/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

fat/lain/: Serial Experiments Lain stream party starts Wed, Sep 22 at 3:59am UTC

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (1.53 MB 1920x1080 backstabbing jew.png)
Anonymous 09/03/2021 (Fri) 12:34:50 No.1358
Why has the Church chosen to follow the world by supporting age of consent and anti-pedophilia? Biblically no distinction is made between children and adults for the purpose of sexuality, so why do even churches who follow the bible on other things like homosexuality go with the flow on this?
>>1379 "It is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, but it is impossible to win an argument with a very stupid person."
>>1380 Cope.
>>1381 No.
Open file (28.26 KB 755x1255 1424818271477.png)
>>1384 Not an argument.
>>1385 Also not an argument.
>>1386 I made an argument your response was "that's stupid" because you are the actual troll
>>1387 That isn't everything that i typed.
>>1388 That is all the substance
Why are you guys replying to a bait thread?
>>1392 Not an argument.
Open file (20.40 KB 478x200 ads.gif)
>>1394 Do you call yourself a Christian, sir? Because our God is called truth, and He calls us to reject all lies. All I ask is just one verse from any book of scripture which proves me wrong. Can you satisfy that request? To anyone reading this, if you consider yourself a bible believer or a truth seeker, it should concern you that the other side is barren of scripture and refuses to engage on that ground, and you must make a choice; will you follow God, or men?
Open file (3.46 KB 349x642 ( you).png)
>>1395 Fuck off retard, pedophilia is a sin.
Open file (27.20 KB 320x240 BibleKJV.jpg)
>>1358 >Why has the Church chosen to follow the world by supporting age of consent and anti-pedophilia? Do you mean supporting the laws of the court system and government as long as they are not against the law of Christ? Because as it says in Romans 13, >Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. >Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. >For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. The Bible also speaks against those who are contemptuous of government and who love to riot in the daytime when they don't get their way. So, we see that unless you can show how this law actually goes against one of our duties as Christ's followers, you have no Biblical argument on which to base your proposed actions, of going against some law that in this case frankly virtually everyone agrees with, except for losers who actually want to predate children for deviant causes - because they are so low as to have no qualms in preying on defenseless individuals in this society (although they still expect others not to do the same to them) in this society where familial influence and oversight has largely been diminished due to degenerate influences (i.e. the talmudvision). In other words, if people were taking advantage of you in whatever imaginable way by lying to you for their own gain, you would have a problem with it. Suddenly with this, you don't; which speaks volumes about your thought process. The fact that feminism and Judaism are consummate evil bears no weight on this fact. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. >When did the Church start capitulating its ideals It never did, you just don't understand our ideals. >All I ask is just one verse from any book of scripture which proves me wrong. I gave you the above, but since you ask for a single verse I will gladly give a separate answer to that. 1 Corinthians 7:38 >So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. We see from this verse, and from studying the context, that the head of the household who is the father is the one who decides whether to give the daughter in marriage. So that means someone trying to pick up children by hanging around middle schools or high schools, without walking right up to the father and asking him first, show that they are going contrary to the law of Christ. Have a good day sir.
