The Zarty
ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ZWABAG
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Bottom] | Replies: 169 | Views: 6 | Currently viewing: 1
>>1178
>I am from Serbia and we have the same lingual peculiarity, that's to say the word "жена" means woman but can also mean wife, however these 2 NEVER get confused, that's because when someone is just called "жена" it always means woman, only with added context would it mean a wife, example: нечија (someone's) жена; његова (his) жена.
weakest argument award, you have no way of knowing if it's the same in ancient greek and the fact that people debate about the meaning of the verse suggests it's not the case
>Furthermore, if we were to even consider the argument that lusting is only bad when done towards married women (that's to say only adultery was bad) then you could reasonably conclude that fornication is moral as well
no but one could reasonably conclude that a normal straight male sexuality is not a sin, since desiring a woman is what men were meant to do, among other things.
>Not only that, but you're also taking out the factor in which this "entertainment" of yours was created, mainly prostitution and exploitation.
ohhhh come on lmaooo. all of the girls i watch are guaranteed to be making much more bank than me, exploitation my balls. if they're exploited what am i?
>I am from Serbia and we have the same lingual peculiarity, that's to say the word "жена" means woman but can also mean wife, however these 2 NEVER get confused, that's because when someone is just called "жена" it always means woman, only with added context would it mean a wife, example: нечија (someone's) жена; његова (his) жена.
weakest argument award, you have no way of knowing if it's the same in ancient greek and the fact that people debate about the meaning of the verse suggests it's not the case
>Furthermore, if we were to even consider the argument that lusting is only bad when done towards married women (that's to say only adultery was bad) then you could reasonably conclude that fornication is moral as well
no but one could reasonably conclude that a normal straight male sexuality is not a sin, since desiring a woman is what men were meant to do, among other things.
>Not only that, but you're also taking out the factor in which this "entertainment" of yours was created, mainly prostitution and exploitation.
ohhhh come on lmaooo. all of the girls i watch are guaranteed to be making much more bank than me, exploitation my balls. if they're exploited what am i?
File:
1784495370782-1.png
(19.87 KB, 640x169, ClipboardImage.png)
File:
1784495370782-2.png
(20.57 KB, 640x230, ClipboardImage.png)
>>1244
It's not a weak argument, it's providing context to your ignorance. Words mean things and rarely in language is the meaning of something completely dubious. It's a reasonable assumption that this verse, inspired by God, interpreted the way it has been, has a discernible meaning and wasn't just a divine "...or something like that, yeah".
>We don't know that that's how it worked in ancient greek
Someone probably does. Someone who speaks greek probably does, I doubt this is some lost knowledge, it's just that ignorant people like you will parrot these linguistic arguments without actually knowing anything about the language OR linguistics in general and proceed to use your idiocy as some trump card. If you're going to hinge so much of your argument on this one linguistic peculiarity, that still gives you a "it's dubious" at best, you should extensively research it, not take it for granted.
>people debate about the meaning of the verse
The only thing that the existence of this "debate" proves, is the existence of a willfully ignorant contingent of porn consumers. You yourself are this "debate" and yet you know nothing of ancient greek aside from what some, likely equally ignorant and lustful, idiot told you. Would the existence of a debate on linguistics in Leviticus "suggest" that sodomy may not be sinful after all? I suggest you stop debating, it's clearly not your strong point, I'd rather take the word of saints than whatever modern debatebro garbage you're regurgitating.
Also, languages tend to mix with proximity, just as an example, Italian language sounds more like Serbian than Russian does. It shares more sounds with Serbian than Serbian does with Russian, even though Russian and Serbian are from the same linguistic family. So it's not too far fetched to say there are similarities between Greek and Serbian even doe they are totally different languages. And just for the hell of it, here's some results from 2 minutes of googling that seemingly fully supports my hypothesis
>but one could reasonably conclude that a normal straight male sexuality is not a sin
Talk about shifting the goal posts! Just went from "indulging in porn is OK" to "being straight is OK". Should I take that as a concession?
>making much more bank than me. if they're exploited what am i?
Your words betray your materialistic character. Your entire worldview is built on sand. If adultery is wrong how is production of pornography not? What about porn "stars" that cheat on their husband? Does all of this not exploit a persons soul? To profit off of the erosion of their soul? Is it not a faustian bargain for these so called actresses? And if you were really in the loop about the whole porn debate you'd know just how much abuse and coercion is going on in the industry of sin, plenty of regret on the record. And of course you didn't address the fact that it's literal prostitution, which I don't know, are you going to try defending that next?
