Someguy0474

@RokkuuVT @StardustBunney Please tell me this is sarcasm. If not, I pray God opens your eyes to even the slightest comprehension of human nature.

Being very real when I say this, if you don't trust your partner enough to lock them in a room with a naked member of the preferred sex and leave for HOURS, with full confidence that nothing will happen, you ain't ready for marriage. The idea of them ever cheating NEEDS to be so completely foreign to you, that you could never come up with it on your own. And if you're never going to trust the person you're with that much? They ain't the one.

Hot take on this: opposite-sex friends should only exist if the other is married as well. AND asking your partner to stop talking to someone isn't abusive or controlling.

@StardustBunney It's not a hot take. It's the basic application of "commitment" that was universally understood until a bunch of miscreants wanted to justify having side-chicks and side-dudes.

@ChristianHeiens Non sequitur after non sequitur, all to justify adopting the same foundational principles as the leftist. It's hilarious watching you spend so much time coping.

This happened, and keeps happening, because Leftism isn't the antithesis of Libertarianism. It is the fulfillment of Libertarian principles once they're applied to the real world long enough. Libertarianism paves the way for a Progressive takeover in the same way a setting sun paves the way for nightfall. We look around and see all the reds and yellows emanating from the setting sun and think to ourselves, "How could all this light have any relationship to darkness?" But nighttime requires twilight for it to exist in the first place. The latter cannot come to fruition before the former has served its purpose. Now, with the analogies out of the way, here's how this actually plays out in reality. Libertarianism contains no real defense mechanism against Progressive hijacking because its entire worldview is built on refusing to engage with substantive political questions in the first place. It does not want to answer what a society is for, what kind of people or norms it should protect, what moral worldview it should uphold, or who its enemies are. It wants these questions to be left to each individual. But no institution can survive on that basis forever. They're by definition a collective endeavor. Every organizational structure, from Reddit and Wikipedia to the Cato Institute and the Federal government itself, has to eventually has to decide what it exists to protect and what it is willing to fight against. Progressives are willing to answer those questions in a way that Libertarians are not. So the Libertarian opens the gates (either to its own organizations or to the state if they're ever able to influence policy strong enough, as they occasionally do) in the name of individual freedom, and the Progressive inevitably just walks right through the open door, hijacks everything without a shot being fired, and then converts it into a project to promote THEIR vision for society, THEIR social norms, THEIR conception of the good, THEIR moral worldview, and THEIR friends against THEIR enemies.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @This_Guhy @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages I don't nullify the law. You do reject Christ in favor of your own interpretation of the law, however. Christ fulfilled the law. You are bound by it no more, and never could follow it in the first place. Judaizers were soundly rebuked by the Church in the very Bible you read.

People like you who nullify the Law of God by your man-made traditions violate Mark 7:6-9 like the Pharisees of old. Without an explicit command by Christ to abolish the Law, all of it stands as written. Levirate marriages made no exceptions for married men and as such, in cases where the man is married, God literally commands polygyny and calls it righteous.

Suppose you’re on a first date, and she tells you she’s saving herself for marriage. Later, she admits she slept with one ex-boyfriend, regrets it deeply, and is now committed to celibacy until her wedding day to be "as pure as possible" for her future husband. Would you keep seeing her for a second date?

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ps119ps @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages @This_Guhy @RealCalebKitson @Adriana19Flower You must reconcile your belief here with the very real clarifications that Christ made to the law. He declared all foods clean, restricted divorce, tightened marriage, and turned the Hebrew beliefs about Sabbath on their head. Your view is shallow.

@someguy0474 @ps119ps @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages @This_Guhy @RealCalebKitson @Adriana19Flower Christ Himself is obsessed with the Law. If Christ would nullify the Law, He would not need to be crucified.

@ps119ps @LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages @This_Guhy @RealCalebKitson @Adriana19Flower Divorce was altered by Christ himself. He overtly rejected one part of the law, explaining that it itself was not the fullness of what God intended for marriage. Your obsession with the Law is a distraction from Christ.

The New Testament only has the authority to appeal to and point to Torah. It’s a sin to add or remove from the Law. Having more than one wife violates no law Sexual immorality is defined in the Old Testament. Anytime the New Testament refers to it, it is referring to what it is defined as in the Old Testament. You cannot even define sexual immorality without appealing to its definition in Torah. Duh

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages Christ's rejection of divorce, as permitted by the law, is perfectly explained as God allowing less than perfection in his creation due to the hardness of their hearts. Unless you think Christ isn't God, or is a liar.

@someguy0474 @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages Polygyny is by no means novel… God Himself gave David his many wives (2 Samuel 12:8). Unless you want to claim that either: 1. God’s standards of morality changes. 2. God facilitated sin.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant No such thing. The Law allowed divorce for many causes. Christ rejected those allowances, reducing them only to one. Did you not read any of it?

@someguy0474 @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant Christ also allowed for divorce in another part of the Bible for sexual immorality. Are you claiming Christ to be confused?