>>1398 Proof? >>1399 >Do you mean supporting the laws of the court system and government as long as they are not against the law of Christ? Because as it says in Romans 13, >The Bible also speaks against those who are contemptuous of government and who love to riot in the daytime when they don't get their way. >So, we see that unless you can show how this law actually goes against one of our duties as Christ's followers So if it was legalized tomorrow you would have no objection? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but render unto God that which is God's. The family is the first institution God ever created, marriage is far older and far more valuable than the Church. Caesar has no right over it. Therefore, every good Christian ought to regard the age of consent as absolutely null and utterly void. >We see from this verse, and from studying the context, that the head of the household who is the father is the one who decides whether to give the daughter in marriage. So that means if the father gives his young daughter away there is no sin. >So that means someone trying to pick up children by hanging around middle schools or high schools, without walking right up to the father and asking him first, show that they are going contrary to the law of Christ. Again, I repeat we are talking about pedophilic relationships which satisfy biblical law regarding sexuality. That means objections to fornication, adultery, incest, homosexuality and any other sin other than pedophilia specifically and in and of itself are not valid. >Have a good day sir. You can try again if you like
Also if you do try again I suggest trying harder this time not to confuse your modernist presumption of malice on part of the pedophile with the text of scripture
>>1400 >So if it was legalized tomorrow you would have no objection? I would. >Therefore, every good Christian ought to regard the age of consent as absolutely null and utterly void. Your word is not convincing to anyone though. Notice how the only person that has any kind of problem with it is just a total degenerate. And everybody can see that. And if you don't want to follow the Scripture, that is your choice to sin willfully despite all the warnings. But as far as I know, you yourself are a feminist and coming here to stir up trouble and generate material just to try to misquote what people said on other forums. That's why I think nobody else should respond to this kind of troublemaking after having already been shown a perfectly good answer for all to see regarding why they are wrong. If you don't want to follow the Scripture, that is your choice. If you reject it, then it's to your own damnation. The above poster who referenced Christ is correct, "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
>>1403 >I would. Then make the objections that matter instead of wasting our time with frivolous temporary complaints. >Your word is not convincing to anyone though You presume much, and I have faith that the truth will prevail in the name of the Lord of truth. >And if you don't want to follow the Scripture The only one here who is quoted scripture without twisting it into knots is me. >That's why I think nobody else should respond to this kind of troublemaking after having already been shown a perfectly good answer for all to see Yes, let's talk about that "perfectly good answer" again, shall we? When you were challenged for scripture that justifies your position you instead of providing it chose to wax on about what bad people you believe pedophiles exactly like the man on TV taught you for exactly the reasons he taught you to, that is, not with any reference or otherwise use of scripture or any other religious thing, but by baselessly imputing malice <losers who actually want to predate children for deviant causes - because they are so low as to have no qualms in preying on defenseless individuals in this society This made up the largest and main portion of your "argument", and I am curious to know which passage of scripture this response was based on. Indeed, you proved for me my point that this hostility is derived from the traditions of the modern world rather than any word of the bible. It is precisely the same argument one would expect some common unbeliever off the street to make, when what was requested was the word of God. Then when you finally did get around to some actual scripture, you made yourself clear that in your mind it was an afterthought (your precise wording being "I gave you the above, but since you ask for a single verse"). And then, what was your prooftext after all that? <So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. It was a verse that is not about adult-child relationships, that is not even about sexual ethics, that does not so much as mention children, or even adults. This was the best you could do, this was your "perfectly good answer"? I should certainly hope you could do better if you were challenged about sodomy, or else I fear you would soon be marching in the parade, and indeed this impressive level of eisegesis is usually the exclusive domain of sodomites in the world today. We must return to the original point: why do you presume re-write the law of God through the lens of modern values on this topic, but not homosexuality? How are you able to maintain such a gross inconsistency that on the one hand you abrogate God's law in the name of modernism, and on the other hand object when the same is done to justify true perversion? It cannot last save through gross cognitive dissonance incompatible with one who values the truth. I implore you my brother to become more consistent, in a way which is more pleasing to God.
>>1406 Your epic memes are totally destroying the bible, keep going
>>1407 blah blah i have no counter argument.
>>1408 >arguing with Christians on Christian forum, expecting you might persuade even one to give up their faith I don't know if you're atheist or belong to some other faith, but you're wasting your short life here. You will not convince/convert a single one of us. Moreover, it becomes exceedingly obvious you're here to frustrate Christians because you hate them. Now we must wonder why you hate Christians so much as to spend your time on a Christian imageboard arguing with them. There are several possibilities, one of them being you're paid to do so. You could also have a mental illness, belong to an adversarial faith (you're a jew), or you're possessed by demons. If I had to guess I would say all of the above. Now, before you respond out of reflex take a moment to consider if it's really worth it. Perhaps you would be better off going to have a tasty beverage and doing something you enjoy. If you enjoy fucking with Christians, well... we know what will happen to you.
>>1409 >conjecture.
>>1408 I know you don't. Now go away, please
>>1411 Read the thread before defending the "christian" pedophile troll OP.
>>1412 That's not an argument either
>>1413 That;s not an argument.
We have yet to see even one scrap of scripture which even lightly condemns pedophilia I posit the reason is because no such thing exists, and all this hostility is born purely of human tradition. If any man would make a liar of me let him do so.
>>1421 >We have yet to see even one scrap of scripture which even lightly condemns pedophilia You've been given three passages of scripture, and you've ignored them.