Not to mention this whole debate is pointless, look at Christianity from the top down. A religion about suffering and self denial, about fasting and preparing oneself for departure. How do you square the very root and foundation of Christianity with this indulgence in lust, one of the 7 deadly sins, condemned by almost every Christian authority? It's cope.
It's not a weak argument, it's providing context to your ignorance. Words mean things and rarely in language is the meaning of something completely dubious. It's a reasonable assumption that this verse, inspired by God, interpreted the way it has been, has a discernible meaning and wasn't just a divine "...or something like that, yeah".
>We don't know that that's how it worked in ancient greek
Someone probably does. Someone who speaks greek probably does, I doubt this is some lost knowledge, it's just that ignorant people like you will parrot these linguistic arguments without actually knowing anything about the language OR linguistics in general and proceed to use your idiocy as some trump card. If you're going to hinge so much of your argument on this one linguistic peculiarity, that still gives you a "it's dubious" at best, you should extensively research it, not take it for granted.
>people debate about the meaning of the verse
The only thing that the existence of this "debate" proves, is the existence of a willfully ignorant contingent of porn consumers. You yourself are this "debate" and yet you know nothing of ancient greek aside from what some, likely equally ignorant and lustful, idiot told you. Would the existence of a debate on linguistics in Leviticus "suggest" that sodomy may not be sinful after all? I suggest you stop debating, it's clearly not your strong point, I'd rather take the word of saints than whatever modern debatebro garbage you're regurgitating.
Also, languages tend to mix with proximity, just as an example, Italian language sounds more like Serbian than Russian does. It shares more sounds with Serbian than Serbian does with Russian, even though Russian and Serbian are from the same linguistic family. So it's not too far fetched to say there are similarities between Greek and Serbian even doe they are totally different languages. And just for the hell of it, here's some results from 2 minutes of googling that seemingly fully supports my hypothesis
>but one could reasonably conclude that a normal straight male sexuality is not a sin
Talk about shifting the goal posts! Just went from "indulging in porn is OK" to "being straight is OK". Should I take that as a concession?
>making much more bank than me. if they're exploited what am i?
Your words betray your materialistic character. Your entire worldview is built on sand. If adultery is wrong how is production of pornography not? What about porn "stars" that cheat on their husband? Does all of this not exploit a persons soul? To profit off of the erosion of their soul? Is it not a faustian bargain for these so called actresses? And if you were really in the loop about the whole porn debate you'd know just how much abuse and coercion is going on in the industry of sin, plenty of regret on the record. And of course you didn't address the fact that it's literal prostitution, which I don't know, are you going to try defending that next?
Not to mention this whole debate is pointless, look at Christianity from the top down. A religion about suffering and self denial, about fasting and preparing oneself for departure. How do you square the very root and foundation of Christianity with this indulgence in lust, one of the 7 deadly sins, condemned by almost every Christian authority? It's cope.
File:
1784495370782.webm
(1.55 MB, 752x720, 1706995543909.webm)
>>1187
if you use religion in a argument it just means you can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
if you use religion in a argument it just means you can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
why don't you just wear a chastity cage if you don't want to jerk off?
File:
1784495370782.jpeg
(3.55 KB, 209x241, image.jpeg)
File:
1784495370782.jpeg
(23.51 KB, 406x500, 1701401982497-1.jpeg)
>can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
File:
1784495370782-1.jpeg
(5.54 KB, 255x143, 1689361719155.jpg)
File:
1784495370782-2.jpeg
(75.77 KB, 828x625, chad writing.jpeg)
>▶Zaryan 7 hours ago No.1249
>File (hide): 1707046933412.jpeg (3.55 KB, 209x241, image.jpeg)
>>>1246
>>using bible verses as an argument
>▶Zaryan 6 hours ago No.1250
>File (hide): 1707048061828.jpeg (23.51 KB, 406x500, 1701401982497-1.jpeg)
>>can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
>>1245
>Someone probably does. Someone who speaks greek probably does,
yeah someone like the scholars who argue that the verse is about married women, duh, lmao :^)
>it's just that ignorant people like you will parrot these linguistic arguments without actually knowing anything about the language OR linguistics in general
yeah too bad that's what you're doing, hence why your argument is as weak as it gets
>Talk about shifting the goal posts! Just went from "indulging in porn is OK" to "being straight is OK". Should I take that as a concession?
i'm not moving the goalposts at all. that's literally the implication of that verse. if it were to be interpreted the way you'd want it to be, we'd have to assume that being straight is a sin. you're being dense on purpose, you obviously realize at some level that im right.
>What about porn "stars" that cheat on their husband?
in a way, not my problem. i dont think someone like that should be in a relationship, and those who are in realtionships are not in conventional relationships obviously, often the husband himself is involved with the industry.
you might argue that it's a sin but the sin is on their part, not mine.
