Nobody gets upset when you want to eat your cereal with two spoons...

It isn't wrong to want to feel special and to view sex as a special, intimate thing you should only share with a few or just ONE person. It doesn't matter that he can't go back in time and unfuck all those dudes/uneat those cereals because if he's so proud of himself and his past he should be happy to be open about it with prospective partners. Unless... he just wants to shame people into conforming to his moral standards? Or worse, he's so ashamed and wants to mislead people into sleeping with him? It's funny how the sex positive people change their tune when people suddenly arent interested in their promiscuous, STD infested asses

Of course not. Tiny white cereals just can't compete

I like dicks in my cereal!

But we *can* tell girls who haven't had sterile loads of genetic material dumped inside of them not to start though Mr Green, as a Christian you should be for this. And as for the ones who can't un-lose their virginities, they can at least stabilize their lives by closing their fucking legs. I do agree men need to be called out though. No man wants a woman who has been passed around over one who hasn't, but how many men are willing to pass women around?

Lmao no you fucking cuck, look up telegony and microchimerism. Enjoy raising another man's half-kids.

CEREALED

Christians are all fucking cancerous cucks just like their founder. Fucking Christcucks being spineless pussies and surrendering to feminists is why we are in this position.

If you accept the sexual revolution you're doing Christianity wrong. Contraception is a sin.

Strawman/red herring argument, the guy never mentioned kids. His point is that you can't get hung up on someone's past if you want to have a good relationship with their present self

Why did and still do Christcucks pussy out and give into feminists and wimmenz?

Any other religion would have demolished the feminist cunts. But Christcucks not only enabled them to spread their cancer, they also completely gave into them. Fucking shit.

Do you not know that women wash their vaginas?

They do?
How, and how often?

Because the people you're calling 'Christcucks' found it easier to be Americans/normalfaggots than Christians. Feminism and the sexual revolution were only able to take over after Christendom fucking died in case you didn't notice. No practicing and sincere Christian is for this stuff. Idiots like John Green are lying to themselves to stay sane and popular, that's the most charitable explanation for his behaviour. That or he's actively trying to undermine Christendom.

Good thing Christianity is for weak minded retards, then.

They can wash their vaginas but they can't wash their personalities/memories/experiences.

It doesn't take strength to live enslaved to your passions.

Look, I can understand your intentions are good (traditionalism), but Christianity is the most anti-traditionalist religion to have ever existed. Even Jesus said he came to turn father against son, mother against daughter.

And all Christians worldwide are cucked nowadays especially in terms of feminism. Doesn't matter what sect they are.

Why do you believe in this?

How exactly does hypergamy impact your personality? I think you're severely overestimating the effect of previous sexual experiences. Why exactly does it matter if a women has the memory/experience of screwing someone (or more) else? If that's the issue, should it not be applied to men too?

You'd rather be "enslaved" to a mythical being with little to no proof of it's existence than the things you enjoy? Also, how exactly is one "enslaved to their passions"?

Because she's loved, in the romantic and emotional sense, multiple more men before me. I don't care as much that her pussy has been given, it's that her heart has been given. Even if it's not true or genuine love, each relationship the capacity for love is reduced. Hence why all the statistics point to, the more past partners/relationships, the more likely a relationship is to fail.

The more things you're not her first of, the less space in her heart you'll have. Maybe some women have the capacity to love wholly who they're with, but most as it's been shown, don't. Most will always have some feelings for those other men.

And I don't support the double standard, I think men should be shamed or punished or whatever you want to do to women who are sluts as well.

>Why exactly does it matter if a women has the memory/experience of screwing someone (or more) else? If that's the issue, should it not be applied to men too?
Because it's hard for men to have a lot of sex. It's difficult for women not to.

A man having a lot of sex is a sign of someone that's mastered their own destiny and has achieved something that they want through great tribulation.

A woman having a lot of sex is a sign of someone with no filter that just does things because it felt good in the moment and lacks forward-thinking skills.

Master key, shitty lock.

It's not inherently true. A man having a lot of sex can be a bad thing and a woman having a lot of sex can be a good thing.
But it stands to reason, and everyone smells bullshit from a mile away when feminists try to convince people that there's no reason for a woman having sex with 50 different people to be a red flag.

