Here is the disconnect, at no point in our history was Christianity codified into law, yet adultery was illegal, homosexual behavior was criminalized, and you had to have a fault in order to get a divorce. This is all fairly recent stuff, 2nd half of the 20th century, some like gay marriage and sodomy laws being struck down, since 2000.BCG Disciple said:aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
Dobbs was a MASSIVE victory for originalists and pro lifers. However, religious authoritarians (a term meant specifically for individuals that think their religion should be codified and become the standard for all) also claim the victory and have come out of the wood work trying to strike while the iron is hot. They think all of society has been turned back 50 years because Dobbs overturned terrible precedent.
To a certain extent, I applaud their ideological consistency and their principal driven stance. However, they are a tone deaf and impractical people.
Adultery and marriage
28,594 Views |
568 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Manhattan
Let's do acknowledge that the proposal by the OP is a very minority position on the right. And we only have 2 people out of many proposing it.RyanAg12 said:
I have now reached the end of page 10.
These two whack-jobs have to be messing with everyone. I cannot believe that this mindset exists. It is some of the most closed-minded nonsense I've ever heard.
IMO, they are the reason many (like myself) who vote red but are open to the "gray area" where most answers to topics are actually found, are staying away. I will still vote red - the alternative is just not comprehensible for a domestic government - but it's really hard to defend the right when opposition can point to people like this. The Republican Party would win in landslides these days if we could shed this stigma.
Much credit to those of you who attempted to have a rational discussion with them.
Meanwhile, you have a good 20-40% of the Democrats who are openly Marxist, openly racist, call for reeducation camps for Republicans, call for the removal of children from households who aren't rabidly pro-COVID vaccine, pro killing of humans to meet ESG and GND standards...amongst many other insane positions.
The response by others on the right on here is understandable (I responded the same way initially)…we have BAS because we essentially are not allowed to have any positions that are remotely controversial or we get raked over the coals by every cultural institution in this country. The Democrats are allowed to get away with any and all policy positions, however crazy and destructive they are, because you are not allowed to question anything in their Orwellian Party. And you have the MSM to back it all up and project it as normal.
The left then grabs onto this one extreme, rightward statement by one poster and suddenly we are all whack job Christian fascists' and they project it across the entire right. And it gets amplified because they have such a massive propaganda arm to do so.
Never forget that the left has far more self-destructive and oppressive policy positions that a huge portion of their party openly advocate while our stuff is fringe and mostly outlier. This is the plight of a group [conservatives] that is held to standards while the opposition party [Democrats] is held to none.
You are exactly right.
It comes down to MONEY.
Men in Texas made sure that they could divorce that PB in 60 days so they can continue to amass a harem, cat around with one (or two) and/or marry the next one before the year is out.
Screw paying lawyers trying to "prove stuff" with the he said and she said BS.
No fault, split assets, move on.
Really, the two troll posters that have been rubbing it up with their posts here sound like underworked family law attorneys that desperately need clients.
It comes down to MONEY.
Men in Texas made sure that they could divorce that PB in 60 days so they can continue to amass a harem, cat around with one (or two) and/or marry the next one before the year is out.
Screw paying lawyers trying to "prove stuff" with the he said and she said BS.
No fault, split assets, move on.
Really, the two troll posters that have been rubbing it up with their posts here sound like underworked family law attorneys that desperately need clients.
Does this mean the OP thinks Trump should have been thrown in jail? Isnt he divorced multiple times? What about the number of times he messed around outside of marriage?
has been answered like 50 times already.Aggie1205 said:
Does this mean the OP thinks Trump should have been thrown in jail? Isnt he divorced multiple times? What about the number of times he messed around outside of marriage?
Silian Rail said:Here is the disconnect, at no point in our history was Christianity codified into law, yet adultery was illegal, homosexual behavior was criminalized, and you had to have a fault in order to get a divorce. This is all fairly recent stuff, 2nd half of the 20th century, some like gay marriage and sodomy laws being struck down, since 2000.BCG Disciple said:aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
Dobbs was a MASSIVE victory for originalists and pro lifers. However, religious authoritarians (a term meant specifically for individuals that think their religion should be codified and become the standard for all) also claim the victory and have come out of the wood work trying to strike while the iron is hot. They think all of society has been turned back 50 years because Dobbs overturned terrible precedent.