>if you were really in the loop about the whole porn debate you'd know just how much abuse and coercion is going on in the industry of sin
there is abuse probably but just for the "low level" girls. the ones that are famous live the lives of a queen.
>Not to mention this whole debate is pointless, look at Christianity from the top down. A religion about suffering and self denial, about fasting and preparing oneself for departure.
pretty sure the obsession with self denial and suffering is peculiarly orthodox, you dont really see it in catholicism and especially protestantism.
>Someone probably does. Someone who speaks greek probably does,
yeah someone like the scholars who argue that the verse is about married women, duh, lmao :^)
>it's just that ignorant people like you will parrot these linguistic arguments without actually knowing anything about the language OR linguistics in general
yeah too bad that's what you're doing, hence why your argument is as weak as it gets
>Talk about shifting the goal posts! Just went from "indulging in porn is OK" to "being straight is OK". Should I take that as a concession?
i'm not moving the goalposts at all. that's literally the implication of that verse. if it were to be interpreted the way you'd want it to be, we'd have to assume that being straight is a sin. you're being dense on purpose, you obviously realize at some level that im right.
>What about porn "stars" that cheat on their husband?
in a way, not my problem. i dont think someone like that should be in a relationship, and those who are in realtionships are not in conventional relationships obviously, often the husband himself is involved with the industry.
you might argue that it's a sin but the sin is on their part, not mine.
>if you were really in the loop about the whole porn debate you'd know just how much abuse and coercion is going on in the industry of sin
there is abuse probably but just for the "low level" girls. the ones that are famous live the lives of a queen.
>Not to mention this whole debate is pointless, look at Christianity from the top down. A religion about suffering and self denial, about fasting and preparing oneself for departure.
pretty sure the obsession with self denial and suffering is peculiarly orthodox, you dont really see it in catholicism and especially protestantism.
File:
1784495370782.png
(295.65 KB, 458x613, billede_2024-02-04_210325694.png)
>>1255
>yeah someone like the scholars who argue that the verse is about married women
Likely of the same ilk as scholars arguing condemnation of homosexuality is also a linguistic error. You speak of this grand debate like it's something prevalent, but you're the first guy I've heard engaging with this debate and if anyone tried arguing this point they would be laughed out of any congregation worth their salt. It really is a case of a sand-built argument only circulated as cope. And as for these scholars, the title hardly means anything to begin with.
>yeah too bad that's what you're doing, hence why your argument is as weak as it gets
Except I DO know the nature of this linguistic peculiarity and went out of my way to confirm that it is ALSO present in Greek, which you conveniently ignored because your entire response is a dishonest cope. In fact you ignored the majority of my response and only responded to whatever you thought was easy pickings, but evidently you've overestimated yourself even there.
>that's literally the implication of that verse. if it were to be interpreted the way you'd want it to be, we'd have to assume that being straight is a sin
At this point you're just being retarded for sport. An attraction is not the same as indulgence. Finding a woman attractive isn't the same as fantasizing or jerking off to her. That's indulgence. You can't control which thoughts enter your head but you can control which stay and which take over. Being tempted isn't a sin itself, it's indulging in these temptations.
>in a way, not my problem
So just go and extract cardinal pleasure's from other's fall from grace, yeah sure. Nothing wrong with war profiteering either, you aren't the one killing! Selling meth to people? Well you aren't the one doing it, so not your problem, your soul is clean! Atrociously unsound proposition. And how can you even claim that this makes sense, that indulging in the display of sin with pleasure is clean on your end. Does that also mean watching 'p is fine, since you aren't the one sinning? What about rape videos? What about watching executions videos for entertainment? Don't you think these are harmful to a persons soul? Yet again evidence that the average person isn't qualified to think AT ALL in regards to MOST things. This is EXACTLY why the interpretation of the Bible must be PRESERVED, not constantly challenged by new world bugmen endorsed by gullible hedonists.
>there is abuse probably but just for the "low level" girls
Display more ignorance, it's really helping your argument
>self denial and suffering is peculiarly orthodox
Talk about the one true Church! Though it is unfair to Roman Catholics who put emphasis on emulating Christ. But I do agree, Orthodoxy is the only "denomination" with the fullness of faith, ancient and unadulterated by these modern "ponderings"
also I think you meant to say particularly
>yeah someone like the scholars who argue that the verse is about married women
Likely of the same ilk as scholars arguing condemnation of homosexuality is also a linguistic error. You speak of this grand debate like it's something prevalent, but you're the first guy I've heard engaging with this debate and if anyone tried arguing this point they would be laughed out of any congregation worth their salt. It really is a case of a sand-built argument only circulated as cope. And as for these scholars, the title hardly means anything to begin with.
>yeah too bad that's what you're doing, hence why your argument is as weak as it gets
Except I DO know the nature of this linguistic peculiarity and went out of my way to confirm that it is ALSO present in Greek, which you conveniently ignored because your entire response is a dishonest cope. In fact you ignored the majority of my response and only responded to whatever you thought was easy pickings, but evidently you've overestimated yourself even there.
>that's literally the implication of that verse. if it were to be interpreted the way you'd want it to be, we'd have to assume that being straight is a sin
At this point you're just being retarded for sport. An attraction is not the same as indulgence. Finding a woman attractive isn't the same as fantasizing or jerking off to her. That's indulgence. You can't control which thoughts enter your head but you can control which stay and which take over. Being tempted isn't a sin itself, it's indulging in these temptations.
>in a way, not my problem
So just go and extract cardinal pleasure's from other's fall from grace, yeah sure. Nothing wrong with war profiteering either, you aren't the one killing! Selling meth to people? Well you aren't the one doing it, so not your problem, your soul is clean! Atrociously unsound proposition. And how can you even claim that this makes sense, that indulging in the display of sin with pleasure is clean on your end. Does that also mean watching 'p is fine, since you aren't the one sinning? What about rape videos? What about watching executions videos for entertainment? Don't you think these are harmful to a persons soul? Yet again evidence that the average person isn't qualified to think AT ALL in regards to MOST things. This is EXACTLY why the interpretation of the Bible must be PRESERVED, not constantly challenged by new world bugmen endorsed by gullible hedonists.
>there is abuse probably but just for the "low level" girls
Display more ignorance, it's really helping your argument
>self denial and suffering is peculiarly orthodox
Talk about the one true Church! Though it is unfair to Roman Catholics who put emphasis on emulating Christ. But I do agree, Orthodoxy is the only "denomination" with the fullness of faith, ancient and unadulterated by these modern "ponderings"
also I think you meant to say particularly
aw neat hyped for this to turn into a "modern vs. classical interpretation" jerkfest here we go fellas
File:
1784495370782.jpeg
(85.76 KB, 1024x1024, 1702626572507.jpg)
>>1246
Yes, and? Europe and Europeans aren't Europe and Europeans without Christianity lmao. Especially white colonies in other continents (South Africa, Rodesia, USA, Canada, etc.). Therefore Bible verses are an argument
Yes, and? Europe and Europeans aren't Europe and Europeans without Christianity lmao. Especially white colonies in other continents (South Africa, Rodesia, USA, Canada, etc.). Therefore Bible verses are an argument
>>1246
yeah, it's morals that we use for the bases of our opinions. without the bible and the teachings of the church, with what will you judge exactly? soyance?
yeah, it's morals that we use for the bases of our opinions. without the bible and the teachings of the church, with what will you judge exactly? soyance?
File:
1784495370782.png
(308.76 KB, 625x625, gigachad-becomes-jee-aspirant-v0-gcgoc82gbina1.png)
>>▶Zaryan 7 hours ago No.1249
>>File (hide): 1707046933412.jpeg (3.55 KB, 209x241, image.jpeg)
>>>>1246
>>>using bible verses as an argument
>>▶Zaryan 6 hours ago No.1250
>>File (hide): 1707048061828.jpeg (23.51 KB, 406x500, 1701401982497-1.jpeg)
>>>can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
File:
1784495370782.png
(293.17 KB, 624x624, 1693877227317.png)
>>>▶Zaryan 7 hours ago No.1249
>>>File (hide): 1707046933412.jpeg (3.55 KB, 209x241, image.jpeg)
>>>>>1246
>>>>using bible verses as an argument
>>>▶Zaryan 6 hours ago No.1250
>>>File (hide): 1707048061828.jpeg (23.51 KB, 406x500, 1701401982497-1.jpeg)
>>>>can't form an actual opinion without the literal bible
File:
1784495370782.png
(126.63 KB, 589x227, ClipboardImage.png)
>zoot got cumpilled
yep, it's happening
prude chuds lost
yep, it's happening
prude chuds lost
File:
1784495449742.jpeg
(78.16 KB, 800x1200, D25_15_957_1200.jpg)
nah wtf
>>1573
No, that was an impersonator. In 2 weeks I'll be adding /ng/ - never goon
No, that was an impersonator. In 2 weeks I'll be adding /ng/ - never goon
Post actions
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Top] | Replies: 169 | Views: 6 | Currently viewing: 1