The wedding in the Church idiocy?
Max Hass Max Hass Max Hassstalker7162534
Uh, as anyone, it's all subjective. And what about the bride has to Say and run like a lamb PFFFF
The slave policy of the heel. You are the King of your life if someone you something like that say, while you were married, then YOU're a fool, because I do not deign to discuss this point before marriage. So a strange answer. Although you're a Stalker, you all can expect..
Any rituals seemed to me problematic from the awareness of the relevance of primitive fetishism, however, the idea of wedding idiocy can not name. Because of the lack of moral authority of social institutions, marriage in the Church can be considered adequate, as the Church, at least formally, has the moral authority. Based on the meaning of marriage the main aspect is to secure the promises in sorrow and in joy not to betray. A promise is not an obligation (legal term), a contract does not prescribe. How to give it value if modern society has lost all values? The only way - as fundamentally to convince the participants and guests of the wedding party in their own determination.
Church wedding, not that literally, but as far as possible, carries the existential function of marriage. In the presence of an individual other nravstvennyh and spiritual guidance, a Church wedding can be replaced with a wedding in Japan, the bunker, at the eternal flame on the match of Spartak, and so on. Importantly, the place had a divine essence.
GrekQ
GrekQ wrote:
Another slave
The response of the kitakamakura-a slave who believes himself to be free.
stalker7162534
I talked about that before the wedding will not come, if a couple, there are some differences in Outlook. I would simply dissuaded a close person about the existence of God and requires only some common sense no more. In General, discussing some nonsense, it is necessary to close a dispute, you can talk about it endlessly, BUT enough to attract the Science and the dispute would not have arisen.
stalker7162534
Okay, I admit, but common sense and coolness and beastly rage person must always carry ourselves, regardless of age and life events.
Gauguin wrote:
...but the repressive apparatus is not needed for the notorious things, but rather for society as a whole to prevent cultural degeneration.
And that to prevent cultural degeneration of a man for insulting the feelings of believers, the decision of the court is placed in a prison - the cultural and righteous place in the world where, of course, he will be exclusively spiritual enlightenment. Yes, Gauguin, of course, you sinteziruemy a lot of nonsense, but this is your gem about to prevent cultural degeneration - just something.
GrekQ
What is freedom and common sense in your opinion? Give me your definition, because we need to understand that talk about the same things.
Wing42
Wing42 wrote:
And that to prevent cultural degeneration of a man for insulting the feelings of believers by a court decision put in jail
If anything, I'm more for the good old corporal punishment and the death penalty for heinous crimes. The legacy of the scoop, i.e. the prison in its present form is:
1) the Extra burden to taxpayers
2) Cheap labor (for whom, I think you can guess)
3) an Institution which by virtue of established in it the Soviet-thug culture performs no corrective function (quite the contrary)
Wing42 wrote:
of course, you sinteziruemy a lot of nonsense
Don't need projections.
Wing42 wrote:
insulting the feelings of believers
The name of the law is misleading, although necessary. In fact, as said Stalker of the believer truly is impossible to offend. It is necessary for companies to indicate that Orthodox Christians more rights than atheists. So, in General, should be.
Gauguin wrote:
If anything, I'm more for the good old corporal punishment and the death penalty for heinous crimes.
Somewhere in some pop literature, I welcomed the statement that only God has the right to decide over the life of a man, not a court. With your philosophy you should be on the side of ordalii - that is to say God's judgment.
Gauguin wrote:
Don't need projections.
I'm just saying that it would be nice if you yourself understood what broadcast.
Gauguin wrote:
It is necessary for companies to indicate that Orthodox Christians more rights than atheists. So, in General, should be.
It's all pointless, because human judgment is based on facts and evidence, while faith does not need evidence, and the evidence for it does not bear any meaning. In other words, as a believer to prove to the court that he was a believer? Or how to distinguish the believer from the atheist to the human court, if he and the other say to the court that they ogogo what the believers? I think that the law on protection of feelings of believers, works on the principle of first come, first serve - who filed a complaint with the aggrieved party, whose feelings were insulted.
Gauguin wrote:
It is necessary for companies to indicate that Orthodox Christians more rights than atheists
To society need to have equal rights.
A law on protection of the rights of believers is just one of the tools for splitting the society - divide and conquer! I think.
Wing42
Wing42 wrote:
I'm just saying that it would be nice if you yourself understood what broadcast.
This is no problem, don't worry. What can be said about you.
Wing42 wrote:
only God has the right to decide over the life of a man, not a court
It is a pity that secular degraide understand it the way that suits them. But we all know...
Wing42 wrote:
In other words, as a believer to prove to the court that he was a believer? Or how to distinguish the believer from the atheist to the human court, if he and the other say to the court that they ogogo what the believers? I think that the law on protection of feelings of believers, works on the principle of first come, first serve - who filed a complaint with the aggrieved party, whose feelings were insulted.
You do not understand the law. Atheists are simply not allowed to open your mouth. Ie if he is revealed, you will understand his views. But as I said, it is necessary for companies. Of course, in the soul of man look can not tell the true believer from the fake, so you need to keep at least an external culture that atheistic garbage is not multiplied oral, so to speak.
stalker7162534
stalker7162534 wrote:
To society need to have equal rights.
In any case. Not taking into account shades and intermediates, there are people above (priests, monks, saints, cultural leaders, smart people, conservatives, etc.) and is below (atheists, Hedonists, liberals, consumers of modern mass culture, etc.). No equal rights there shouldn't be.
Gauguin wrote:
This is no problem, don't worry.
And with the mind and not say.
Gauguin wrote:
What can be said about you.
Oh, come on.
Gauguin wrote:
It is a pity that secular degraide understand it the way that suits them. But we all know...
What is the basis of this conclusion? Well, in addition to I am so cross as I raizza!?
Gauguin wrote:
You do not understand the law. Atheists are simply not allowed to open your mouth. Ie if he is revealed, you will understand his views. But as I said, it is necessary for companies. Of course, in the soul of man look can not tell the true believer from the fake, so you need to keep at least an external culture that atheistic garbage is not multiplied oral, so to speak.
Okay, okay, the way your mind works is quite simple. But what is your argument in favor of religion? Maybe she'll feed you (that's if you're not a priest, for the priests then, certainly, bathed in gold Yes, nuns from Friday to Sunday tear), give you Internet and electricity in the house? Honestly, you're too overestimate religion. Mind you, not faith, which is precisely the manifestation of spirituality in man, namely religion - how low Institute crowd control, which is based on her ignorance.