To a certain extent, I applaud their ideological consistency and their principal driven stance. However, they are a tone deaf and impractical people.
While not codified in its entirety, yes, there have been elements that have been codified in the past. As a whole we have acknowledged how this is inappropriate and slowly turned away from it. Pointing to historical legislation as proof that it is proper is a slippery slope with our race related legislation.
The movement in the past half century has been one of personal liberty as it relates to social issues. It is not something that is going to be unwound.
This is a messed up post.
Hey good post and thank you. My favorite kind of law is the one that is selectively enforced; much like the sodomy law in texas that was struck down in the early 2000's in Lawrence. Until the case in question, it was used as mainly just a deterrent, cops weren't knocking down people's doors to ensure they weren't having gay sex; the law just ensured that things that were supposed to stay in the bedroom, stayed in the bedroom. When you don't have a law against something, it gives it permission to parade its deviancy down mainstreet, such as is happening now. The law is what keeps the behavior in someone's bedroom.
I would hope adultery laws would work the same way; it would be an added reminder and risk to any person thinking of committing adultery; and it would lessen if not completely end the practice.
I would hope adultery laws would work the same way; it would be an added reminder and risk to any person thinking of committing adultery; and it would lessen if not completely end the practice.
Yes he does.Aggie1205 said:
Does this mean the OP thinks Trump should have been thrown in jail? Isnt he divorced multiple times? What about the number of times he messed around outside of marriage?
See Page 8
Quote:
You could have rejoiced that Trump was in your adultery prison in 2016.
Donald J Trump in BAP's adultery prison.
fixer said:BAP Enthusiast said:fixer said:
Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.
It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?
I'll give you a thoughtful response. It's page 11 and you are doing good work here; I respect your posting history; and I have some respect for the " theocratic fascist " positions, especially in 2022.
My issue is not, repeat , not against promotion of traditional marriage.
I think a modern re-implementation of adultery laws not only brings unintended consequences but also could in long run further disincentivize marriage. Quite simply I view this as a marriage red flag law.
Humans are deceptive. They also change over time. People hide the bad parts of themselves to incentivize other humans to interact with them. ( this is also why I view social media is on the whole a corrosive institution).
One avenue or result of human interaction is a relationship that society calls marriage.
With time the marriage can grow stronger or weaker. Deceptive people ultimately slip up and their baggage spills out all over the place. This may happen in 3 months, or 3 years. A major life changing event can also trigger a change in a person that is so substantial that the other party barely recognizes them.
In either case jealousy and insecurity can or will run the relationship.
The inevitable next step is a malevolent act of accusing the other person of adultery based on the weakest of evidence.
Next thing you know you are dealing with police at your door and a court case. You'll have the state so far up your ass that it is now making the decisions in your marriage.
(You are likely no stranger to men's scoreboard in family law situations.... )
What is the result?
You may or may not do the 1 year in jail. But what you won't ever do is entertain the idea of getting married, ever.
Adultery laws are a landmine field for men but also a non trivial number of women who get entangled with a jealous man.
This is especially the case in 2022 ( vs 1980).
Insecurity, jealousy, poor self esteem are rampant and fueled by bad upbringing but also psychological impact of overconsumption of social media ( where female anti social behavior can be wildly outsized vs male anti social behavior).
I simply see no possible way this gets implemented well enough that you wouldn't have an amber heard vs Johnny depp situation every day.
Sadly I do agree that many people would never be able to handle the responsibility of marriage in a world where adultery is illegal because they are weak-minded people who have been ruined by social media and the left.
Perhaps the laws would serve as a deterrent to these people getting married at all though. If they are incapable of handling consequences to their own actions then they have no business accepting any real responsibility in the same arena.
One Louder said:
I have never cheated on my husband nor would I consider it but this is ludicrous. Better start building more jails!
