☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
-7

Luke 17 is not about pedophilia - it's not even about children. It's about leading believers astray from the true faith. "Little ones" does not refer to children, but to the followers of Christ. "leading them astray" does not refer to sex, but to the act of tempting them into sin.

submitted by AntiPostmodernist to whatever 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:29:27 ago (+2/-9)     (whatever)

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that having sex with a child is a sin, the Bible covers topics of rape, adultery, homophilia, incest, zoophilia, and menstrual sex, but it does not talk about any restrictions regarding an adult molesting a child.

This doesn't cause problems for me, as someone who does not (presently) believe in supernatural concepts such as God, I base my sexual ethics on what I like and dislike (morality is your preferences with regard to the actions of others), I greatly dislike pedophiles and child molesters, I hate them enough to want them "done away with" so to speak, and from that I can conclude where I stand on this issue.

Christians are roughly the same, but have to read their moral preferences into the biblical text in order to remain consistent to their (false) claim that all their morals are derived from the word of God. Just admit that child botherers should get the rope and be done with it in that way.

This is a post for SumerBreeze. FYI.
Here, choose your version: https://biblehub.com/luke/17.htm


41 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] texasblood 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:02:22 ago (+1/-0)

The jews/nazis here don't like BIBLE talk.
I am neither and I think you're fucked at reading comprehension

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:03:28 ago (+0/-0)

You are SO salty about this. I think it's funny. If you can be trolled, you deserve to be trolled.

[ - ] texasblood 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 22:37:29 ago (+0/-0)

Nigga punks ride my balls every day.
Fuck a jew and a nazi.
Fat fuck keyboard faggotts are all keystrokes.
No Fear!šŸ–•

[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:14:45 ago (+0/-0)

Every anti abortion nigger lover is a traitor

[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:10:57 ago (+2/-1)*

Dude, nobody cares what opinion an Atheist has about religious doctrine.

You only make yourself out to look like a pedo lover.

Edit: Also your logic used here, "where is the loophole". Is pure talmud kikery. If I read your text in the voice a rabbi it makes much more sense.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:36:25 ago (+1/-0)*

I said nothing about loopholes. I'm not trying to excuse or justify anything here.

How about you tell me how a verse where Jesus is talking to his disciples about their own tendency to sin, his admonitions of them not to encourage each other to sin, his commandment of them to point out to each other when they sin, and to forgive each other if they admit fault after being called out for sinning (even if they do this many times in one day) has anything to do with child rape?

You've deliberately mislead this community about the meaning of Luke 17, I went along with it for a while, then I read the passages in full, now I know that not only does this not refer to sexual activity, it wasn't even talking about children.

You were just so desperate for some biblical condemnation of child molestation that you straight up lied, and now you are gaslighting us by looking at the full context and still trying to swear that it's referring to something it clearly isn't talking about.

When I persist in asking you how you got child abuse out of Luke, not only do you fail to explain your reasoning, you then try to shame me out of this line of questioning. Just fucking cop to it. There's no shame in it.

The Bible doesn't have to say something is wrong for us to know it to be wrong, okay? I'm, damn sure that you would not want to live in the kind of society that we would have if we tried to make one based on what the Bible says, we have to use our own judgment to make the kind of world we want to live in.

If the Bible has no text supporting what we know we need to have in place, then we can just cite divine inspiration or divine guidance in order to pretend that what we want is want for ourselves is what God would have wanted for us.

[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:11:02 ago (+0/-0)

Tl:Dr?

Don't care, your basis for anything and everything is relative. The fact you literally start3d this post with.

"Nowhere in the Bible is it said that having sex with a child is a sin, the Bible covers topics of rape, adultery, homophilia, incest, zoophilia, and menstrual sex, but it does not talk about any restrictions regarding an adult molesting a child."

It is exactly like reading the Talmud. The fact you choose to ignore this cohencidence and put it on display for all to see is sufficient to replace worthless discussion.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:12:36 ago (+0/-0)

I'm done reasoning this with you, everything I have to say on this has already been said.

Now I'm just basking in the radiance of your butthurt.

[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:14:01 ago (+0/-0)

You sound fucktarded like dangus

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:15:20 ago (+0/-0)

OW. You got a problem with me making this thread? Take it up with sumerbreeze, I would never have made it if not for his prompting me too.

[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:17:37 ago (+0/-0)

K

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:18:19 ago (+0/-0)

^v^

[ - ] diggernicks 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:22:47 ago (+1/-0)

@@@@:-)

[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:15:34 ago (+0/-0)

I never reason with communists.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:17:56 ago (+0/-0)

Why are you telling me this? Just stop posting. Move onto another thread.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:04:06 ago (+0/-0)

Do you feel this has to do with pedo? I dont think it does.

I like religious discussions when they dont degenerate into ā€œchristcucks suckā€ or ā€œathecucks suckā€. We can talk about this shit without behaving like we are 5.

[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:06:22 ago (+0/-0)

No thanks, discussing things with atheists is a fruitless endeavor.

Pearls swine what not

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:20:28 ago (+0/-0)

-and yet you made another reply to me ITT after this post.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:41:20 ago (+0/-0)

The taboo against sex with children is largely genetic in basis. So christians and you get your revulsion toward pedophiles from the same place. Christians experience this revulsion and a message from god. Their religious teaching (christian culture) is also based on the average genetic tendencies of christians. That is why christians dont act like jews. You experience this revulsion as some sort sexual ethics or preferenceā€”it all comes from the same place.

Theres genetic variation among whites so we have to enforce societal norms. Joe ans Blumen are predisposed to fuck minors so we use shame and punishment to keep ourselves from sliding into a polygynous hellhole like the muslims. But its all the same thing. Doesnt matter if you call it secular ethics or christianity .

oh my sexual ethics come from a more honest evolved place not like those dumbo christians. I hate pedos for good reasons.

Nope. Its just the same.

[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:20:37 ago (+1/-1)

Every book in the (((Bible))), Old Testament and New Testamentā€¦ Every last wordā€¦
It's all written by Jews.

That's all you need to know. Everything you do after that determines whether you are invited to be a citizen of the White Ethnostate, or thrown in the oven with the Jews.

Christ-Cuck's law is now in play. Let's see which non-answer the Christ-Cucks choose.

[ - ] ParnellsUprising 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:11:39 ago (+0/-0)

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

So, how do you read into that then? Enlighten me, what do you believe that message to be?

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:23:37 ago (+1/-0)

I already told you, read the thread. Heck, read the paragraph of Luke 17:1. The "little ones" are the disciples (aka grown-ass men, not children), and "offending" means causing them to sin (not necessarily anything sexual).

You are practicing exegenesis. Reading what you believe due to sources from outside the Bible into the Biblical text, then misrepresenting the biblical text as supporting your own extrabiblical "from outside the Bible" beliefs, when in fact it does not.

This is what taking the lord's name in vain is, just so you know.

Also, nice to see you trying to shut this down with shaming, you must be a Catholic.

[ - ] ParnellsUprising 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:31:54 ago (+0/-0)

So asking a simple question is trying to shut this down? Hmm, that seems familiar.

BTW, I believe you meant exegesis, not what appears to be another Sasson funded company.

Yeah, I guess was not officially ex-communicated, but I can honestly say that I have not been considered a catholic from since the time when I was maybe 12.

As far as the exegis vs eisegesis, I have never had a problem with the latter, as I am of the belief that the meditation of the "Life and morals of Jesus Christ" has as much importance as to the curious variations of the Peshitta and all the other schisms that have happened across the ages, therefore, I am of the belief that meditation on the words of Christ, while in theory going astray of the "written word", will eventually lead a persons heart to the proper conclusions, but that is my religion.

The fact that you feel the need to try and denigrate others beliefs, specifically in "Christ", I believe says way more about you than anything else in this conversation.



[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:40:51 ago (+0/-0)

It's not about denigrating their belief in Christ, it's about laying to rest their continued misrepresentation of Luke 17:2 in it's intended meaning. Something they had done over and over.

I'm following the commands of Christ in Luke by calling them out on their sinning, as stated before, they are taking the lord's name in vain.

