Porn Pastor

[lewisnotmiller]

We are open about sex talk in this country, we are liberal towards this stuff, but the UK still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.

It just doesn't work without some kind of actual standards applied to it, as well.

1) I'm not convinced the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate. Do you have a source?

2) Considering the impact of economics will get you a more aligned heat map with some of what you're talking about. Not so much religion.

3) Teen pregnancies as a proportion of total pregnancies has generally been trending down, for a long time now.
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 women ages 15-19) - United Kingdom | Data

 

[The Hammer]

people have no idea how embarrassing it is for a grown man to buy underwear. Other shoppers be thinking "Don't you have a wife or mother to buy those for you?" It doesn't help that I boycott Amazon.

Haha... seriously? I buy condoms, underwear and tampons at the same time.... Egads!

 

[Rival]

1) I'm not convinced the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate. Do you have a source?

2) Considering the impact of economics will get you a more aligned heat map with some of what you're talking about. Not so much religion.

3) Teen pregnancies as a proportion of total pregnancies has generally been trending down, for a long time now.
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 women ages 15-19) - United Kingdom | Data

It appears we're 6th now. I apologise for my error in my last post as I meant western Europe (which we did for a long time),

UK has the most teenage births in EU, along with Bulgaria and Romania

That's from 2017 iirc. I'll look up more recent stats when I'm not on my phone in bed.

But whatever the case, our teen girls aren't doing great. This can just be observed by experience. I knew at least 2 teen girls at school whose career goal was prostitution They were 13/14.

Then again, as a proponent of no premarital or at least long-term relationship sex, I'm going to be unhappy with the situation either way lol.

 

[F1fan]

Haha... seriously? I buy condoms, underwear and tampons at the same time.... Egads!

Well, you know how to party.

I was kinda joking. Not about the boycott.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Haha... seriously? I buy condoms, underwear and tampons at the same time.... Egads!

Weirdo.

 

[Deo Vindice]

They can fool themselves but they can't fool god.
Salvation comes from renouncing sin, not embracing it.

 

[DNB]

No, that’s not an oxymoron.

Check this out and let me know what you think:

In San Diego, Porn Star Preaches Message ‘For Sinners By Sinners’

I like it.

imo, it’s a positive. The old, antiquated christian religion is dying, as it should.
It was built upon false premises from very early on, imo.

They sound like a bunch of two misguided, shallow and depraved nut-cases. Sin is sin not simply because God declares it so, it is sin because it is innately perverse and subversive, ...which is why God prohibits it - it is for our own good.
These two fools cannot see the destructive nature of what her activities has made of her, of all the lascivious perverts that she's been with, of all the shameful and disgusting acts that she's performed? Does she even remember the names of the people that she's slept with, or does she even care if they're good people or not - that's the nature of indiscriminate sex, it objectifies people and degrades both participants.

That's the best that they can do, glorify this decadency by beguiling people with the propaganda 'sinners by sinners'? Endorsing their behaviour and not trying to cure the disease?
Like I said, they are two foolish, immature and heretical incompetents, ...not even to mention that women are not supposed to teach in the Church!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus apparently told people this,

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Actually Jesus never said that. Or to be more precise, that story was not originally part of John. It was added quite a while later.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They sound like a bunch of two misguided, shallow and depraved nut-cases. Sin is sin not simply because God declares it so, it is sin because it is innately perverse and subversive, ...which is why God prohibits it - it is for our own good.
These two fools cannot see the destructive nature of what her activities has made of her, of all the lascivious perverts that she's been with, of all the shameful and disgusting acts that she's performed? Does she even remember the names of the people that she's slept with, or does she even care if they're good people or not - that's the nature of indiscriminate sex, it objectifies people and degrades both participants.

That's the best that they can do, glorify this decadency by beguiling people with the propaganda 'sinners by sinners'? Endorsing their behaviour and not trying to cure the disease?
Like I said, they are two foolish, immature and heretical incompetents, ...not even to mention that women are not supposed to teach in the Church!

As a Christian, do you think the words you used to describe the two people you're criticizing live up to the teaching of "love your enemy"?

 

[DNB]

It means you're not supposed to keep deliberately sinning and doing things the Bible prohibits. No one is perfect, of course, but it goes against the NT from Gospels to Paul to keep doing whatever.
People want to call themselves Christians but many just are not willing to adhere to what that actually entails, teaches, and promotes.
All that's good for is giving me people like me ground to stand on when proclaiming how silly it is for people to keep clinging to this religion we are very far removed from, to the point we collectively reject various Biblical prohibitions and permissions.

I have to ask, are you @Rival 's wife, the same person that I mentioned in the previous part of this sentence?
I ask because, as far as I can tell, your views are worlds apart - diametrically so (your satan and devil statements in your signature are a little unnerving, to say the least)?

 

[DNB]

As a Christian, do you think the words you used to describe the two people you're criticizing live up to the teaching of "love your enemy"?

Yes, very much so, thank you - I may have been a bit reserved actually, due to the sensitive ones around here!

...you err, they are not claiming to be my enemy, but my brothers and sisters - they are therefore, charlatans, wolves in sheep's clothing

 

[Rival]

Actually Jesus never said that. Or to be more precise, that story was not originally part of John. It was added quite a while later.

I know this, but it's in the Gospels as we have them and is relevant to most Christians.

 

[DNB]

Actually Jesus never said that. Or to be more precise, that story was not originally part of John. It was added quite a while later.

You are correct, ...but, irrespective of the dubious nature of the quote, Jesus emphatically and incessantly spoke against sinful behaviour, and promoted spiritual, not physical, love.

 

[Debater Slayer]

2 Timothy 4:3 'Nuff said.

I would think the Catholic Church's history of child abuse and covering it up would be a much more pressing reason to quote this verse than the beliefs of the pastor in question. Either the Church has been failing for decades to observe "sound doctrine" (if the doctrine prohibits child abuse, which it does, as far as I know) or the (traditional) doctrine isn't very sound to begin with if it rails against consensual sex more than it does child abuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know this, but it's in the Gospels as we have them and is relevant to most Christians.

Then why use this when you are claiming that she is not following the teachings of Jesus? That really makes no sense at all.

 

[DNB]

I know this, but it's in the Gospels as we have them and is relevant to most Christians.

...either way, Jesus said the same thing in many different ways throughout the Gospels - your point was clear enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct, ...but, irrespective of the dubious nature of the quote, Jesus emphatically and incessantly spoke against sinful behaviour, and promoted spiritual, not physical, love.

Yes, but the Christians here are acting as the mob. They have decided what she is doing is sinful. Others do not think that it is. There was a reason for strong rules on sexuality in the past. Most of those reasons are gone today. Such behavior may no longer be considered a sin.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, very much so, thank you - I may have been a bit reserved actually, due to the sensitive ones around here!

So calling people "heretical incompetents" and "depraved nutcases" doesn't go against loving one's enemy? Don't get me wrong: I don't believe in "love your enemy" or find it a realistic injunction, but since you're a Christian (apparently a conservative one as well), I'd assume you'd try to observe that teaching and not just ones against sex outside of marriage.

 

[DNB]

cc

 

[Debater Slayer]

...you err, they are not claiming to be my enemy, but my brothers and sisters - they are therefore, charlatans, wolves in sheep's clothing

That's an interesting take; it seems to imply that you'd view them in a more generous light if they claimed to be your enemies. If Jesus instructed Christians to love your enemy, isn't that all the more reason to be gentle toward fellow believers even if you believe they're sinning?