I accept your terms.
what you're reading is the political philosophy of the inchoate "new right". honestly i'm surprised it took this long to make its way to this forum. it's a loose coalition of different right-wing philosophies but the common through-thread is essentially anti-libertarianism: nationalist economic populism and social conservatism, codified and enforced by an central authority (the church, a benevolent authoritarian figure, etc.). they generally believe that the globalized western world with its bureaucratic governments full of ivy league elites is devoid of the systems of value and morality that give life meaning, and seek to replace the existing system with one that emphasizes cultural and religious identity centered around family, faith, and community.aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
sounds nice, doesn't it?
the reality is, it's basically just white nationalism and religious authoritarianism with a smarter and better-funded PR team. the movement is essentially bankrolled by bored billionaire tech bros who already won the capitalism game and now envision themselves as the 21st-century Koch brothers. they've got a payroll full of podcasters, youtubers, and roman-statue-avatar twitter philosophers marketing it to their main audience: disaffected and well-educated young men sick of getting no matches on tinder and allured by the prospect of a society that could give them a more fulfilling life as the provider for a subservient, virginal wife and lots of kids. you can probably connect the dots as to why the movement is almost entirely devoid of women at present.
they're bankrolling a couple senate campaigns too so republicans be wary, they're passionate and ready to capitalize on the momentum social conservatives have at the moment to remake the party.
Now do the new progressive left.Old McDonald said:what you're reading is the political philosophy of the inchoate "new right". honestly i'm surprised it took this long to make its way to this forum. it's a loose coalition of different right-wing philosophies but the common through-thread is essentially anti-libertarianism: nationalist economic populism and social conservatism, codified and enforced by an central authority (the church, a benevolent authoritarian figure, etc.). they generally believe that the globalized western world with its bureaucratic governments full of ivy league elites is devoid of the systems of value and morality that give life meaning, and seek to replace the existing system with one that emphasizes cultural and religious identity centered around family, faith, and community.aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
sounds nice, doesn't it?
the reality is, it's basically just white nationalism and religious authoritarianism with a smarter and better-funded PR team. the movement is essentially bankrolled by bored billionaire tech bros who already won the capitalism game and now envision themselves as the 21st-century Koch brothers. they've got a payroll full of podcasters, youtubers, and roman-statue-avatar twitter philosophers marketing it to their main audience: disaffected and well-educated young men sick of getting no matches on tinder and allured by the prospect of a society that could give them a more fulfilling life as the provider for a subservient, virginal wife and lots of kids. you can probably connect the dots as to why the movement is almost entirely devoid of women at present.
they're bankrolling a couple senate campaigns too so republicans be wary, they're passionate and ready to capitalize on the momentum social conservatives have at the moment to remake the party.
Well there's a solution to that too. Make fornictation illegal!BAP Enthusiast said:fixer said:BAP Enthusiast said:fixer said:
Interpersonal relationships are too dynamic for the law to have a one size fits all approach to this.
It was illegal up through at least 1980 in a number of places, why wouldn't it work now?
I'll give you a thoughtful response. It's page 11 and you are doing good work here; I respect your posting history; and I have some respect for the " theocratic fascist " positions, especially in 2022.
My issue is not, repeat , not against promotion of traditional marriage.
I think a modern re-implementation of adultery laws not only brings unintended consequences but also could in long run further disincentivize marriage. Quite simply I view this as a marriage red flag law.
Humans are deceptive. They also change over time. People hide the bad parts of themselves to incentivize other humans to interact with them. ( this is also why I view social media is on the whole a corrosive institution).
One avenue or result of human interaction is a relationship that society calls marriage.
With time the marriage can grow stronger or weaker. Deceptive people ultimately slip up and their baggage spills out all over the place. This may happen in 3 months, or 3 years. A major life changing event can also trigger a change in a person that is so substantial that the other party barely recognizes them.
In either case jealousy and insecurity can or will run the relationship.
The inevitable next step is a malevolent act of accusing the other person of adultery based on the weakest of evidence.
Next thing you know you are dealing with police at your door and a court case. You'll have the state so far up your ass that it is now making the decisions in your marriage.
(You are likely no stranger to men's scoreboard in family law situations.... )
What is the result?
You may or may not do the 1 year in jail. But what you won't ever do is entertain the idea of getting married, ever.
Adultery laws are a landmine field for men but also a non trivial number of women who get entangled with a jealous man.
This is especially the case in 2022 ( vs 1980).
