ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Seems like a wise course of action
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Mary Contrary 999
Active member
You have no way to help me here. Semantics aren't your thing.
Words overlap in there meanings without negating the other. Like someone can be described as both a jerk and a wimp. The commonality being an inability to modulate the ego.
At it's core lechery is pursuit of sexual desire despite other priorities. Yes one priority missed by a common lech is marital status. A married lech wants an orgasm more than his wife's love and respect.
So don't be a jerk or a wimp, and keep your lecherous thoughts to yourself.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, really. I've been reading the whole thread and I've not seen anyone make the claim that Rusha says that they made.
If you can show me, please do.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That would be when we started talking about the bananahead's thread entitled Is Marital Rape Scripturally Defensible, post 15
Mary Contrary 999
Active member
Requesting things from people you helped ban must be gratifying.
Right Divider
Body part
You are a liar. I helped nobody get banned.
P.S. I replied to a post. I did not know the "banned status" of the user that I responded to.
Mary Contrary 999
Active member
Okay. My bad.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I don't have time for fragility especially since it can be addressed. It's not my fault if you don't address it. And it's not going to stop me or even slow me down; I don't have time for that, like I said.
Banana.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Not the KJV. That's Protty.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's not; that's never the answer.
That contributes to and never solves marital conflicts.
The body will open the floodgates when needed, a man (husband or not) doesn't have to worry about that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The I want to say public morality of the American founders was based on rights, an idea borrowed from the ancient Romans who recognized and acknowledged that there were special laws attached or borne by people just for being a human being, these special laws came to be called rights at some point, before John Locke wrote about them in the 1600s.
I've argued that the self-evident nature of rights comes from a Christian moral principle, Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself. By this standard what are called 'mala in se' crimes, roughly meaning evil or wicked or wrong inherently, ipso facto, are self-evident, and rights against 'mala in se' crimes are some of the so-called natural or inalienable or human rights. Rights against 'mala in se' crimes.
Just so long as a human recognizes all the same rights that we acknowledge, then we can trust their conscience, but it's almost trivial to say so, mainly just because these crimes, and so the rights against them, are self-evident. They don't have to be a Christian or believe in God to agree with us what constitutes a 'mala in se' crime and that we all possess irrevocably the absolute rights against these crimes being perpetrated against us.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That only follows if, and that's a big 'if' nowadays, the husband is chaste.
Derf
Well-known member
I much prefer sources to personally felt semantics. I'd appreciate a source for yours (like a dictionary citation, perhaps).
A "married lech", since promiscuity is part of the definition, is also an adulterer, which Artie was ok with in some cases, as I pointed out. Lechery doesn't seem to have anything to do with sex within marriage.
And I'll assume your description and imperative to be a general one, though it hardly looks like it, since lechery involves action, not argument.
Derf
Well-known member
"Chaste" and "monogamous" are describing the same thing.
Derf
Well-known member
My tactic was to compare the "inner moral compass" on slightly different subjects--like adultery and homosexuality. If it begins to fail in one area related to sex, why would we trust it in other areas related to sex. And when it begins to fail, it needs to be regrounded by comparison with a trustworthy standard. Human law codes work the same way--as long as they are grounded on a superior standard (not just from humans), they will so well.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Maybe to you but not in the modern sense of the word. You have to specify chastity otherwise what lots of otherwise monogamous husbands do is consume pornography and self-gratify, which is not chaste.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Because of consent. And bodily autonomy. And ethical independence (the right to the pursuit of happiness). All very important, but separate issues from chastity.
But atheists have to have morality too, and they're not and they don't admit of any divine lawgiver, so how do you ground their morality? And if you can answer that question, then we can talk about a common morality, a public morality. For the American founders that morality was based on what they described as inalienable God-given rights, but atheists don't have to believe in the God-given part just so long as they believe in the alienable one.
Derf
Well-known member
Atheism is particularly noxious with regard to morality, because their only bases for it are personal opinion and history, which is interpreted by their personal opinion. Even their primary creation myth describes their lawless morality: survival of the fittest. That's exactly why we need to ground morality in something better than humanistic "ideals".
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You can't provide scriptural support for this statement of yours, so let's revisit it.
What do you mean by "constancy"?
And do you believe that ANY older man who is interested in maintaining a physical relationship with his wife is a "dirty old man"?