My intentions aren't 'traditionalism', my intention is Christianity. Something isn't good just because it's a tradition, at this point feminism is a tradition of its own. And Christianity isn't even really my tradition, my family didn't raise me into it.

>Christianity is the most anti-traditionalist religion to have ever existed
Depends on how you define tradition
>Even Jesus said he came to turn father against son, mother against daughter.
If your parents were feminists would you support them in this?

>And all Christians worldwide are cucked nowadays especially in terms of feminism. Doesn't matter what sect they are.
Tell the Society of Saint Pious X that they're cucks, they'll probably physically kick your ass and then try to convert you while you're crawling away. I believe in Christianity because it feels like the natural fulfillment of human existence. Its moral law is perfect, its commands are all reasonable, the narrative simply works on a level that no other religion's does.

You're a slave to something that controls you. A passion is something which stirs you and gets in the way of your thinking. You can't think until it's addressed. It commands and you answer. I'm not a slave to God in any sense. We're all bound to him, but this is simultaneously the loosest and most important bond in the world. God is the lawgiver, judge and and savior but I'm under the obligation to listen to him and neither are you. I choose to because there's nothing else I can think of that's more worth doing.

Emotional baggage, fucked conceptions of how relationships ought to be, etc.

nobody gets upset if you open up a box of cereal as soon as you get home from the store, but suddenly if you want to fuck a 17 year old it's a big deal for some reason

>the more things your not her first of, the less space in her heart you;ll have

I vaguely agree with that actually - I've experienced so many new things with my boyfriend and he's my first. He was the first person I was intimate with - but NOT the first person I had sex with - and he's still unhappy with that. But it's true that I remember all the first things I've had with him and it's hard to imagine me not remembering them afterwards.

I'm wondering if this changes with time; as you get older, I imagine previous experiences and 'firsts' don't matter as much as living in the now and making the most out of a situation despite regretful decisions.

Lol, its moral laws are perfect? Christianity is so cucked, Jesus taught you that even if you were going to be murdered you shouldn't fight back. And it's fucking patently bullshit. Why would an all-knowing God even test humans if he knew whether we would succeed or fail (due to being all-knowing)? Stop believing in retarded fairy tales.

I don't think it's the case, otherwise statistically multiple-partner people wouldn't always have worse relationship success the more partners they have.

Oh, it's absolutely easier for women to get sex. Being a man who's had more sex is definitely more of a feat than being a woman who has (there's an argument to be made that this could be due to the attitude reflected here that being promiscuous is automatically shameful).

But if this person's issue is simply that a woman has a memory/experience of screwing another person, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to men too.

Yes, but I'd still argue there's probably an underlying issue with anyone being promiscuous to a ridiculous degree. Sex isn't harmful, but if it's to the point where you're screwing complete strangers a ridiculous amount, you should probably try to understand why you do that (not to mention the obvious dangers of STDs and doing something that puts you in such a vulnerable position with someone you hardly know).

>why it shouldn't apply to men too

IT SHOULD

kek did not expect that

Attached: 1520029906065.jpg (219x230, 10K)

lmao this this guy actually say this shit? is there an original source?

I'll say it again, is not how many guys you have fucked, but how you carry yourself.
I find it quite telling that every single insult/remark I throw at this two whores also applies to you as well Rachael, you are just like them, at least to me.

Attached: Rachael_wants_to_be_Traditional_but_her_actions_wont_let_her..gif (320x240, 715K)

>john green posters came back
is that time again

Attached: debuking jhon green.png (1305x947, 401K)

WHOLE GRAINED

>Jesus taught you that even if you were going to be murdered you shouldn't fight back
You can read a lot into this. Augustine (who is a saint, meaning the Vatican officially confirm that he is in heaven) justified Christians going to war. Jesus' followers won over millions by this example though, so it's not something which needs to be excused or talked around either.

>Why would an all-knowing God even test humans if he knew whether we would succeed or fail (due to being all-knowing)?
The tests are more for our sake than God's. God exists outside of time so the end of your life is just as known to him as the beginning and this always has been. He knows how it'll turn out but you still have to experience it. You won't know whether you'll succeed or fail until you do.

Bland tasteless "healthy" grain cereal?

Or CHOCOLATE cereal?

>dudebro jacks off into my cereal
>JUST EAT IT BRAH Xd

Attached: 1534834890847.jpg (3192x2124, 678K)

>many sexual partners means they lavue each one less, less emotional connection
But purely 'sexual' partners don't result in emotional connection. I can see that reasoning applying to multiple bf/gf though.