>>1422 Two were quoted and neither one says anything about it >But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Says nothing about pedophilia >So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. Says even less about pedophilia The request is for scripture that actually condemns it, not ones you feel you can twist to that purpose.
So far it looks like someone asked a genuine question but the community couldn't find the answer in Bible so they threw some quotes that don't really prove the things they want them to and got mad and upset when refused in a true display of humility they pride themselves upon. I think that the original question is really valuable because imagine that our society one day collapses and the new society decides to build a new one based exclusively on christian values. You might even approve it yourself. But then people start marrying children and when you trial them they say "give me the verse in the scripture that says pedophillia is wrong." And you all can't provide one "because it is known" that it's wrong and the ones you do give are ruled irrelevant because of reasons mentioned by op. And so pedophillia becomes a commonppace in your society. I think that it really shows that you just can't find all the answers to all the problems in the world in Bible so sometimes you just have to use your own reason and morality. They were given to us for some reason werent they?
>>1426 That's only two, there is still one more quote to go. >Says nothing about pedophilia Offending a little one is the same as sexualizing a little one.
>>1428 >I think that it really shows that you just can't find all the answers to all the problems in the world in Bible so sometimes you just have to use your own reason and morality. They were given to us for some reason werent they? I fear for all our futures when we presume to know better than the creator of all things, who is above and beyond all things. >>1429 >That's only two, there is still one more quote to go. Oh, do you mean Romans 13? Your mistake, he wasn't even claiming it was against pedophilia, his point was something else entirely, but you in your haste to find a scrap of scripture to justify your position (rather than deriving your position from scripture) didn't pay enough to notice that. >Offending a little one is the same as sexualizing a little one. It is already plain that you are a fool and deserve little attention, but for the sakes of others I will go ahead and offer some refutation. Firstly, the word "offend" means to harm someone's sensibilities, to insult them or something dear to them. This is clearly not Jesus' meaning, so it could instead be interpreted as meaning to harm their person, to do injury to their body or soul. Now, it is important to note at this point that the concept that sexual contact is harmful to children is a novelty of the modern era, and thus it would be gross anachronism to insert such a meaning into this text, spoken and written thousands of years before that idea was conceived. We must interpret every text of scripture within the context of the time in which it was written. Now the word "sexualize" is generally vague, but it is usually used to refer to sexual interest, looking at something in a sexual way. One could obviously do this to a child without even interacting with them, and therefore they could *not* be the same thing. Now importantly this is an archaic translation from several hundred years ago, when English was a different language and Greek was less well understood. The interpretation of the modern scholars appears to be that Jesus is actually speaking about causing children to sin (which is also possibly the meaning of the KJV's translators as "offend" can also mean to break the law), e.g. the ESV "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin". Either way, this verse does not define what conduct it is allegedly prohibiting, as it is not a law, but a sentencing enhancement. What Jesus is saying is that if one sins against and/or causes a child to sin, then God looks on that all the more unkindly and that sinner can expect their punishment to be that much more severe; which means that this verse can not be applied to pedophilia unless it is established as a sin elsewhere.
