Is Outcast9428 a satanist?

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship was normal and not considered to be an evil thing and you say I’m a Satanist for arguing that it was acceptable in a past society. Now that MrMan says that prostitution isn’t Christian, you say “well it was acceptable in past societies so therefore it is Christian.”

The difference is that what you are saying is a pack of lies whereas what I am saying is the provable historical truth. That makes sense since your master, Satan, is the father of lies.

What I’m saying is provable historical truth as well.

40% of brides in Great Britain in the year 1850 were pregnant on their wedding day…

Faramerz Dabhoiwala (2012). The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution. Oxford University Press

A 1963 study in Denmark found that 50% of all brides were pregnant on their wedding day…

Buelens, Geert (2018). De jaren zestig: Een cultuurgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Ambo/Anthos. p. 115.

As I’ve mentioned 35% of women in Colonial America were also pregnant on their wedding day.

For the past 300 years or so. People were encouraged to wait until marriage but this was lightly enforced. What was strictly enforced, however, was that if she becomes pregnant you had to marry her. It’s your choice as a couple when you want to take that risk.

Before 1700 or so, people would get married very soon after meeting one another so you didn’t have to wait months or years to get married like people today do. So people could easily avoid having premarital sex.

[Cornfed]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship was normal and not considered to be an evil thing and you say I’m a Satanist for arguing that it was acceptable in a past society. Now that MrMan says that prostitution isn’t Christian, you say “well it was acceptable in past societies so therefore it is Christian.”

The difference is that what you are saying is a pack of lies whereas what I am saying is the provable historical truth. That makes sense since your master, Satan, is the father of lies.

What I’m saying is provable historical truth as well.

40% of brides in Great Britain in the year 1850 were pregnant on their wedding day…

Faramerz Dabhoiwala (2012). The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution. Oxford University Press

A 1963 study in Denmark found that 50% of all brides were pregnant on their wedding day…

Buelens, Geert (2018). De jaren zestig: Een cultuurgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Ambo/Anthos. p. 115.

As I’ve mentioned 35% of women in Colonial America were also pregnant on their wedding day.

For the past 300 years or so. People were encouraged to wait until marriage but this was lightly enforced. What was strictly enforced, however, was that if she becomes pregnant you had to marry her. It’s your choice as a couple when you want to take that risk.

Before 1700 or so, people would get married very soon after meeting one another so you didn’t have to wait months or years to get married like people today do. So people could easily avoid having premarital sex.

Running with this, is that all you are advocating? Sex before the wedding day. Clearly this is not what you were talking about. You want females to be flat out sluts and destroy any prospects of them being good future wives.

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship

The notion that a "love based" relationship is equivalent to marriage is yet another Satanic construct you espouse. If a couple is having sex and intends to get married, why not just get married? If they don't get married, then effectively they are destroying someone else's ability to have a good marriage because the female will be used and damaged goods. The only reason to advocate such an arrangement is Satanism. You keep giving yourself away.

I think it would be better if they did get married but that isn’t acceptable in our current society. You have to wait a length of time which is impossible to avoid sex during. Almost nobody can wait 1-2 years before having sex. It isn’t realistic. If you want people to avoid premarital sex then you need to address the conditions which make it possible for people to do that instead of just demanding people follow a standard which people have historically proven themselves incapable of doing.

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship was normal and not considered to be an evil thing and you say I’m a Satanist for arguing that it was acceptable in a past society. Now that MrMan says that prostitution isn’t Christian, you say “well it was acceptable in past societies so therefore it is Christian.”

The difference is that what you are saying is a pack of lies whereas what I am saying is the provable historical truth. That makes sense since your master, Satan, is the father of lies.

What I’m saying is provable historical truth as well.

40% of brides in Great Britain in the year 1850 were pregnant on their wedding day…

Faramerz Dabhoiwala (2012). The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution. Oxford University Press

A 1963 study in Denmark found that 50% of all brides were pregnant on their wedding day…

Buelens, Geert (2018). De jaren zestig: Een cultuurgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Ambo/Anthos. p. 115.

As I’ve mentioned 35% of women in Colonial America were also pregnant on their wedding day.

For the past 300 years or so. People were encouraged to wait until marriage but this was lightly enforced. What was strictly enforced, however, was that if she becomes pregnant you had to marry her. It’s your choice as a couple when you want to take that risk.

Before 1700 or so, people would get married very soon after meeting one another so you didn’t have to wait months or years to get married like people today do. So people could easily avoid having premarital sex.

Running with this, is that all you are advocating? Sex before the wedding day. Clearly this is not what you were talking about. You want females to be flat out sluts and destroy any prospects of them being good future wives.

I have never said I want women to be sluts. Your definition of a slut is extremely narrow, however, you think any woman who has sex before marriage is a slut… A definition I disagree with.