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages "One woman man" explicitly means what I said. You're applying your own, very nov interpretation against the entirety of Church tradition, including the Scriptures themselves. All for what? The novel justification of polygamy?

Even if you take that retarded and false interpretation of that passage, it would still be limited to elders. What if there were a law that is specified for one eyed kings over 7ft tall? Would that still apply for everyone? 🤡 If you bothered to read the passage in the original language, you will see that the text literally says ‘one woman man’ which can be interpreted to mean that an elder simply has to be a married man, to have the prerequisite experience to lead a congregation of families.

@krbaker13 @lambeth981 @NTWrightSays Non-sequitur.

@lambeth981 @NTWrightSays If Moses misrepresented the description of creation, Jesus, the Creator, would have cleaned up the recorded version. Instead he fully endorsed it. So NT Wright is overruling Jesus! Jesus’ usual reaction to that: GET BEHIND ME SATAN.

God created Adam from the dust and he made Eve from Adam. It’s amazing to me that theologians who were not present for these events have decided to overrule and reject the account given by God (who was, obviously, there) on the basis of a failed hypothesis about human origins put forward by men (who also weren’t there) trying vainly to explain creation without the Creator.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant Christ himself prohibited divorce, which the Law permitted. Your own hollow misinterpretation here is borderline heretical. All to justify your own lusts, as many did prior to rebuke in the apostolic age.

Christ affirmed the Law and said that not the least bit shall be discarded. The Law clearly defines adultery as the taking of a woman sexually who belongs to another man (by marriage or betrothal). The prescribed punishment is death by stoning. A parallel law with the gender reversed is not found anywhere in Scripture. Abraham, Jacob, Joash, and many others all took on additional wives without rebuke from God. A non-retard would conclude that God has distinct and different expectations for men vs women when it comes to defining adultery.

@This_Guhy @LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages I'm using "blessed" in the manner our friend above does. The Torah was fulfilled by Christ, and the true nature of marriage clarified, including the dissolution of Torah-allowed divorce, which is now illegal.

@someguy0474 @LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages Just because God uses someone for a purpose doesn't mean they were blessed. The Torah is clear that men may can have several wives So long as they don't diminish the rights of the first.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages The Church has held, for 2,000 years, that adultery applies to both in the advent of Christ. It's why elders are prohibited from having multiple wives, for example. I never said they were the same. I said morality is the same, which the NT repeats several times.

Adultery is defined in the OT when a man takes a woman sexually who belongs to another man. There is no equivalent Law against women taking a man sexually who belongs to another woman. Otherwise Jacob would be condemned to death for adultery 3x, not be the father of God’s chosen nation. You are an ignorant retard if you think men are same as women and have no distinction in God’s eyes for moral Laws.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages @This_Guhy @RealCalebKitson @Adriana19Flower @ps119ps You claimed that men and women were not held to the same sexual standards, Biblically. That is false. Sin is sin. Sexual immorality is the same for men and for women. That is repeated throughout the NT.

@someguy0474 @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages What sin are you claiming that I pretended to be not sinful? What command of Christ are you accusing me of denying? @kaijuno22 @This_Guhy @biblemarriages @RealCalebKitson @Adriana19Flower @ps119ps

@ryancduff More accurately, the women demanding these qualities demonstrate nowhere near the equivalents themselves.

Fascinating. When I talk to women they want a man who is consistent, thoughtful, dependable, provides. I thought those were normal things. Maybe these men are struggling so it seems "unrealistic"? I'm curious to hear what across the board expectations are unrealistic. I've heard the occasional thing but it's far from the norm. So basically two thirds of men across three generations thinking women have unrealistic expectations seems a little delusional itself?

@TheEcho13 If my date brings up any of a number of topics that demonstrate abject incompetence, she isn't a suitable woman for courtship.

My friend. You very literally just proved the point. If you aren’t able to have a conversation about something outside of your interests, and if you’re not willing to entertain her interests and opinions as talking points instead of debate topics, you’re a bad date. You’re telling her right out the gate that you’re no fun.

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages Calling others heretics when you're the one pretending your sin isn't sinful, denying Christ's own commands, is quite bold.

@someguy0474 @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant @kaijuno22 @biblemarriages We define sin strictly by God’s Law. Even Paul affirms this in the New Testament. You heretics add to God’s perfect Law and violate Deuteronomy 4:2. Replacing God’s doctrine with traditions of man violates Mark 7:6-9. Do not call sin what God does not call sin. Repent!

@LOVEROFTRUTHIRL @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant It makes no distinction between men and women on the matter of fornication or any other sexual sin. Read it yourself before you blaspheme.

@someguy0474 @ChristyLaMonde @usuallypregnant Christ affirmed the Law and the Prophets. The Law makes clear distinctions between men and women. Go read the Bible before you mouth off.

@autistocrates Good take. A preference is a preference.

We want you hairless because we like seeing your bodies fully revealed to us. It's normal heterosexuality, the same as wanting to see you naked. Actual pedophilia would be something like circumcizing your son because you think cut is hotter.