>>1430 >Oh, do you mean Romans 13? Your mistake, he wasn't even claiming it was against pedophilia, his point was something else entirely, but you in your haste to find a scrap of scripture to justify your position (rather than deriving your position from scripture) didn't pay enough to notice that. Great job, you remembered! >his point was something else entirely It's still against the law, your non-argument of saying "his point is not related" doesn't say anything. Clearly not everything is mention explicitly in the Bible to be a sin, but we know if it's a sin because of other parts of pedophilia. >Now, it is important to note at this point that the concept that sexual contact is harmful to children is a novelty of the modern era Lets say for the sake of argument you're right, even if it was a product of the "modern era" monolith, you're still lusting, which is a sin. Sexuality is harmful to Children. >One could obviously do this to a child without even interacting with them, and therefore they could *not* be the same thing. Just because you could offend a child without it being sexual doesn't mean that sexually offending a child is not part of the definition of offending someone. >which means that this verse can not be applied to pedophilia unless it is established as a sin elsewhere. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive 'sexual attraction' to prepubescent children. Lust is a sin, and you can't have pedophilia without lust, so pedophilia is a sin also. >Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Open file (89.32 KB 500x851 1631050597805.png)
Also the idea that anti-pedophilia is modernist isn't true. There are many modern sources promoting pro-pedophilia themes, like Salon which has been cranking out pro-pedo articles for awhile. https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/unicef-report-says-pornography-not-always-harmful-to-children/
>>1431 >It's still against the law And that's still irrelevant >Clearly not everything is mention explicitly in the Bible to be a sin And who is this pretender that is presuming to add to God's law? >you're still lusting, which is a sin There is a difference between sexual interest and lust. God created sexuality, God made man with sex organs, God commanded "be fruitful and multiply". >Sexuality is harmful to Children. Spoken like a modern man >Just because you could offend a child without it being sexual My point was you could sexualize a child without offending them >Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive 'sexual attraction' to prepubescent children. Did you really just copy-paste from wikipedia? >Lust is a sin, and you can't have pedophilia without lust, so pedophilia is a sin also. Pedophilia is an attraction pattern. It means the pedophile is attracted to children the same way a normal person is to adults. I don't suppose you intend to cut your balls off, to neutralize your 'lust' for women? >Also the idea that anti-pedophilia is modernist isn't true It is true, as anti-pedophilia does not exist in history before modernity, and is an aspect of modern "progress". >>1433 >There are many modern sources promoting pro-pedophilia themes So you think calling pedophilia a mental disorder is pro-pedo?
>>1434 >And that's still irrelevant It's obviously not a good argument against pedophilia, but it's still a part of the Bible that warns you against it because it's illegal. No, it's not irrelevant. >And who is this pretender that is presuming to add to God's law? There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible. But, there are numerous biblical principles (like the ones hand waved by you) that definitely apply to this sin. Mastubation is still a sin, and that's not mentioned in the bible. >There is a difference between sexual interest and lust. God created sexuality, God made man with sex organs, God commanded "be fruitful and multiply". God created sexuality for Marriage. Only through procreation in Marriage can someone have sex without lust, without sin. Having sex with Children psychologically harms the child, children can't really give birth to children (most of the time) so that is fornication. The word translated “fornication” has the same idea in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The Greek word is porneia, from which we get the English words porno and pornography. The word in Scripture refers to any illicit sexual activity, and this would have to include the abhorrent acts of a pedophile?including the gathering and trading of obscene or indecent pictures of young children. >Romans 1:27 And the men likewise gave up natural relations with 'women' and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Matthew 18:6 denotes concern for children, while pedophilia harms children. The word offend in the Greek means “to cause one to stumble, to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, to entice to sin, or to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.” These definitions of the word offend can easily be applied to the actions of a pedophile. Of course, the principle of not harming a child can be applied to a wide range of child-abusive actions, and Matthew 18:10 makes the case against anyone who would bring any type of harm to a child.
>>1436 >It's obviously not a good argument against pedophilia You certainly have an interesting rhetorical strategy >There is no direct mention of pedophilia in the Bible THIS is the most important part of this post, this is THE concession of the whole argument. In modern times pedophilia is seen as the greatest sin, yet God never saw fit to even mention it. The silence itself speaks volumes, for as exhaustive as the bible's sexual ethics are never once do they make any distinction between adult and child. God knew that this was practiced amongst the Israelites and the surrounding nations, and amongst the Romans, yet even as He walked this earth He never attempted to correct their behavior. >But, there are numerous biblical principles that definitely apply to this sin I wonder if you were challenged about homosexuality, would you have any difficulty in finding scriptures to condemn it? Would you need to try and construct an indirect condemnation from "numerous biblical principles"? If pedophilia is a sin, it must be much less sinful than lying, stealing, or any other sin that is actually mentioned in scripture. You can indeed twist scripture into a knot to make it prohibit pedophilia, but only if you also make it prohibit any kind of sexual contact whatsoever. Every legitimate objection that has been made in this thread has either been an objection to sex itself, or to sins which are not pedophilia, but we have yet to see an argument that both makes pedophilia itself prohibited, and permits normal sexuality. >God created sexuality for Marriage. Only through procreation in Marriage can someone have sex without lust, without sin. Amen. And He warned against those who would "forbid to marry". >Having sex with Children psychologically harms the child This continues