Insecurity, jealousy, poor self esteem are rampant and fueled by bad upbringing but also psychological impact of overconsumption of social media ( where female anti social behavior can be wildly outsized vs male anti social behavior).
I simply see no possible way this gets implemented well enough that you wouldn't have an amber heard vs Johnny depp situation every day.
Sadly I do agree that many people would never be able to handle the responsibility of marriage in a world where adultery is illegal because they are weak-minded people who have been ruined by social media and the left.
Perhaps the laws would serve as a deterrent to these people getting married at all though. If they are incapable of handling consequences to their own actions then they have no business accepting any real responsibility in the same arena.
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
george soros funded blue hair freaks hell-bent on turning your children gay and your community latinoProc92 said:
Now do the new progressive left.
Not as much punch in that one.Old McDonald said:george soros funded blue hair freaks hell-bent on turning your children gay and your community latinoProc92 said:
Now do the new progressive left.
Silian Rail said:
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
It's all they have. They cannot handle married men who are also fathers actually having a solid foundation of morals. It breaks their brains.
Well stated, fixer. OP and anyone else that supports the complete stupidity of involving the police and criminal courts with accusations of adultery are incredibly myopic. What about couples that have been separated a few years but not divorced because of so many financial entanglements? Stay the hell out of peoples' personal lives, OP. Most people couldn't care less about your morality. Live and let live is almost always the best option. You can avoid or shun "adulterers" in your day to day life, stay out of everyone else's.Quote:
In either case jealousy and insecurity can or will run the relationship.
The inevitable next step is a malevolent act of accusing the other person of adultery based on the weakest of evidence.
Next thing you know you are dealing with police at your door and a court case. You'll have the state so far up your ass that it is now making the decisions in your marriage.
(You are likely no stranger to men's scoreboard in family law situations.... )
What is the result?
Silian Rail said:
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
Get back to us in five years.
What is going to change in 5 years? I've been married for 13?Manhattan said:Silian Rail said:
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
Get back to us in five years.
That's not what this thread is about. You want to talk about that? Start a new one
Silian Rail said:
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
I mean, Rebel is also a Putin sympathizer and I'd bet all of you think Viktor Orban of Hungary is the bastion of all things society needs.
So there's that. Enjoy y'all's version of The Handmaids Tale.
Kids go to college and staying together for the kids goes out the window.
In the Catholic Church you and your wife are one, the relationship between husband and wife is more important than the relationship between parent and child.Manhattan said:
Kids go to college and staying together for the kids goes out the window.
Plus my kids won't be in college in 5 years.
The last couple of days have been quite enlightening on TexAgs! Posters like Silian Rail and BAP Enthusiast have outed themselves as quasi-right wing, white supremacist, misogynistic, religious fascists. Fun times!
Edit: Opps! I forgot misogynistic. Edited for completeness.
Edit: Opps! I forgot misogynistic. Edited for completeness.
Explain yourself, please show proof of our white supremacy. That's quite the accusation to level at someone.dmart90 said:
The last couple of days have been quite enlightening on TexAgs! Posters like Silian Rail and BAP Enthusiast have outed themselves as quasi-right wing, white supremacist, religious fascists. Fun times!
Old McDonald said:what you're reading is the political philosophy of the inchoate "new right". honestly i'm surprised it took this long to make its way to this forum. it's a loose coalition of different right-wing philosophies but the common through-thread is essentially anti-libertarianism: nationalist economic populism and social conservatism, codified and enforced by an central authority (the church, a benevolent authoritarian figure, etc.). they generally believe that the globalized western world with its bureaucratic governments full of ivy league elites is devoid of the systems of value and morality that give life meaning, and seek to replace the existing system with one that emphasizes cultural and religious identity centered around family, faith, and community.aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
sounds nice, doesn't it?
the reality is, it's basically just white nationalism and religious authoritarianism with a smarter and better-funded PR team. the movement is essentially bankrolled by bored billionaire tech bros who already won the capitalism game and now envision themselves as the 21st-century Koch brothers. they've got a payroll full of podcasters, youtubers, and roman-statue-avatar twitter philosophers marketing it to their main audience: disaffected and well-educated young men sick of getting no matches on tinder and allured by the prospect of a society that could give them a more fulfilling life as the provider for a subservient, virginal wife and lots of kids. you can probably connect the dots as to why the movement is almost entirely devoid of women at present.
they're bankrolling a couple senate campaigns too so republicans be wary, they're passionate and ready to capitalize on the momentum social conservatives have at the moment to remake the party.
