Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 102
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    41,152
    [QUOTE=The20thK;32124000]No verse directly mentions it but the Bible speaks about fornication or the Greek word ďporneaĒ, where we get our word pornography or porn. Basically it means sex outside the bonds of marriage. Marriage as instituted by God, not a govt. (for this reason, I believe that govt should get out of the marrying business alltogether, another conversation for another time). This why homosexuality is a sin as well because it is sex outside the marriage covenant. One could argue that Mohammed (PB&J), was married so he didnít fornicate. I guess that could be true... but Iíd have a hard time believing that God was OK with him having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old. Iím fairly confident that Mohammed (PB&J) is burning in hell as we speak.[/QUOTE]

    you believe a lot of stories
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,626
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    No verse directly mentions it but the Bible speaks about fornication or the Greek word ďporneaĒ, where we get our word pornography or porn. Basically it means sex outside the bonds of marriage. Marriage as instituted by God, not a govt. (for this reason, I believe that govt should get out of the marrying business alltogether, another conversation for another time). This why homosexuality is a sin as well because it is sex outside the marriage covenant. One could argue that Mohammed (PB&J), was married so he didnít fornicate. I guess that could be true... but Iíd have a hard time believing that God was OK with him having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old. Iím fairly confident that Mohammed (PB&J) is burning in hell as we speak.
    Of course you would, because you don't want that to be true.

    As you said, according to the rules set forth in the Bible, so long as a man was married to a child then pedophilia would be OK. Unless there's some verse in the Bible that sets an age requirement for marriage, it seems like it's all perfectly OK using a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Which goes back to my point in the other thread: people pick and choose and decide what is or isn't applicable based on their own values. If we do a strict interpretation of the Bible, the only conclusion you can come to is that so long as a man marries a child, then Pedophilia in that instance is OK under Biblical law.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28,291
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    Are suggesting that a 9 year old in 600 AD was equivalent to a 12 year old in 1900 AD? And you didnít even bother to respond to the age difference?
    There are many 9 year old from many eras who are further developed than many 12 year old from many eras. Are you unaware of this

    I did address the age difference. But like usual, if I do anything short of spoon feeding you a cartoon, it's beyond your understanding
    Last edited by nastynice; 01-24-2018 at 01:50 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28,291
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    ... but Iíd have a hard time believing that God was OK with him having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old. Iím fairly confident that Mohammed (PB&J) is burning in hell as we speak.
    You say prepubescent after showing us a video detailing how he avoided this exact thing...meaning the stories in your head are all jumbled up again

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    The government should get out of the marrying business? So legal marriages, where the couple are bound together by contract, should no longer exist? A couple can call themselves married, have kids, maybe even own property together, but when the crap hits the fan, one of the partners can just up and run leaving the other to care for the children and tend to the property soio?

    Have to disagree with you here.
    None of what you mentioned is possible.

    People have kids without a wedding all the time? Whatís the difference?

    Real estate can be held jointly in two peoples name and both are responsible. Heck, you and I can buy a property together!

    So how does your scenario play out any different where the hint stays out of weddings?
    Last edited by The20thK; 01-24-2018 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    you believe a lot of stories
    Hey thanks for having an opinion!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Of course you would, because you don't want that to be true.

    As you said, according to the rules set forth in the Bible, so long as a man was married to a child then pedophilia would be OK. Unless there's some verse in the Bible that sets an age requirement for marriage, it seems like it's all perfectly OK using a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Which goes back to my point in the other thread: people pick and choose and decide what is or isn't applicable based on their own values. If we do a strict interpretation of the Bible, the only conclusion you can come to is that so long as a man marries a child, then Pedophilia in that instance is OK under Biblical law.
    If I could show you, biblically, that pedophilia isnít not ďokĒ in the Bible... would that change your mind on the Bible?

    And thatís a lot of extrapolation isnít it?

    Let me do something similar:
    The Bible doesnít speak about beastiality either. So if you then logically, the Bible is ok with Beastiality.

    Someone help me out... isnít this a logical fallacy?
    Last edited by The20thK; 01-24-2018 at 07:27 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    There are many 9 year old from many eras who are further developed than many 12 year old from many eras. Are you unaware of this

    I did address the age difference. But like usual, if I do anything short of spoon feeding you a cartoon, it's beyond your understanding
    Well Spoon feed me again because ďher dad was Mohammeds BFF ď doesnít exactly scream a legitimate answer.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    You say prepubescent after showing us a video detailing how he avoided this exact thing...meaning the stories in your head are all jumbled up again
    Just because the woman in video claims she wasnít prepubescent doesnít mean itís true. Thatís just how this woman deals with worshipping a pedophile.

    Even if she did start puberty... how far along could she possibly have been? And are you suggesting that a 53 year old man, in any historical time, should be having sex with a girl who is just starting puberty?

    Dude... get outta you sick jerk. Honestly, if I were in the same room as you right now... Iíd stomp you in the dirt.

    Defending perophilia... calling our military terrorists... why donít you just leave? Seriously... just frickin leave... there is no hope for you.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,626
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    If I could show you, biblically, that pedophilia isnít not ďokĒ in the Bible... would that change your mind on the Bible?
    It would change my mind on inferring that pedophilia in that specific instance is OK according to the Bible. Absolutely it would.

