AdaptableRatman

You are meant to do it to 5 Mysteries btw and add a couple prayers, 1 befor 2 after.

Not likely. It is pro able he made others after them as 1st gens. It is doubtful he made them, they had 2 sons, then a 3rd hundreda of years later then more as Adam lived to 900 and they continued by centarian incest. especially with Abel killed. It is not a likely timeline.

God clearly made others after A and E.

Also during Noahs Flood, the A and E bloodline clearly got drowned.

As us Catholics say, everyone is a sinner.

And there is Eve is in eve-ryone...

God definitely exists. He also definitely allows suffering and watches it happen, fully able to prevent it, choosing not to at times.

You have gone astray.

I remind that Shila is having at least 10 posts explicitly being a Holocaust apologetic directly towards a Jewish member and that is in this thread alone, she has been antisemitic elsewhere.

Catholicism embraces neither of these 2 fully, that is why Mother Teresa ends up neither.

Epicureanism separates good from bad pleasure and pushes agaisnt excess pleasure.

Stoics are miserable but mask it, spreading negative vibes around.

The Epicureans are the good vibes people who are honest and easygoing.

Both are not completely ideal in their ideology, stoics just think they are.

In my experience, the Epicureans grow up into stoics as they mature. This is a doom for them as they lack God and Christianity.

I have never in my life felt as accepted even with my weirdness, as among Catholics.

However, I am sure if I was severely strange looking or had tourettes that made me tic during Mass, I would be experiencing another side of some.

What I know is that Caths are the real deal. They know everyone is a sinner and forgive easier compared to others.

Stoicism presents as what you said.

Yet when you look more into it and don't just take cute quotes, you realise it is 'shut up and suffer worm' military hazing turned into an entire life philosophy.

I subscribe to neither.

I subscribe to Catholicism point blank, period.

All else is false.

In fact, on this topic I gradually realised I already agreed so much with Christianity anyway preconversion. My main conflict was on masturbation and on the rules in general but when I agreed with all the core principles after all my years alive it led to me realising the God that I had been mixing with Satan in my delusion had always been the triune Yhwh. Christ, Father, Holy Spirit.

Do you very rarely use the thumb button to like posts you agree with or appreciate?

As for what you said, the same issue is found in Buddhism. As ADOL said there is a parallel.

It is all lined up with the self-help movement. It is as much an Andrew Tate ethos as it is a Shaolin Monk ethos. It is as much a NFL player's ethos in hospital getting surgery for a torn ACL as it is the mentality of an abused wife enduring it for the sake of marriage.

Islam is extremely Stoic. Orthodox branches of Christianity sort of say to be it, especially for men.

The truth is numbing oneself to pain involves numbing to pleasure.

Stoicism works in poker. It works for debating here. In life though, it ends up making one too numb to anything feeling fulfilling.

Why is this in DART section?

Based on reading, Epicureanism is closer to what is healthiest between the 2.

It specifies good and bad types of pleasure and how to seek them out. Catholicism discourages pain for the sake of pain. Masochism is also cheating in Catholicism. If you sacrifice on Fridays and during all of Lent but you enjoy it masochistically, you are cheating. God will know.

You need to realise we do not dislike pleasure at all. We support good pleasure and resent evil pleasure.

Yeah you oversimplified Stoicism way too much. Stoicism is toxic and leads to nihilism and depression. I would say in many ways Orthodoxy in almost all religions that have an Orthodox variant pushes us to be Stoic.

Almost all terrorist organisations are very Stoic as are the wilful victims of tyannical regimes (both extremes). It is sort of a nonsense outlook to be masochistic yet tough enough to fight back fully all at once.

Idk much about that other one. Could be good, could be bad.

Yes.

And let us know how the gentiles get to Heaven. 7 laws of Noah are far too vague.

It leaves no room for gentiles to have a relationship with Yhwh.

Yes he has. I tell that boldly and truly.

Convert today. Save yourself.

Blood is in this video so nsfw sort of.

