco:

Quote:

And the church's insistence that you don't chase money is directly opposed to being able to attract a quality virgin. The more 'worldly' successful you are, the better your chances of attracting a quality wife.

I was a good catholic boy for 18 years but once I hit the real world and saw the nature of women (plus my natural ambition for success), I find Catholicism's insistence that every goddamn thing is a sin pretty exhausting.

It was that 'I need to be meek and selfless!' attitude that allowed girls to just fuck me over relentlessly

This is why I strongly dislike Catholicism. Most Catholics totally misinterpret the Bible, especially for men. The idea that Christian men need to be weak pushovers is contradicted by so much scripture it is mind boggling. Remember, Christ talks about the meek inheriting the earth in terms of a prophecy. He does not mean you should stay weak. Do not forget the other passages which indicate strength:

- The parable of the servants with the coins
- "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"
- Throwing the money changers out of the temple
- Telling his disciples to always carry a sword

Not to mention the dozens of manly passages in the OT. The reason Christ said the meek shall inherit the earth was not to encourage men to stay weak, but instead to not be discouraged should the world unjustly render them weak. Because in the End, God knows who deserves true power and who are evil weaklings.

[Samseau]

(06-08-2015 01:26 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

And since it doesn't explicitly forbid premarital sex in the Bible, we can obviously extrapolate that into justification for sleeping with hundreds of sluts throughout our lifetimes.

Good to know that I can still meet women on Tinder for casual sex and remain a good Christian man.

Instead of making dumb strawman arguments, why don't you read the thread instead of trying to score cool points on the forum.

Quoted right from this page:

Quote:

Nowhere have I said that it's okay to chase sluts each day. Indulgences in general are sinful - spending too much time on money is greed. Spending too much time on food is gluttony. Spending too much time on destroying your enemies is wrath. Spending too much time on what your neighbors have over you is coveting. Spending too much time on anything is idolatry.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-12-2015 03:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-08-2015 01:26 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

And since it doesn't explicitly forbid premarital sex in the Bible, we can obviously extrapolate that into justification for sleeping with hundreds of sluts throughout our lifetimes.

Good to know that I can still meet women on Tinder for casual sex and remain a good Christian man.

Instead of making dumb strawman arguments, why don't you read the thread instead of trying to score cool points on the forum.

Quoted right from this page:

Quote:

Nowhere have I said that it's okay to chase sluts each day. Indulgences in general are sinful - spending too much time on money is greed. Spending too much time on food is gluttony. Spending too much time on destroying your enemies is wrath. Spending too much time on what your neighbors have over you is coveting. Spending too much time on anything is idolatry.

Posts like these are just one prime example for why your contributions so often don't get read in full anymore, Samseau. Something you might want to take into consideration.