Why do Christians pretend the Bible is anti-pedo?

>>512711595 (OP)
That doesn't say "for wives". But regardless, when people advocate for normalized pedophilia, what they really mean is sex outside of marriage, which is bad enough, but with children it is contemptible.

>>512711595 (OP)

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.

>>512711782
>That doesn't say "for wives"

For what, then? What did they "take them for themselves" for?

>NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT HOW IT LOOKS

>>512711811
Even if Jesus was talking about literal children there (he wasn't, he was talking about all Christians), that doesn't excuse the older verse I posted. You believe this is supposed to be the same God, remember?

>>512711782

>>512711893
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but it is definitely ambiguous. A non-virgin has pair-bonded with the guy you just cut in half. That is just asking for a little rebel to stir up trouble later.

>>512712038
>but it is definitely ambiguous
It's not ambiguous at all >>512711949

>>512712038
>That is just asking for a little rebel to stir up trouble later.
No, because they killed all the male children. They kept the virgin girls for their own use.

Markos 14:51-52
51 And a certain bocher was following along with Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, and the bocher was wearing nothing but a linen garment around his naked body, and they seized the bocher.
52 But the bocher ran away naked, leaving the linen garment behind.

Why are young boys following Jesus around?

>>512711949
>>512712113
It is ambiguous. Is English your first language? Pretend I'm the Mafia Boss. I tell you that we're robbing a jewelry store and you can keep the women's jewelry for yourself but I want the watches. Am I implying you will wear the women's jewelry? No.

>>512711811
Says nothing about pedoism.

John 13 - Rabbi Jesus strips naked & uses his loin cloth to wash the "feet" of his teenage disciples (Jesus referred to them as his "little ones" who were too young to pay the Temple tax). Feet (regel) was ancient Greek/Hebrew euphemism for genitals, while uncovering & washing of "feet" was a common idiom for exposing the genitalia often in a sexual context.

Jesus then instructed his disciples to do for each other as he had done for them, the followers of Christ, now impregnated with God’s Holy Spirit & instructed to be as "one flesh" connected to each other even closer than siblings, so that the world will see that ours is the true God of the world. This message is reiterated later in John’s gospel with Jesus explicitly stating “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one–as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.” Jn 17 : 21 NLT

After the foot washing, "the one Jesus loved", John reclines close to Jesus, his head resting on Jesus's breast.

This has been interpreted by modern Christians with modern cultural bias, as Rabbi Jesus acting as an example of humble servanthood. However, early Christians-JEWS likely understood Jesus serving his disciples, very differently.

Jesus had a boyfriend, a beloved male friend — The disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned six times in the Gospel of John:

He is the disciple who, while reclining beside Jesus at the Last Supper, asks Jesus who it is that will betray him, after being requested by Peter to do so

“Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” So from that hour, this disciple took her into his home.” John 25–27

When Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb, she runs to tell the beloved disciple and Peter. The two men rush to the empty tomb and the beloved disciple is the first to reach it.

In John 21, the last chapter of the Gospel of John, the beloved disciple is one of seven fishermen involved in the miraculous catch of 153 fish and is the first to recognise Jesus on the beach.

Also in the book’s final chapter, after Jesus implies the manner in which Peter will die, Peter sees the beloved disciple following them and asks, “What about him?” Jesus answers, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

In the Gospel’s last chapter, it states that the very book itself is based on the written testimony of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

In the Gnostic text, the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus is even quoted as saying, “Woe to you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them.”

>>512712376

If any other ancient army did this, say, Assyrians or Philistines, Christians would have no problem calling it mass rape and slavery.

Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, recorded in his Church History, a letter which he believed to have been written by Polycrates of Ephesus (c. 130s–196) in the second century. Polycrates believed that John was the one “who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord”, suggesting an identification with the beloved disciple.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), in his Tractates on the Gospel of John, also believed that John was the beloved disciple,

Saint Aelred of Rievaulx, in his work 12th century work De Spiritali Amicitia (“ On Spiritual Friendship”), referred to the relationship of Jesus and John the Apostle as a “marriage” and held it out as an example sanctioning friendships between clerics.

Francesco Calcagno, a friar of Venice was tried and executed in 1550 for claiming that “St. John was Christ’s catamite”.

In his 1593 trial for blasphemy English playwright Christopher Marlowe was accused of claiming that “St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma.”

English King James I responded in Parliament to criticisms of his relationship with his favourite, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, saying “I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George.”

Frederick the Great of Prussia 1749 poem Palladium includes the lines: “This good Jesus, how do you think He got John to sleep in his bed? Can’t you see he was his Ganymede?”

How could the verse NOT be referring to raping young girls? It mentions specifically girls, as well as their virginity. DUH. Stop the damned coping.

>>512712778
The irony is, their “adoption” defense requires ignoring the actual Hebrew phrasing (lo-yad’u mishkav zakhar = “have not known the lying of a male”), which has no relevance to adoption or servitude, but is directly relevant to sexual availability.

