Forum rules discussion thread
- Thread starter Bird
- Start date
I have, on multiple occasions, had fleeting thoughts about converting to Islam. I imagined that if I did convert, I would gain easier access to women and likely enjoy a higher quality of life. From my perspective, Islam seems to promote a "do what you want, say what you want, take what you want" mentality. I often see Muslims living large—with multiple big houses and cars—receiving respect from others without necessarily having to return it.
Despite all of that, I remain loyal to our Lord Jesus Christ and have never seriously considered leaving Christianity. However, I can understand how Andrew Tate arrived at the conclusion that Islam is better for him.
Despite all of that, I remain loyal to our Lord Jesus Christ and have never seriously considered leaving Christianity. However, I can understand how Andrew Tate arrived at the conclusion that Islam is better for him.
Using this definition, how could I ever be overly concerned with vanity? When have I ever taken pride in myself or admired myself excessively? In fact, I have always stated that I'm starting from the bottom and working my way up. Not once have I promoted or indulged in self-aggrandizement.
I don't really get involved in forum drama or politics so I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another on this topic. I wish people would spend more time focusing on Christ and less on arguments about wordly things. Aside from that, I just hope they treat each other with respect, humility, and kindness. I don't think imaginary Internet points are very important. Unless it is preventing you from being able to use the site, which I don't think it is, then I suggest you relax and try to move on your with life. That is just my 2 cents, since you asked.
Agreed. Magoo has already stated in this thread that nobody should care about points—they should simply write whatever they believe is worthwhile, regardless of the reaction.
Although for me personally, receiving a negative reaction from Samseau feels far more painful than getting one from other members.
Although for me personally, receiving a negative reaction from Samseau feels far more painful than getting one from other members.
Those are good points. Personally, I follow a single rule when posting: I imagine Samseau is watching my posts and consider what he might think—would he approve, or would he disapprove? He has little tolerance for low-quality posts and consistently upholds a high standard for discussions in the forum.
On multiple occasions, I have been caught by him posting low-quality content. At first, he tolerated it, but when I continued, he issued a warning. Repeated low-quality posts eventually tested his patience, and that is something I find genuinely intimidating.
On multiple occasions, I have been caught by him posting low-quality content. At first, he tolerated it, but when I continued, he issued a warning. Repeated low-quality posts eventually tested his patience, and that is something I find genuinely intimidating.
Caduceus after dissing half the forum and challenging their manliness:
Ladies, you can call me CHADuceus
Caduceus after one week of waking up to 246,000 daily 'demented tranny' reactions, thanks to a bespoke Xenforo bot designed via weaponised male autism:
P.S. Less flippantly though:
Chad confirmed
This has got to be one of the funniest thread conversations I've seen in awhile.
A part of me really enjoys adversarial discourse, I also enjoy reading heated exchanges as well. I understand extreme passions aren't good for the soul but if men do not push each other it stifles improvement all the same.
Jesus also always expressed his dislike over certain things, he rebuked his disciples or called them faithless.
A part of me really enjoys adversarial discourse, I also enjoy reading heated exchanges as well. I understand extreme passions aren't good for the soul but if men do not push each other it stifles improvement all the same.
Jesus also always expressed his dislike over certain things, he rebuked his disciples or called them faithless.
You got downvoted before because you're suggesting it's worthwhile to sell one's soul for a bit of money and women. It's a terrible trade my friend do not deceive yourself.
I do not think you are vain but you do crave worldly pleasures, believe me if you got them you'd understand they aren't more valuable than God.
For what it is worth, I know how you feel. I still remember the first time Roosh gave me warning points over something silly. I was shocked and felt mortified. You'll get over it. I'm sure Samseau didn't mean any harm and only wants the best for you and the forum, and I am glad to hear you reflected on it and adjusted your posting and tried to do better.
Generally my sentiments as well
I don't generally bother indicating what I like or don't like. Some parts of the same comment can be more likable than others.
Maybe a commenter can ask Chat GPT what his views are based on what he said or liked/disliked. In the days of AI web crawlers, a very detailed personal file can be assembled.
I’m sorry, but as far as I know, things are not as clear-cut as this—there are many more variables at play. I believe this rule needs to be explained in greater detail. I’ll share some quotes from previous discussions on this forum.
From the quotes above, we can conclude that sex with a virgin woman is strictly forbidden—there are no exceptions, and this is very clear. However, when it comes to sex with a non-virgin woman, the Bible is less explicit. It is not recommended, but neither is it expressly forbidden, making this a gray area.