to be an illegitimate argument for pedophilia being a sin in the Christian religion. Not one word of scripture, not one father of the church, no principle of the faith ever operated on concepts of 20th century psychology. But you are, you are relying on modern secular ideas rather than the word of God. Which brings us yet again back to my original question; why do you, who would reject modernism in favor of God's will for your sexual ethics concerning homosexuality, now prefer modernity's will for your sexual ethics concerning pedophilia? >children can't really give birth to children (most of the time) so that is fornication The word fornication refers to sex outside of wedlock. But it is true that with very few and rare exceptions prepubescent children cannot give birth. If this is proof that pedophilia is a sin, then we must say that marrying a sterile woman is a much graver sin, since the little girl will become fertile with time, but a barren woman short of a miracle never will. >The word in Scripture refers to any illicit sexual activity, and this would have to include the abhorrent acts of a pedophile? No sir, scripture defines what sexual activity is illicit not the modern world, and as we have seen here it does not define man-girl relationships as such. >including the gathering and trading of obscene or indecent pictures of young children. All pornography is sinful. >Romans 1:27 Since you passed by this without interpretation or argument so shall I. >Matthew 18:6 denotes concern for children, while pedophilia harms children. The word offend in the Greek means “to cause one to stumble, to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, to entice to sin, or to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey.” These definitions of the word offend can easily be applied to the actions of a pedophile. Of course, the principle of not harming a child can be applied to a wide range of child-abusive actions, and Matthew 18:10 makes the case against anyone who would bring any type of harm to a child. This interpretation is strictly invalid, because it relies entirely on modern concepts completely foreign to the speaker the author and their respective audiences. It *can not* be the meaning of the verse, it is not how it would be interpreted by anyone at the time or for millennia after, including the men who spoke and wrote these words.
Open file (127.39 KB 499x686 928891889.jpg)
Open file (164.86 KB 621x1024 a9492ab06.jpg)
>>1440 You're trying to tarnish Christianity by painting it as a child abusing religion, when that's simply never been the case. This is some kind of satanically inspired attack. Maybe you come from a worldly philosophy that teaches it is ok to physically harm children to satisfy your own promiscuity and then tell yourself that it's no difference or try to downplay it in your head. I know that plenty of worldly, man-made religions teach this. For instance, Judaism allows one to molest children under three years of age, and there's plenty of reason to see how vile and abominable that is. If you don't think that is a sin, I have to withdraw myself from this conversation. Your mission here is to paint Christ's followers as if they were part of the world. But what does the Bible say? 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 >For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: >That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; >Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: >That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 1 Peter 2:11-12 >Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; >Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. You betray yourself and your true purpose by claiming that "normal sexuality" as the world gives it is anywhere close to living a godly life. Yet you used this phrase here: >>1440 What the world considers "normal" is vastly deviated from what we are meant to be. We are not created to do the things which the world considers "normal." You shrug all of this aside because your quest is simply to defame Christ's followers. That's why you choose to repeatedly ignore all of the Scriptures that teach the exact opposite of what you are saying in order to try to justify your ungodly sins. It says in the gospel that even lusting after another person is commission of sin in the heart. What you're advocating is simply taking advantage of children, in the hopes that depraved predators will claim somehow that they didn't see where God condemns their sin. We Christians are to abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul. You are a lost person who does not understand what that means, perhaps; Or perhaps you do know exactly what I mean but want to attack the followers of the Lord in this roundabout way by trying to defame and speak evil of them regardless. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2: >But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. So, since you are a lost person, you clearly do not understand the things of Scripture. You don't have the spiritual discernment necessary to see how sinful your suggestions and promiscuity are.
>>1441 You are so blinded by hatred and tradition, I imagine you even think you have a point with this baseless character assassination. I'll pray for you, brother.
>>1442 Yes, tradition. More specifically, the tradition that says, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And it also says, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." - 2 John v. 9 This tradition also says: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." - Romans 16:17
>>1443 >whether by word, or our epistle But this tradition you were taught by the devils of modernity, which have told us all the damnable lies which have destroyed our nations and led our peoples astray. He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men
>>1440 >You certainly have an interesting rhetorical strategy > In modern times pedophilia is seen as the greatest sin, yet God never saw fit to even mention it. And you can't engage in an argument so you have to ignore most of what i said, which is still true, masturbation is a sin and it's not listed anywhere in the bible. This is the one thing you have not answered to nor have bothered to redefine/handwave. >THIS is the most important part of this post, this is THE concession of the whole argument. Only YOU think that, while ignoring what i typed. Why should i even bother replying to the rest if you're just going to ignore it. You're obviously a pedophile who wants to keep being a sinful pedophile, but the evidence is against you and you have no answer so you just cover your ears and put your head in the sand. >>1446 >But this tradition you were taught by the devils of modernity, >Muh modernity monolith The tradition of the church isn't modernity at all, do you know the definition of tradition and modernity, they're nearly the opposite you pedophile retard. Besides the elite themselves are pedophiles (like Epstein) so you're not a noble dissident.