Because when your side has to avoid an inconvenient truth of a gaping polthole of a future Messiah and is racist as it holds 1 ethnicity elite above all others in God's eyes, it leaves little motive to argue the topic.

What is gone?

I can forgive you and still tell you where you are going wrong.

Of all the posts to reply to, you chose that.

The last part I don't relate to. If I lose the argument I feel good too if we mean irl while bonding. The other typically feels unhappy though. I seem to drain most.

And when they exist are often too toxic as a person to be my friend and/or too low intellect to stimulate me.

It is what it is. I am a sheep, Christ is the shepherd. I just wonder why he wired me as a mountain goat.

I don't want many friends. This thread wasn't made for that but I accept it has evolved that way.

I think I am a rare enigma that actually enjoys arguing. I get actual pleasure when doing it as long as it is respectful.

If someone tells me they have a hobby, I want to know a lot about it. So I instinctively interrogate them. I probe.

This is not even arguing, many take this as hostile. Then as I evolve the conversation I challenge with 'why's and 'how about's, I come at them arguing to let them fight back and listen.

This is how I instinctively was built by God in my brain to show love and it made me countless enemies and left me alone. I learned how to refine it over time.

I know what you are saying, I do understand aquaintences/neighbours that require the fake mask. I don't even know why Christianity says lying is a sin, people like me need to semi-regularly lie and metaphorically bite our tongue to survive and not be cancelled or hated.

I try to avoid people I need to lie around or be fake with but some can't be entirely avoided especially and ironically if I am to be a good Christian to said people.

The Bible said thou shalt not bear false witness but that is not entirely the case. It also implies refusing to snitch or tell whole truth is a sin too. This means in that sense I hold back myntruenoponiooks seminoften, enough yo be true to 'everyone is a sinner'. I would rather be fake and a decent human than ruthlessly blunt and tell most what is really on my mind.

Don't make your misogyny this obvious.

You truly need to stop it.

I mean if I did I'd keep it secret if I hit an irl championship or something.

If you mean here, yes it is literally a need. While off here I used other areas of Internet to flex it because I began to argue too hard with people irl and annoyed them. It is a literal need. Literally. I need it more than exercise, I am not exaggerating it. If I don't argue for 3-4 days at all, I begin to burst with the urge to the point my heart races. It maybe is an addiction but I don't think so. Imagine the urge to argue is so strong you have to battle yourself and pray to avoid arguing over something as simple as how to cook some chicken, exploring every possibility. That is how it gets for me, every hour if I go cold turkey on it (I could have said 'cook turkey' for a pun but I am being serious.)

None I was into debating so young you wouldn't believe it at first. I was born to argue.

Does it affect you irl socially?

Yes. It is called perspective.

This could be in Personal or People subforum instead but in the long run this subforum (DebateArt.com) will get the thread maximal visibility.

I am not speaking from a professional perspective here, it is a private theory I hold but I do think I can challenge pros at this dichotomy once they realise guys like myself exist. (It is a dichotimy, no third option, I have become quite certain)

Autism is definitely part of it but that label (diagnosis) includes many who do not like to argue at all. 

There seems to be a subset of primarily autistic and/or schizophrenic types of people who are geared towards argumentation. These people are rare even on websites like this. They actually thrive in debates and enjoy arguing itself.

All our young lives we get labelled an obnoxious, unruly, irritating etc guy/girl, branded toxic, pushed to conform, be timid and tame. Even many who will try to love us will fail to and accidentally emotionally abuse us by trying to 'guide' us to kill off a vital part of our core self.

The issue is these people do not mean harm by their wiring. They actually mean to find truth or alternatively to help a person bite back with backbone and confidence and both help the other grow and gain perspective on his/her side of the argument.

We make enemies constantly the moment the 'real us' shows and those that are similar to us have often been hardened and traumatised to the point that they are cold and jaded.

The others do not have an in-between aspect to them, if I am correct on my theory they are not ever in between. This is not a hypothesis, it is a theory I formed with multiple people I met online and offline as data points. People are either geared towards agreement or towards argumentation (which is mistaken as wanting to always disagree).