Another act that constitutes fornication is whoring (paying for sex), as well as indulging in pornography (so-called “e-whores”).
Once again, sex with a non-virgin woman remains a gray area.
Another act that constitutes fornication is whoring (paying for sex), as well as indulging in pornography (so-called “e-whores”).
Once again, sex with a non-virgin woman remains a gray area.
Maybe you should talk to your priest about that as mine is pretty clear on that subject.
We all sin there are no saints here I sure as heck am not one, but rule or no rule that doesn't mean we have to actively promote sin. You're on the wrong forum for the wrong reasons if you're looking for clarification on that rule reaching for technicalities.
Good idea. Or perhaps the forum’s de facto priests could offer their opinions. Knowledgeable members in the teachings of Christ—such as Doulos tou Christou, Samseau, GodfatherPartTwo, Gazza, and others—could establish rulings that make final decisions based on the facts I presented earlier.
But how can we be promoting sin if the act itself is not explicitly forbidden? Remember, the Bible must be understood in its original context, and misinterpreting its words can lead to false assumptions. It’s not just me who thinks this way—based on the quotes I shared, several other members also believe that not all sex outside of marriage is automatically sinful. I think this deserves further clarification before establishing a new forum rule.
Iakobos
Orthodox
As Orthodox we don't only have the Bible we also have the Church tradition and the teachings of the fathers which are very clear in this matter that sex outside of marriage is fornication. Like the other gentleman said, asking your priest is the best thing to do, but we can't allow ourselves to rationalize our way into what is clearly recognized sin.
Sex outside marriage is a sin I really don't think that is up for debate. One of those quotes you posted is from someone who isn't a Christian the other is a question and the third is the answer to that question. None were interpreting the Bible it was a conversation of personal opinions and not even a condonation except of course from the non Christian. You're really reaching here brother, there are plenty of other places on the internet where you can justify your pursuit of sex if that's what you want to do....let's do our best to at least not promote sin here even if we are all sinners.
Last edited:
Fair enough. I’ll provide one more source to explain my position—I hope this will be sufficient.
Here are some quotes from the link I provided:
My intention is not to promote sin or to encourage the pursuit of sex. My intention is to uphold the truth. If there is truly no biblical rule prohibiting sex outside of marriage—particularly with a non-virgin woman—then we must follow what the Bible actually says. Why make Christianity stricter without biblical basis?
Furthermore, in the Old Testament many men had concubines or multiple wives. What do we say about that? This is far more complex than simply sex with non-virgins, yet it is recorded in the Bible.
That is why I believe this new forum rule requires further explanation or adjustment.
Furthermore, in the Old Testament many men had concubines or multiple wives. What do we say about that? This is far more complex than simply sex with non-virgins, yet it is recorded in the Bible.
That is why I believe this new forum rule requires further explanation or adjustment.
I agree with what @FrancisK said. The distinction some have made between pursuing virgins for sex vs non-virgins for sex is not Biblical, and anyone who made the case for this ran into a lot of pushback. The Biblical law is no sex outside of marriage, for men or women, regardless if either has had sex outside of marriage previously. I can't be a Christian man and go around banging sluts and telling myself it's OK with God for me to do this because they're not virgins. Come on man! It doesn't work that way.
I know that these discussions happened in the past, but the threads they were in have been repeatedly shut down. We want to allow relationship talk, but we're not going to be allowing discussions about banging sluts, or dating non-virgins without the intent to marry. Anyone who is intending to commit this sin should at least have the decency not to try to discuss it with the other guys in the Christian forum.
As far as providing explanation, they've been explained. As far as adjustment, the Bible says what it says. The Reddit post is not Christian. It is blatantly dishonest. The Bible does explicitly condemn all fornication, which is any sex outside of marriage. You should know that Reddit as a source about Christian morality will be unChristian.
If you intend to have sex outside of marriage, you'll have to work that out with God. However, you can't expect a Christian forum to tell you it's ok.
Edit: I will do some research to be able to present the case that the Bible forbids fornication for Christians. However, I really think this doctrine is already well known.
Last edited:
I agree that it's self-defeating to make Christianity stricter than the Bible does for tradition's sake, but in this case, the Bible does forbid fornication.
1 Corinthians 6:9: Do not be deceived, fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The word "fornicator" here is sometimes translated as "sexually immoral." The Greek word behind it encompasses more than just "fornicator".
Since fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God, it would be irresponsible, for the sake of someone's salvation, for a Christian forum to take a pro or even neutral attitude towards fornication.