This may be as crazy as the OP wanting jail time for adultery. Bored billionaires advocating for traditional marriage and morals? I would love to see who's doing that. I've got traditional values and would happily quit my career to be bankrolled as a podcaster.
BCG Disciple said:aggiedent said:
I'm awfully late to this thread, but what's going on the last few days? This is the second post that is pure insanity. The exact type of issue that would drive the independents/moderates straight over to the Dems in the next election.
The OP makes a point that marriage should be a purely religious ceremony yet wants the government to step in with laws to protect the sanctity of it. Why not fine people for not attending church? Or perhaps add a branch of the legislature that is controlled by religious faiths?
What a staggeringly bad idea.
Dobbs was a MASSIVE victory for originalists and pro lifers. However, religious authoritarians (a term meant specifically for individuals that think their religion should be codified and become the standard for all) also claim the victory and have come out of the wood work trying to strike while the iron is hot. They think all of society has been turned back 50 years because Dobbs overturned terrible precedent.
To a certain extent, I applaud their ideological consistency and their principal driven stance. However, they are a tone deaf and impractical people.
Honestly, I think the ultimate issue is that they truly believe EVERYTHING stems from their religion, or at least religion in general. That's WHY they're tone deaf and impractical and why we have such an asinine OP.
This exchange hits the crux of the problem
BAP Enthusiast said:Yukon Cornelius said:
Nor do I. Like I side it's just something I've wondered and not something to enforce one way or another.
But marriage is an institution established and defined by God which is to manifest the relationship between Jesus and His followers.
So for non believers to participate In that is like vegans wanting to eat food that looks and taste like meat but isn't meat.
I agree with this, none of it makes sense at all. What is the purpose of marriage without religion? At that point it's a civil Union for tax purposes, it doesn't have any real meaning.
For one, this is a definition of marriage in the first post, but it is treated as the definition of marriage. There is no room for anything else, past, present, or future. Marriage is not a relationship or commitment between two people that has existed as a practice and institution for no one knows how long and transcends all religious frameworks, but a creation of this religion that only exists under their terms, definitions, and rules.
This one is especially laughable as it implies that only Christian marriages are marriages. Everything else is just... Friends with benefits? Even the marriages that happened before Judaism and Christianity?
For two, the response can't fathom a personal commitment between two people to permanently join their lives without a religious basis. What purpose could two people possibly have to get married without religion? It's not like they could love each other and want to join their lives without some deity or dogma to base their shared existence on. This line of reasoning stems from the idea that the concept and practice of marriage is derived from their religious context, not that marriage is a personal commitment between two people that their religion (or any) celebrates and further defines. Marriage as a concept is theirs, and anything else is something distinctly different, less meaningful, and merely contrived for convenience.
So, here we are at the problem: they believe people lack the agency and capacity to define their own meaning and purpose and that only religion, preferably theirs, can deliver that. Without religion to tell you how to think and feel, you can't derive those things on your own, and you can function only as a self-serving automaton. They're so caught up in their own beliefs, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly think differently, hence the tone deafness and impracticality.
It's odd how similar the religious right is to liberals in this aspect. Liberals look towards government for guidance while the religious right looks to their religion. Neither have 100% faith in themselves.ABATTBQ11 said:
So, here we are at the problem: they believe people lack the agency and capacity to define their own meaning and purpose and that only religion, preferably theirs, can deliver that. Without religion to tell you how to think and feel, you can't derive those things on your own, and you can function only as a self-serving automaton. They're so caught up in their own beliefs, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly think differently, hence the tone deafness and impracticality.