[Cornfed]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship

The notion that a "love based" relationship is equivalent to marriage is yet another Satanic construct you espouse. If a couple is having sex and intends to get married, why not just get married? If they don't get married, then effectively they are destroying someone else's ability to have a good marriage because the female will be used and damaged goods. The only reason to advocate such an arrangement is Satanism. You keep giving yourself away.

I think it would be better if they did get married but that isn’t acceptable in our current society. You have to wait a length of time which is impossible to avoid sex during. Almost nobody can wait 1-2 years before having sex. It isn’t realistic. If you want people to avoid premarital sex then you need to address the conditions which make it possible for people to do that instead of just demanding people follow a standard which people have historically proven themselves incapable of doing.

Obviously the entirety of contemporary Satanic society should be destroyed, but even now if the couple were going to get married eventually, there would generally be nothing to stop them from doing so straight away. The motivation of not doing so is so they have the option of never doing so. This means that men who do have their shit together and want to get married only have the option of marrying used up whores with a string of failed relationships behind them. But f**k those men and f**k their children and their society according to you Satanists, right?

You know what might be better. If the females were left for the men who did have their shit together to marry them. But what do other men do in the mean time. How about they all f**k the same group of females who don't want to get married ever by just really like sex with different men. How about we call these women whores/prostitutes and we allow them to be paid for their service, and that way the remaining females could remain marriageable. Maybe we could adopt a religion that advocates this. I know - traditional Christianity. That would work out great, which is why you Satanists are opposed to it.

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed Its funny how you say I’m a Satanist when I point out that in recently past societies, premarital sex in the context of an exclusive, love based relationship

The notion that a "love based" relationship is equivalent to marriage is yet another Satanic construct you espouse. If a couple is having sex and intends to get married, why not just get married? If they don't get married, then effectively they are destroying someone else's ability to have a good marriage because the female will be used and damaged goods. The only reason to advocate such an arrangement is Satanism. You keep giving yourself away.

I think it would be better if they did get married but that isn’t acceptable in our current society. You have to wait a length of time which is impossible to avoid sex during. Almost nobody can wait 1-2 years before having sex. It isn’t realistic. If you want people to avoid premarital sex then you need to address the conditions which make it possible for people to do that instead of just demanding people follow a standard which people have historically proven themselves incapable of doing.

Obviously the entirety of contemporary Satanic society should be destroyed, but even now if the couple were going to get married eventually, there would generally be nothing to stop them from doing so straight away. The motivation of not doing so is so they have the option of never doing so. This means that men who do have their shit together and want to get married only have the option of marrying used up whores with a string of failed relationships behind them. But f**k those men and f**k their children and their society according to you Satanists, right?

You know what might be better. If the females were left for the men who did have their shit together to marry them. But what do other men do in the mean time. How about they all f**k the same group of females who don't want to get married ever by just really like sex with different men. How about we call these women whores/prostitutes and we allow them to be paid for their service, and that way the remaining females could remain marriageable. Maybe we could adopt a religion that advocates this. I know - traditional Christianity. That would work out great, which is why you Satanists are opposed to it.

That isn’t necessarily true, I would propose to my girlfriend today if I could and I know she would say yes. But her parents would be angry and at this stage they may even try to interfere with our relationship if I push too fast. I do not have the financial means to live on my own yet so angering them would be really bad for us.

I would prefer women to marry as teenagers and not have a long string of failed relationships behind them. But that simply isn’t what our society currently looks like. To some extent traditionalists need to adapt and get the best deal that is realistically available to them while still pushing better principles onto their kids. If not, then traditionalism will die out and nobody will live on to carry its flag.

[Cornfed]

I would prefer women to marry as teenagers and not have a long string of failed relationships behind them. But that simply isn’t what our society currently looks like. To some extent traditionalists need to adapt and get the best deal that is realistically available to them while still pushing better principles onto their kids. If not, then traditionalism will die out and nobody will live on to carry its flag.

Classic Satanic undermining by calling for compromise based on the success of past Satanism. Your posts are gravitating to textbook Satanic talking points.

[Outcast9428]

I would prefer women to marry as teenagers and not have a long string of failed relationships behind them. But that simply isn’t what our society currently looks like. To some extent traditionalists need to adapt and get the best deal that is realistically available to them while still pushing better principles onto their kids. If not, then traditionalism will die out and nobody will live on to carry its flag.

Classic Satanic undermining by calling for compromise based on the success of past Satanism. Your posts are gravitating to textbook Satanic talking points.

You are impossible to deal with.

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed Here's a quote from a 75 year old woman on Patriots.win which is very relevant to the discussion about violent sex and how unacceptable it was in the past...

"It stared with Bill Clinton and “I did not have sex with that woman” and blowjobs became front and center and all the HS kids researching it and trying it and it became popularized and TALKED ABOUT OUT LOUD. It was on all the news shows.

A long time ago people used to do just sex regular normal sex...older people were repelled by the idea of a man sticking his dick in a woman’s mouth...men could’t achieve orgasm this way...it was too dirty in their minds. I am talking about the 1960-70s. Sodomy was a crime and on the books. Now it’s everything goes and women are dehumanized to the point where they are called “people with a uterus”, and they have to fight for a women-only restroom and women-only sports. There is a war on women and the so-called feminists are siding with men over women."