Sure they have good intentions in doing so, but it is still a sin, and noble intent is one of the many ways in which the Devil tempts the faithful into sinning. I understand though, I myself would prefer if the Bible had a clear condemnation of child abuse in it. If I was still a Christian I'd likely be even more passionate about having a biblical basis for attacking what are among the worst possible criminal offenders out there.

By misrepresenting the meaning of Luke 17:2, they are also putting away the actual intended interpretation of the passage, for a long time I was mislead on this until I had finally decided to look up the full chapter of Luke 17. I had assumed that "little ones" was a reference to children, now that I've read it for myself I now know it doesn't necessarily refer to children.

Now it is up to them to come clean about their sin and to be forgiven by one who is qualified to forgive them, someone unlike myself.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 22:27:47 ago (+0/-0)

I've answered all your questions, now it's just you asking the same thing over and over again. If you have an original inquiry I will respond, otherwise I will mock you.

[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:22:08 ago (+0/-0)

The message is, "the Jews invented cancel culture".

[ - ] JewChipper 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:48:21 ago (+0/-0)

So how does this explain what you did at Sunday School, in a dog mask barking I'm Saul grab my Tarsus!!

1Now He said to His disciples, ā€œIt is inevitable that [a]stumbling blocks come, but woe to one through whom they come! 2It is better for him if a millstone is hung around his neck and he [b]is thrown into the sea, than that he may cause one of these little ones to [c]sin. 3[d]Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ā€˜I repent,ā€™ you shall forgive him.ā€

Millstone, meet pedo

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:58:36 ago (+0/-0)*

Yes, you either cannot read, or have difficulty comprehending what you've read, or are just gaslighting really hard right now.

Translated into plain english it means this:

Jesus said to his disciples: "There's a lot of temptation out there so it's unavoidable that you will commit some sins and I can forgive you for that, but what would really angers me is if you encourage others to sin, if you were to do that I think it would be better for you to kill yourself"

Then he went on to say "If you see another disciple sinning call him out on it, if he admits is fault you should forgive him, you should continue to do this even if he repeatedly commits sins during the day"

Nothing in this even touches upon the subject of child abuse, It doesn't talk about children, nor does it mention sexual acts. How you've gotten the idea that this is a verse about molestation is beyond me.

Well, actually it's not. I know you know as well as I that kiddiefiddlers are evil, but the Bible doesn't mention it as being such.

This is a problem for someone who claims that all the morals they would need to have can be found in the bronze age holy book of their religion.

So you search desperately for some paragraph you could intentionally misrepresent the meaning of, and deliberately quote it out of context because the full reading of Luke 17 reveals the fact that Luke 17:2 doesn't have anything to do with what you claim it's about.

Look, you don't need the word of God to know that touching a child is wrong, you know it already and the very fact that you are so desperate to find some biblical quotation that forbids it shows that this is an innate understanding on your part.

Here's a secret for you: We all understand this. The only people who fail to grasp this are the less than 11% of the population trying to normalize their sick fetish, and most of them are victims of molestation who are simply failing to cope with what was done to them as kids. I think even they know that what they advocate for is wrong and sick, they are just trapped in a cycle of abuse.

There's also probably a large contingency if leftists who support this sickness due to the fact that their designated enemies on the right wing are in opposition to it, they simply live to contradict whatever position is taken by what they see as being their political enemies, even if it's something they would otherwise support as well. A lot of lefties aren't "for" anything as much as they are against "the right".

[ - ] JewChipper 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:30:57 ago (+0/-0)

Jesus of aramathea. A Nazarene.

Not a jew but king of the Jews.
One of the Melchizedek.
A Scythian?

Muahahahahaahhh

But as to your bullshit... Aramaic..

You would need to read and understand Aramaic to be authoritative on this passage.

Luke is a derivative book.