    But my caveat would be, are we talking your interpretation of specific scriptures or is this explicitly stated in the Bible?

    Because remember, we were in here arguing not too long ago about who gets to determine what the passages mean and what is to be followed and when.

    But yes, I would absolutely change my opinion based on the evidence.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It would change my mind on inferring that pedophilia in that specific instance is OK according to the Bible. Absolutely it would.

    But my caveat would be, are we talking your interpretation of specific scriptures or is this explicitly stated in the Bible?

    Because remember, we were in here arguing not too long ago about who gets to determine what the passages mean and what is to be followed and when.

    But yes, I would absolutely change my opinion based on the evidence.
    I edited my comment to include more. Please see above.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,626
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    If I could show you, biblically, that pedophilia isnít not ďokĒ in the Bible... would that change your mind on the Bible?

    And thatís a lot of extrapolation isnít it?

    Let me do something similar:
    The Bible doesnít speak about beastiality either. So if you then logically, the Bible is ok with Beastiality.

    Someone help me out... isnít this a logical fallacy?
    It's not extrapolation if it's laws. It is no different than the US Legal Code. If it's not prohibited, it is OK. Isn't that how the law works?

    If the Bible doesn't speak about Pedophilia or Bestiality, under what belief are you using to think God would be against those things?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hammond, IN
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It's not extrapolation if it's laws. It is no different than the US Legal Code. If it's not prohibited, it is OK. Isn't that how the law works?

    If the Bible doesn't speak about Pedophilia or Bestiality, under what belief are you using to think God would be against those things?
    So you are left with two options Iím thinking here:

    1) it was ok to diddle little boys and girls.

    2) it was addressed because it wasnít prevalent.

    Given that we read nothing, that I can remember, in the Bible or Jewish history about pedophilia, I choose to believe #2

    But how is that picking and choosing what to believe? When the Bible is clear about something, specifically the New Covenant, then our response should be clear. When it is not, for whatever reason, we have room for interpretation. Even todayís laws operate this way otherwise we wouldnít need judges.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,626
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    So you are left with two options Iím thinking here:

    1) it was ok to diddle little boys and girls.

    2) it was addressed because it wasnít prevalent.

    Given that we read nothing, that I can remember, in the Bible or Jewish history about pedophilia, I choose to believe #2

    But how is that picking and choosing what to believe? When the Bible is clear about something, specifically the New Covenant, then our response should be clear. When it is not, for whatever reason, we have room for interpretation. Even todayís laws operate this way otherwise we wouldnít need judges.
    The options would actually be:

    1). it's OK to diddle little boys or girls specifically if they are married first

    2). it wasn't addressed because it wasn't prevalent


    I imagine you'd choose to believe #2 because it is the one least detestable to believe of Christianity, but historically women were married as soon as they reached puberty (read: got their periods). Such young women were married in ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, Rome, in ancient Judaism, and extending through to the middle ages.

    Having a bride that young was not so uncommon that the Bible didn't address it because of its rarity. More likely, the Bible didn't address it because it was so common place and permissible.

    In fact, it was so common place that Christian ecclesiastical law forbade marriage of a girl before the age of puberty. So they were fine with marriage to women as young as what? 9? 10? 12?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#Religion


    As for your justification for saying that although it doesn't say pedophilia is wrong, we are free to interpret, that is pretty counter to everything you were arguing in the other thread.

    But even discounting that, you are now claiming that where there is ambiguity, you are free to interpret the word of God how you see fit and you can therefore claim someone else is a sinner for doing something not actually prohibited by the Bible.


    And all of that is not even getting into the philosophical larger questions of God knew that even though pedophilia may not have been prevalent back then, it would be prevalent enough to need to address it later and yet did not, which seems like a pretty big oversight for an all-powerful being.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28,291
    Quote Originally Posted by The20thK View Post
    Just because the woman in video claims she wasnít prepubescent doesnít mean itís true. Thatís just how this woman deals with worshipping a pedophile.

    Even if she did start puberty... how far along could she possibly have been? And are you suggesting that a 53 year old man, in any historical time, should be having sex with a girl who is just starting puberty?

    Dude... get outta you sick jerk. Honestly, if I were in the same room as you right now... Iíd stomp you in the dirt.

    Defending perophilia... calling our military terrorists... why donít you just leave? Seriously... just frickin leave... there is no hope for you.
    lmao, I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm tryina give you its actual definition because you seem to show a lack of actually understanding what it is. You show a lack of understanding of a lot of things. The only time you display understanding of anything is when you're saying things that make no ****in sense, lol. And the funny part is it actually makes no ****in sense to YOU, and it's obvious, but you stay sitting here trying to convince yourself of a bunch of bull **** you can't even comprehend.

    So if you can add 2 and 2, then you should know what that makes you

    This lack of comprehension is the fundamental issue at the core of all your dumb *** posts and dumb *** threads like this one.

    2 and 2 makes you...?

    Leave what? My country? No sir, but you can kindly get the **** out of mine if distance from me is that important to you..

    Brother you have no idea how bad I'd love for you to have a chance to stomp me in the dirt, lol, you're funny

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •