Recent content by Stargazer

No one here is insulting Mary. If by "veneration" you mean treat Mary with the kind of reverence that the Bible teaches is reserved only for God, then no, it's not appropriate. No, because Jesus is given that title in Holy Scripture. The title "queen" is never ascribed to Mary in Scripture...

What do you think has been said about Catholic theology here that has been ignorant?

You're one to talk, given that you don't even know who the one God of Christianity is. Also, no, Mary was not "venerated" from the beginning. No early orthodox Christian document venerates Mary. The Bible doesn't do it, the Apostolic Fathers don't do it, the early church fathers don't do it...

If it's just about truth, that's the idea that's (supposed to be) behind redpill. Truths that go against commonly held ideas in the culture. Ie, the truth that our modern society and legal system in Western countries is biased against men and in favor of women in a lot of ways. Blackpill goes...

The "black pill" is the logical conclusion of godless, libertarian self-centeredness. A kind of nihilism. It's poison.

The 25th Amendment is a thing that exists.

One, saying Moses had two wives simultaneously because of the reference to him having a Cushite as a wife is a reach. There is never a reference to Moses having multiple wives. The Cushite wife may not have been Zipporah, his Midianite wife, but Zipporah may have passed away and Moses could have...

@King Arts brought it up randomly in the other thread too. He seems to have a weird fixation on the idea that polygamy is not forbidden in the Bible.

I'm not watching that. And no, not everyone is an overseer, but you're avoiding my actual point and arguing in bad faith. The Bible identifies having more than one wife as something that brings reproach. Yes or no?

You acting like polygamy isn't prohibited anywhere in the Bible is itself bad faith and false, on its face. We've had this discussion before.

We know from Biblical teaching that polygamy is not ok. We don't need tradition outside of the Bible to know this. We've been over this before. You haven't defeated anything.

I'm not sure you comprehend what you think you're agreeing with.

My point stands. If you include your daughter's relationship with a woman when you talk about "marriage", you aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about.

You're not talking about marriage as I was talking about in the OP, then.

The question that evolutionary biology can't answer. About anything. Sure, it can try to explain why people have cared, historically. But just because people have cared in the past doesn't mean an individual ought to care in the present. Evolutionary biology can't present a reason for anyone...