John is the only book of the new testament that might be worth reading.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-david-bauscher/the-original-aramaic-gospel-of-john-in-plain-english/ebook/product-22011295.html?page=1&pageSize=4

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:37:35 ago (+0/-0)

King James Bible
Temptations and Trespasses

(Matthew 18:7-9; Mark 9:42-50)

1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. 3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

The Power of Faith

(Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-42)

5And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. 6And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

7But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? 8And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? 9Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. 10So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Jesus Heals Ten Lepers

(2 Kings 5:1-14)

11And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: 13And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. 14And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. 15And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. 19And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

The Coming of the Kingdom

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

22And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. 24For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32Remember Lot's wife. 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] -1 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:39:29 ago (+0/-1)

In full context, The "little ones" Jesus was referring to are the disciples, most of whom were either young adults or middle aged men at the time. He was not referring to children in Luke 17:2.

[ - ] SumerBreeze 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 19:59:17 ago (+1/-0)

In full context, Jesus understood the Talmud, and called them all children of the devil, and damned them. You think your stupid kikery holds up? Of course Jesus spoke out against those sick pedophilic faggots - thatā€™s the reason why you kikes killed Jesus!

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 20:03:22 ago (+0/-0)*

You like to bother the Muslims about how Aisha was 6. Well, Rebekah was 3. Not one biblical figure -Jesus included- had said anything condemning this union.

In full context, Jesus understood the Talmud, and called them all children of the devil, and damned them.

Headcanon. This is literally you practicing exegenisis. JC did call the pharisee out as being children of the devil, but he wasn't making any reference to the Talmud when he did so.
The Talmud was written years after the Bible was put together, and that happened years after the crucifixion of Christ, there's no way Jesus would have made any reference to it during his mortal lifetime.

You think your stupid kikery holds up? Of course Jesus spoke out against those sick pedophilic faggots - thatā€™s the reason why you kikes killed Jesus!

The jews killed Christ because he claimed to be the messiah, never once was pedophilia mentioned or as much as implied as a reason, there are many reasons mentioned, such as him weakening the political power of the pharisee by leading a schism within the jewish community, but there was no indication that child molestation was one of them except in your own headcanon.

Next you will be telling me that Milton and Dante are canonical sources of Christian mythology.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:24:20 ago (+0/-0)

Rebekah was 3.

This doesnt appear to hold up.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 21:25:20 ago (+0/-0)

Show me how. I'll admit my understanding of Rebekah's marriage is limited here.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 22:40:25 ago (+0/-0)

I just looked it up. It doesnt say anywhere when Rebekah was born. They calculate that Isaac is 40 based on the age of his mother at death which is 127. So maybe we shouldnt take their reckonings too seriously. But Abraham is informed of Rebekahā€™s birth at a certain time so someone has assumed that that is when the birth occured. That cant be assumed. Subsequently Rebekah draws water from the well for a servant of Abraham before she is betrothed. Are we to believe that 3 year olds offer water to visitors and draw the water from a well all by themselves? Doesnt seem likely. She was probably of marriageable age which was something like 12 to 14 for those people.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 22:46:20 ago (+0/-0)

Thanks for the response. I was wrong. Let everybody know that made the mistake which I had.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 14, 2023 23:00:38 ago (+0/-0)

Are you sure you want to go with my commnet though? Youā€™re relying on an analysis of a timeline from someone who doesnā€™t comprehend notions like the future or the past . How can there be anything but the now? You men with with your unscrutable minds, thinking of thing yet to come! How do you do it?! Wow.

[ - ] SumerBreeze 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 15, 2023 16:03:01 ago (+0/-0)

The Talmud was written years after Jesusā€™ death, sure, and the group of pharisees and sadducees became known as the jews years after Jesusā€™ death - BUT Jesus was an expert in Talmudic and other historical teachings as a child, as it was oral tradition and there were constant debate and meetings etc, and Jesus impressed many with understanding and knowledge - which surpassed many of those faggot pedos.

Jesus called out those retards using the Talmudic teachings 100%. He definitely rebuked them for many reasons - ESPECIALLY raping children. Jesus didnā€™t call them the synagogue of satan for nothing, you retard kike - trying to be sly but always falling short.

[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 15, 2023 18:27:54 ago (+0/-0)

Well that explains it. But you still need to establish that his condemnation of the jews had anything to do with their attitudes towards sex with children.

Also, What synagogue is NOT of Satan?