User talk:K61824

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, K61824!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:53, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

But, why are you adding gibberish to articles instead of reducing it? Oh, I moan, do we have yet another alcohol-fueled editor? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Too bad I don't drink alcohol. Thieh 02:07, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Random quote from CP

Where'd you find that? SoCal 212 I can't find my talk page 05:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I just random to output either {{assquote}}, {{Swabquote}} or {{kenquote}}. This was I think in Template:Cpquote. As of where to find those words, you may want to ask in Talk:WIGO CP. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, wherever does that quote addressed to ProblemChimp come from? I'd like to put it, properly referenced, on my user page. Is it really true that I've only had a RW account for 9 days, have never posted on CP so far as I know (though I suppose it's possible I did so accidentally), and have already had the benefit of a personalised post by Blue-arsed Fly? I feel honoured. I'd like to thank my agent, my family, and all the friends and other people whose necks I've trodden on to be here today.
BTW do you suspect that your and my recent improvements to Premarital sex may not have been what the preceding editor had in mind? ProblemChimp (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I had in mind the truth that any sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation in the context of marriage is a complete and utter abomination. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought that that was what was in you're pleased to call your mind. After my mother died, my father remarried. My stepmother (who has since passed away) was then past the age of childbearing. Thank you for taking the trouble to desecrate her memory, not everyone would have had the courtesy to do so :-) ProblemChimp (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not mean to attack any specific individuals, and my condolences for your loss, but it is quite clear in the Bible what moral standards are. --Elvis is King (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You just did. Now please explain why the conjugal relations which my father and stepmother had were - in your words - a complete and utter abomination. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." (1 Corinthians 7:8) among other verses I can produce upon request. The institution of marriage logically was to allow persons to bear fruit. This is as simple as it gets. After the fall of man, it was all corrupted and what once was a holy act of God became severely twisted into a Satanic hedonistic means of pleasure. I am not condemning any persons, but the act itself. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." --Elvis is King (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer my point. You described my father and stepmother's conjugal relations as "a complete and utter abomination". ProblemChimp (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If the relations do not bear fruit, they are in the name of vain pleasure. That is a very simple concept, yes? --Elvis is King (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed. But you described my father and stepmother's loving conjugal relations as "a complete and utter abomination". I'm waiting for an explanation. Your move. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That vain pleasure by its very nature . That act was intended with the sole purpose of fruitbearing.--Elvis is King (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah OK, then. Could you please provide, as requested, Scriptural authority that sexual relations between a newly-married loving couple over sixty years old are (your words) "a complete and utter abomination"?
@@K61824, I'm sorry to have hijacked your talk page like this (that's a lie, some opportunities are too tempting to resist). I hope you're enjoying this fruitful discourse :-) ProblemChimp (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is simply there. In the Bible, it is solely a necessary evil that by through the means of said relations, that new persons are brought into being. After the Fall, Satan corrupted those means into the depravity of pleasure. It is a very simple concept, and any glance through the Scriptures will validate this. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Please keep to the subject. You said "I had in mind the truth that any sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation in the context of marriage is a complete and utter abomination". Scriptural authority for that statement, if you please, with particular application to my father and stepmother's situation, because you insult them both. Chapter and Verse. I'm waiting. ProblemChimp (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There may not be a particular verse about a particular situation, but the Bible makes it clear that these means are intended SOLELY for the purpose of continuing the species. This is the SOLE, the ONLY purpose. The Bible makes this extremely clear, and anyone with an open mind can see this. Just because there is not a SPECIFIC verse for a SPECIFIC situation, does not make it okay. The Bible does not reference pornography, so does that make it moral? The Bible does not mention marijuana, so does that make it moral? Of course not. The Bible has references against sexual immorality and intoxication. --Elvis is King (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I asked you to justify your assertion, "I had in mind the truth that any sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation in the context of marriage is a complete and utter abomination", in the context of my father and stepmother, who was past the age of childbearing when they married. You have not done so. Your introduction of pornography and marijuana into this discussion is irrelevant, and insulting to people I respect and admire. ProblemChimp (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


What exactly did you want? I gave you the basis in Scripture that it is prohibited because the SOLE purpose of relations is childbirth. God intended it for that purpose and that purpose only, and the Bible makes it perfectly clear. If you stopped showing behaviors of conceited liberals, and opened your mind to it, you would realize. At least you're not as bad as the libertarian T Swizzle loving wacko. --Elvis is King (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Yale Review Article.

Enable your email so I can get it to you. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I got mine through my library so I actually don't. I thought people would require library access to get it so I asked who has to read it. Thanks though. ThiehTK = Terry Koeckritz 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

Funny. Acei9 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the obligatory Appalachian trail joke. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 01:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] oops

Small screen big finger!Scream!! (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

"This user prefers music in languages that he does not understand." I may have to steal that one for my own page... Abed Nadir (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

" that he does not understand" Outrageous MRA sexist bias. Unless it refers to God, in which case He requires an initial capital. Template needs editing. ProblemChimp (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support