>they adjust their personality to that person
Likewise, for sexual encounters this isn't exactly applicable.

So multiple previous sexual encounters is more preferable to multiple previous relationships? How does that make sense?

Future behavior is best predicted by looking at past behavior

>if you want to have a good relationship with their present self
Nobody wants/expect to have a good relationship with a slut.

>So multiple previous sexual encounters is more preferable to multiple previous relationships? How does that make sense?
Read the last sentence.

And yet the current Pope disagrees. So which is it? Which one of these two men, both supposedly appointed/approved of by God, is wrong?

>The tests are more for our sake than God's. God exists outside of time so the end of your life is just as known to him as the beginning and this always has been. He knows how it'll turn out but you still have to experience it. You won't know whether you'll succeed or fail until you do.

And that makes utterly no sense. What's the point of me going through this test if the person testing me knows the outcome? And to top it off, the person who is testing me, despite knowing the outcome especially because he made me, will torture me eternally or give me eternal bliss.

Come on, even you have to see the absurdity in that.

So would you eat he cherios if they were washed after every mouth they've been in

>who's wrong
Pope Francis obviously. His statements were, as always, twisted by the media to sound as bad as possible. But he was still wrong. What he should have said clearly was "we have the means to never need to resort to execution anymore". By declaring it utterly wrong he just contradicted 2000 years of Church tradition based on feelings.

>And that makes utterly no sense. What's the point of me going through this test if the person testing me knows the outcome?
Why would God even make you at all? That's a more interesting question. I think that it's so that you have the chance to be as perfect as God is. From the moment he created existence God created you and your fate, your experience of this fate is solely for your own benefit.

>the person who is testing me, despite knowing the outcome especially because he made me, will torture me eternally or give me eternal bliss.
You have free will, any failings will be your own fault. God knows everything about you, everything you are, were or will be, but you're the one at the reins. Your life is like a memory to God, but not for you. Think of it this way, you can choose the fate God already knows.

Women are not cereal or any other inanimate object

>Do you not know that women wash their vaginas?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism

When I eat cereal no one cares. But when I cannibalise humans everyone loses their mind. Like what is wrong with society?

Oh, but the Pope is divinely sanctioned and approved of by God. So how can he be wrong?

As for free will, what is the point when the person who made you already knows the outcome? Like some people are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors - e.g, theft for example. Did God make them like that so their chances of failing are increased?

Anyway, it's fucking retarded. Someone who lives a hard life and turns away from God is punished, but a Chad who lives an easy life and just pays lip service will get heaven. Dumb.

>how can Francis be wrong?
Because he's a human being and he belongs to a particularly sketchy sub-culture within the Vatican which fell for the modernist meme and likes to push weird ideas and make people uncomfortable.

>As for free will, what is the point when the person who made you already knows the outcome?
What's the point in making you at all? To love God. You can't love by compulsion or mechanical reacton because love is an effort/choice. The point of free will is to create the opportunity for you to be good, by creating the potential for evil, God can't not know anything so of course the moment he created humanity with free will he immediately knew how the entirety of human history would go, but I don't see how that matters.

>Like some people are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors - e.g, theft for example. Did God make them like that so their chances of failing are increased?
We all have it in us to succeed. Heaven is probably full of people you wouldn't expect to meet there, same with Hell. We're all predisposed towards sin, which is what matters in God's eyes.

>Someone who lives a hard life and turns away from God is punished
Yes
>a Chad who lives an easy life and just pays lip service will get heaven
Did Jesus ask the crowd who followed him for an hour on Sundays, alms for the poor occasionally and to generally be cool guys or did he ask them to give all they had for him and God until they were dead?

But the Pope is meant to be infallible.

As for the point of making me, there is none. What is the point of God making malaria? Or parasites? Nothing. Just as with humanity. Honestly, as a robot you should know this better than anyone. Why make some ugly and short, while others are tall and beautiful? Why make the test far harder for some and far easier for others? How is this fair?

>inb4 beautiful people have more premarital sex

Yes, and they can just pray for forgiveness and all is well so long as they accept Jebus. Meanwhile an ugly, bitter guy will go to hell even if he stays away from degeneracy because Jebus said so.

So no, this explanation does not suffice.