>>1449 >you have to ignore most of what i said, which is still true, masturbation is a sin Lol. That's a great argument, anon. How will I ever recover? >Why should i even bother replying to the rest if you're just going to ignore it This projection ought to be beneath you, brother. I replied to all the substance of your post as I have done to each post against me. >the evidence is against you Which is why you still haven't given any >The tradition of the church isn't modernity at all And anti-pedophilia is not the tradition of the church, it was not the tradition of anything until very recently, it did not even exist until the last few hundred years, that is why the best you could do was to twist a handful of plainly irrelevant scriptures into a pretzel and when your strenuous interpretation was thoroughly refuted you did not even pretend to make a counter-argument, you simply repeated the same thing as though nothing was ever said. You are venting your rage at me now because you have been confronted with a truth you do not want to believe, but have no means to deny. It is pressing and urgent that we stand against this particular threat from modernity just as any other, for anti-pedophilia has done at least as much damage to society as gay rights. This was the beachhead, pedophilia serving as the proxy by which all male sexuality could be attacked (as it is the exaggerated form) and from there the family unit. Pure, Christian marriages were deceptively demeaned as sexually perverse, carnalizing the whole thing, to open the door a-crack to allow Caesar and the world in to alter marriage and sexual ethics as they saw fit, until now by cultural indoctrination even men who in theory are sold out to God and willing to measure all things by His word are totally unwilling to question the false dogma. Hunting these benighted downtrodden souls, who find themselves cursed by fate and accursed in their time, is the excuse which is used to prosecute the war against the kingdom of God by assaulting the rights of men and enlarging the international authority and power of the state, paving the way for the beast to come. My brothers, do we now follow God, or men?
>>1452 Huh? I myself may not have a verse against pedophilia but it's common sense that it shouldn't be allowed. Adults have too much advantage over not only children but also other minors when it comes to manipulation. Can you imagine a scenario when a stupid 12 year old boy impregnates an adult woman and has to pay for another child before he was mature enough to make that decision? Sure some adults also get their lives destroyed by a bad relationship but they also build some good ones but I've never heard of a minor having relationship with an adult that wasn't traumatising. Just let them have their childhoods what's wrong with that. Also you do realise that women can be predators too?
>>1463 >it's common sense that it shouldn't be allowed If it's so common sensical, why didn't anybody think that until the modern age? >Adults have too much advantage over not only children but also other minors when it comes to manipulation Marriage is not something which is to be founded on manipulation under any circumstances. >but I've never heard of a minor having relationship with an adult that wasn't traumatising I expect you also haven't bothered to look. Were you expect to hear "pedophile has harmless relationship with child" on the evening news?
The bible forbids pedophile. You can not marry before puberty. 1 Corinthians 7:36 >But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
>>1474 The verse does not say that. In the version you quote it does not say it is forbidden if these conditions are not met, and in some modern versions there is no reference to "the flower of age", and the ones which retain it simply phrase it as "past youth" meaning that she is getting old, not merely past puberty. Either way, the context of the verse tells us that this is neither a law nor intended to prevent certain marriages as opposed to others. The church in Corinth was in a situation at the time that caused marriage to for whatever reason be particularly troublesome, so Paul advised that they should not marry for the time being, but he makes himself clear repeatedly that they do not sin if they fail to heed his advice. This verse is another such clarification, Paul is describing an extraordinary circumstance where the marriage is urgently needed (the man's lusts are growing too strong to contain, the woman is getting old and etc. summarized as "need so require") and the merits of avoiding marriage at that time are outweighed by the merits of marrying that they should marry and nobody should try to stop them. If you interpret "pass the flower of her age" (which again is a somewhat poetic way to say past her prime) as being a requirement for a marriage to occur, then you must also interpret "he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin" as a requirement apart from which the union is sinful.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?