Went a little feminist there at the end, but the point is... In the 60s, having sex the normal way was pretty much the only way people did it. The rough sex and bdsm crap was unheard of let alone practiced. Anyone at the time would've thought it was absolutely disgusting. Basically every boomer conservative I talk to thinks it is repulsive.

[MrMan]

I Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

So if you have sex with other men's wives, which is what adultery means, or attempt to turn normal non-slut females in your community into sluts, which is what fornication means, that's bad. OK, so what? If you are going to continue placing a feminist interpretation on what are very clear statements from a Christian perspective then you are clearly in a state of apostacy and in for a hot fate in the hereafter.

Do you have an inability to comprehend, a lack of willingness to do so? Do you ignore what you read, or does a big black spot appear before your eyes?

If you read that verse, fornicators and adulterers are listed separately. Also, there is a warning in the other part I quoted against having sex with a prostitute, and sinning against your own body. A prostitute is already a prostitute, not a virgin.

[MrMan]

But her parents would be angry and at this stage they may even try to interfere with our relationship if I push too fast. I do not have the financial means to live on my own yet so angering them would be really bad for us.

Are you living with your girlfriends parents, or your own parents and you couldn't provide for her if you married her at this point?

[Cornfed]

If you read that verse, fornicators and adulterers are listed separately. Also, there is a warning in the other part I quoted against having sex with a prostitute, and sinning against your own body. A prostitute is already a prostitute, not a virgin.

Of course fornication and adultery are listed separately. Adultery is having sex with a woman married to someone else. Fornication in the negative sense is having sex with females in your community who might not otherwise be sluts. Sex with prostitutes was a normal thing in Christian and pre-Christian society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should do it. Paul may have thought it a bad thing for missionaries and such to do it, just like he thought they should ideally be celibate, not start businesses, not have families etc. Perhaps that was all good advice for them, but it is obviously not good general advice. If I advise people not to join the evil US military, it wouldn't generally follow that I am a pacifist opposed to militaries. This should all be very obvious. Why do you cling to your obviously anti-Christian feminism? It is quite simple. The Bible and leading Christian Fathers advocated prostitution. Hence prostitution is a Christian value. QED.

[Cornfed]

But her parents would be angry and at this stage they may even try to interfere with our relationship if I push too fast.

So they would rather she become a worthless slut than a wife and they don't care that the man who eventually marries her will be marrying a used up slut. What revolting, evil people.

[Outcast9428]

@MrMan I do have the money for the down payment on a house yet, I could kind of provide long term at the moment but it wouldn’t be an ideal situation. She would have to work part time. I suppose it’s not too bad if we don’t have kids yet.

@Cornfed They are liberal conservatives, not really traditionalists, they’re not evil people but they have drunk the kool aid a bit.

[MrMan]

If you read that verse, fornicators and adulterers are listed separately. Also, there is a warning in the other part I quoted against having sex with a prostitute, and sinning against your own body. A prostitute is already a prostitute, not a virgin.

Of course fornication and adultery are listed separately. Adultery is having sex with a woman married to someone else. Fornication in the negative sense is having sex with females in your community who might not otherwise be sluts. Sex with prostitutes was a normal thing in Christian and pre-Christian society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should do it. Paul may have thought it a bad thing for missionaries and such to do it, just like he thought they should ideally be celibate, not start businesses, not have families etc. Perhaps that was all good advice for them, but it is obviously not good general advice. If I advise people not to join the evil US military, it wouldn't generally follow that I am a pacifist opposed to militaries. This should all be very obvious. Why do you cling to your obviously anti-Christian feminism? It is quite simple. The Bible and leading Christian Fathers advocated prostitution. Hence prostitution is a Christian value. QED.

I just quoted I Corinthians where sleeping with a prostitute is fornication. It's not debatable.

Here are some quotes about ideas of influential theologians on prostitution.

Augustine wrote,
"Therefore, the prostitution of women, merely for the gratification of sinful passion, is condemned by the divine and eternal law."
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... 17_1188097

This is a comment on Augustine:

This shift was away from the strict condemnation and uncompromising intolerance of prostitution by the early Church Fathers to a view of accommodation. Rossiaud maintains that the two major works which changed thinking about prostitution from prohibition to toleration were the second part of the Roman de la Rose and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. In light of such a recommendation, this study of Aquinas’s position on the practice of prostitution will focus primarily on the Summa."This shift was away from the strict condemnation and uncompromising intolerance of prostitution by the early Church Fathers to a view of accommodation. Rossiaud maintains that the two major works which changed thinking about prostitution from prohibition to toleration were the second part of the Roman de la Rose and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. In light of such a recommendation, this study of Aquinas’s position on the practice of prostitution will focus primarily on the Summa."

From https://www.medievalists.net/2009/12/aq ... stitution/