>2 specific rules against wanting to fuck your bro's wife
>0 rules against fucking kids

Know as they say, they make bans only when they're needed

>>17870134 (OP)
>doesn't condemn rape
>doesn't condemn slavery (in fact slaves are included in not coveting your neighbor's property)
christbeaners call you immoral for not following this btw

>>17870142
Rape actually causes birthrates to go up so its good

>>17870139
the contradiction in being a deeply addled person as a result of child abuse and then going on to condone it. do you think you will escape judgment?
Matthew 18:1-7
>At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

>Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

>“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

those who've heard of Christ are to be judged by the law that comes by faith, not the stone tablets of Moses. good luck trying to explain yourself before a terrible and wrathful god in your hand wringing. inexcusable is the word that comes to mind

re: the child-abusers, child-traumatizers, child-defilers, and enablers of the same

bump

>>17870134 (OP)
Moses shattered those ones when he saw jews being jews for the n-th time.

>>17870193
Never going to happen. Enjoy Mexico.

>>17870186
>whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin
The person who sinned is responsible and in any case you can just take them in marriage and then it wouldn't be adultery anymore and therefore completely pure according to the bible

>>17871007
>Midrash says rebecca was 3
Midrash are not Christian scriptures. They're non-binding Jewish commentaries.
> it wouldn't be adultery anymore
> therefore completely pure
This does not imply complete purity whatsoever.

>>17870134 (OP)
>WHY DO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DONT HAVE THE EPSTEIN FILES
Trump mindbroke you.

>>17871031
>starts running damage control out of nowhere
Zognald couldn't be any less embarrassing

>>17871089
Libs pretending to care about pedophilia and Epstein after 4 years of Biden sitting on the case is embarrassing. The thing is there was genuine anger at Trump from the right but then the WSJ ran their fanfiction "bombshell" on him

>>17871101
Cool bait, someone is bound to fall for it

>>17870134 (OP)
Nothing wrong with making a 12 yo girl your wife. God is good with his servants and grants them good things to enjoy.

>>17871101
You are Jewish

>>17871026
Just because you don't take them religiously doesn't mean you shouldn't even engage with their arguments.
>This does not imply complete purity whatsoever.
What's wrong with sexual intercourse between two partners that have been married the christian way?
>>17871101
Both of you are embarrassing and larping as defenders of children when your hands are soaked this filth.