I think in general this is a characteristic of much of humanity (not just Americans) - the need to not feel alone and to have something else to guide and help them through life.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Yes, because along with Christian belief comes the knowledge of human frailty and fallibility due to the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that my Church is infallible with regard to faith and morals as that was Christ's promise; so naturally I look to them.javajaws said:It's odd how similar the religious right is to liberals in this aspect. Liberals look towards government for guidance while the religious right looks to their religion. Neither have 100% faith in themselves.ABATTBQ11 said:
So, here we are at the problem: they believe people lack the agency and capacity to define their own meaning and purpose and that only religion, preferably theirs, can deliver that. Without religion to tell you how to think and feel, you can't derive those things on your own, and you can function only as a self-serving automaton. They're so caught up in their own beliefs, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly think differently, hence the tone deafness and impracticality.
I think in general this is a characteristic of much of humanity (not just Americans) - the need to not feel alone and to have something else to guide and help them through life.
Silian Rail said:Yes, because along with Christian belief comes the knowledge of human frailty and fallibility due to the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that my Church is infallible with regard to faith and morals as that was Christ's promise; so naturally I look to them.javajaws said:It's odd how similar the religious right is to liberals in this aspect. Liberals look towards government for guidance while the religious right looks to their religion. Neither have 100% faith in themselves.ABATTBQ11 said:
So, here we are at the problem: they believe people lack the agency and capacity to define their own meaning and purpose and that only religion, preferably theirs, can deliver that. Without religion to tell you how to think and feel, you can't derive those things on your own, and you can function only as a self-serving automaton. They're so caught up in their own beliefs, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly think differently, hence the tone deafness and impracticality.
I think in general this is a characteristic of much of humanity (not just Americans) - the need to not feel alone and to have something else to guide and help them through life.
Churches are not infallible. They are led by men. Christ never promised that churches would be infallible.
In fact he warned against church leaders that teach incorrect doctorine, implying that the church and its leaders would make mistakes, some of which would be intentional.
The foundation of your argument is based on an appeal to a fictional authority (God). You believe that your church is infallible? Seriously? Everything you worship was created or written down by a flesh and blood human claiming a divine inspiration. Same as Muhamad or any other religion. Believe what you want, but using it as an argument to sway others is silly.Quote:
Yes, because along with Christian belief comes the knowledge of human frailty and fallibility due to the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that my Church is infallible with regard to faith and morals as that was Christ's promise; so naturally I look to them
You are incorrect, take the Bible for example; is the bible the inspired word of God or isn't it. If it is, how did that happen?Ags4DaWin said:Silian Rail said:Yes, because along with Christian belief comes the knowledge of human frailty and fallibility due to the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that my Church is infallible with regard to faith and morals as that was Christ's promise; so naturally I look to them.javajaws said:It's odd how similar the religious right is to liberals in this aspect. Liberals look towards government for guidance while the religious right looks to their religion. Neither have 100% faith in themselves.ABATTBQ11 said:
So, here we are at the problem: they believe people lack the agency and capacity to define their own meaning and purpose and that only religion, preferably theirs, can deliver that. Without religion to tell you how to think and feel, you can't derive those things on your own, and you can function only as a self-serving automaton. They're so caught up in their own beliefs, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly think differently, hence the tone deafness and impracticality.
I think in general this is a characteristic of much of humanity (not just Americans) - the need to not feel alone and to have something else to guide and help them through life.
Churches are not infallible. They are led by men. Christ never promised that churches would be infallible.
In fact he warned against church leaders that teach incorrect doctorine, implying that the church and its leaders would make mistakes, some of which would be intentional.
Christ was very big on authority, although he thought the Pharisees were hypocrites, he encouraged his disciples to do what they said, if not what they did, for they sat in the seat of Moses.
Manhattan said:Silian Rail said:
This is hilarious. BAP, myself, Rebel and other posters of our philosophy are Christian married business professionals. I don't know where this "the new right are all incels" bull**** comes from.
Get back to us in five years.
What does this mean? That I'll have been married for close to 20 years? Nothing will change for me, barring total societal collapse.
Featured Stories
See All
24:46
13h ago
22k
'The Other Kid': A&M dismantles Mizzou in Weigman's return, 41-10
by Olin Buchanan
22:57
15h ago
15k
Post Game Review: No. 25 Texas A&M 41, No. 9 Missouri 10
by Kay Naegeli
138:15
22h ago
6.2k