This tendency to argue is mistaken as rebellion for the sake of rebellion. I do not mean that trait or attitude. I mean people who when their new colleague says the religion he/she belongs to, want to immediately explore it, tear it to pieces and be fascinated or fascinate the other, either way. This is consistently received as toxic, rude and/or malicious whereas the natural arguer instinctively means it as a form of connection that they feel cannot be achieved by ignoring the religion in-depth and pushing it aside.

This can be anything from characters in TV shows to the best car brand. We argue by nature and show love and care by it even, which leads to natural nonarguers bullying us, shaming us or other methods of emotional abuse and they see us as the aggressor consistently.

Words of a rich man that never knew poverty.

Wrong. I had a social media resurrection here. You did too.

In DART? I lost faith. I hope I can fix it as head mod some day.

In God? Not lost any.

Wrong. Different privileges exist.

Nice to be privileged.

He isn't funny though, he is genuinely repulsive to me.

0 likes. As you wish DART.

It is for everyone to read not a singular response.

Tell me what you want,

Now show me how you work,

Self-help's of the devil,

Its pride replacing shirk,

Instead of being an obvious sad loser that hurts,

You mask the pain with effort like a superficial jerk.

Is it any surprise Andrew Tate sins and is a big time dead beat, even?

What exactly is it that you think went down in Eden,

Did you think Eve saw the apple and went hmm I'll focus on my  breathin'?

Think she prayed to Father and said 'rid me of my demons'?

Thinking that she's free but she's a measly slave to feeling.

What exactly is the story? What's the lesson from the verse?

What good is saying sorry when you're too incapable to own why your life is cursed,

You keep defying Yahweh the holiest and wonder why it hurts,

Too proud to shut up kneel and obey Rome, so you put yourself first,

You think it's an option, a game, A construct of manmade works,

There is a secret system to head to heaven from the hearse,

Are you sure that you're ready for eternal thirst... You could have had the fountain, you rejected every slurp.

It's all well and good getting up to hustle fame and money,

You will feel empty and turn to drugs, get ruined, Robin Williams, Chester Bennington, Liam Payne... It isn't funny.

Tell me do you want to be saved?

As the Muslims say, you're always a slave,

Do you want to serve the Lord, obey behave,

Christ came as the saviour, so tell me are you brave?

It takes a real brave man or woman to admit he or she's depraved,

To sacrifice even their urge to save themselves to submissively kneel and pray.

You want to talk the talk and walk the walk on a lane that you yourself built,

But this is all of his design, you're ignoring who made the bed, too focused on the quilt,

Too worried about a rush and passion to be filled with Holy Spirit... You are devoid of emotional security whether you got a cuppa hunnehd mill or the guarantee of thrills,

What you think, your life is fixed because of some pills?

Fine. Okay. Cool then. That's chill.

Profanity is a sign of weakness spiritually, typically. That is understandable but try and be better.

Women do not need men more than men need women. I will agree the needs are different. We both know on average which gender is more important for revolutions and inventions vs which is more important for bringing new life, empathy and helping a community be 'gelled together' rather than divided.

We need both.

As a Catholic, I don't mind celibaye men or women denying the neednfor one another in that way. After all, if you think you need men you will still seek men and want to cheat once you have a man and vice versa.

We need God. We must serve God as a unit. Whether that unit be a hetero couple complementing each other's strengths and weaknesses or a unified community.

Secularism is the actual root issue.

So... Men are leaders etc but you also think women should be held solely responsible for losing respect for the leaders?

Can you pick which of the 2 you stick to?

Loaded question unless you mean as safeguarders or potential perpetrators.

I refuse to engage in a question that loads victim blaming into whatever answer is given.

Scenario is a forest. I tried to explain a baseline fear women have that is higher than men, regarding even going out at night.

Do you want to understand why some women said they'd prefer the bear in the foret scenario or do you want to change the scenario to further prove why you'd pick man?