>>512712593
I would have no problem telling you the Bible says Yes or the Bible says No. But it simply doesn't say "you can have sex with the prepubescent ones". It is silent on the matter. Your original point is still valid, but not because the Bible says so

Appeal to illiteracy.

"Christ had his John, and I have my George"

~ King James I

>>512711893
>For what, then?
work slaves for 7 years

>>512711595 (OP)
The god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are two different gods. Call me a heretic or whatever. Christ’s testament is the testament of God. The old testament is just jews rambling about how great they are and how they’re entitled to everything

English Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, around 1785, an essay on “Paederasty.” The essay, which runs to over 60 manuscript pages, is the first known argument for homosexual law reform in England, but he did not publish it because of the virulence of the prevailing attitude towards sex between men. In the essay Bentham advocates the decriminalization of sodomy, which in his day was punished by hanging. He argues that homosexual acts do not “weaken” men, or threaten population or marriage, and documents their prevalence in ancient Greece and Rome. Bentham opposes punishment on utilitarian grounds and attacks ascetic sexual morality.

Regarding Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, Bentham wrote: "If the love which in these passages Jesus was intended to be represented as bearing towards this John was not the same sort of love as that which appears to have had place between David and Jonathan, the son of Saul, it seems not easy to conceive what can have been the object in bringing it to view in so pointed a manner accompanied with such circumstances of fondness. That the sort of love of which in the bosom of Jesus Saint John is here meant to be represented as the object was of a different sort from any of which any of the other of the Apostles was the object is altogether out of dispute. For of this sort of love, whatever sort it was, he and he alone is in these so frequently recurring terms maintained as being the object.” Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)

>>512711595 (OP)
I don't think it has anything specifically antipedo in it. Just an inferred guideline in Ezekiel 16.

>You (Israel) were born abandoned in a field
>I rubbed you down with salt
>your breasts and hair grew
>when I (God) saw that you (Israel)
>were old enough for love

There is an "old enough", with "grown breasts and (pubic?) hair" as indicators. Ephebephilia =/= pedophilia; Mary is usually accepted as being around 15yo at the time of her engagement to Joseph.

>>512713162
I thought I was the only one who suspected this.

Bentham points out that Jesus nowhere condemns relations between men. He adumbrates modern criticism by dismissing Christ’s frequent references to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah as irrelevant; in none of these gospel passages “is any the slightest allusion made by him to the propensity in question [as] the sin by which the calamity is produced… Jesus seems instead to identify the sin of Sodom with inhospitality and the mistreatment of strangers; repeatedly he compares cities that reject his apostles with the cities of the plain. In doing this, Bentham thinks he is merely following the true emphasis in the original story in Genesis 19. There the relations referred to are not consensual homosexuality but a mass rape whose threatened enormity was compounded by its gross violation of the laws of hospitality so important in primitive societies.” Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilisation

>>512711595 (OP)

>>512711595 (OP)
This could be explained away by a legalistic Jew such as myself that that law applies during a time of war and does not apply outside of any time it applied. That was also over 3,000 years ago

>>512713162
the OT is full of the Father's mercy and the NT is full of the Son's wrath, especially Revelation.
the OT also has instances where the Son shows up, the pre-incarnate Christ was the one who nuked sodom and gomorrah in Genesis 19:24 for example, the verse in hebrew basically says "Yahweh rained down fire and brimstone from Yahweh" showing there's 2 Yahweh persons involved here.

I'm sorry that you were molested, but talking retarded shit won't change that.

Mark 14:51-52
BREAKING!!! Gay Rabbi arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane with naked boy, after midnight

>>512711811
So it’s contradictory?
>take the little ones
>no wait DONT take the little ones
Im pretty sure there’s a third verse too

>>512711595 (OP)
Why are reddit trannies like yourself mad at this Bible verse? Or are you an actual foid (old roastie) with a droopy vagina? Stay mad either way geg! CHRIST WON.

>>512711595 (OP)
this gotta be the (old) testament lol

>>512713162
>OT is just Jews rambling about their greatness
you didn't read it. Almost all of it was about Jews jewing, fucking up and getting cucked as a natural/divine consequence. God explicitly told the Jews through Moses, Deut 9:5:
>Don't think I give you this land (Canaan)because you were righteous
>but only because they (native Canaanites) were wicked

and in Ezekiel 14
>"Son of Man (the prophet Ezekiel)! If a country (by context, Israel) is unfaithful
>And I (God) stretch my hand out to punish it
>even if Noal, Daniel and Job were in it
>they will only save themselves by their righteousness

A self-fellating race-affirmation document wouldn't have stuff like this in it.

Christ is soooo King!

>>512713847
There is. Picrel

>>512712593
Its funny when christians make fun of mohammad.

>>512714083
that's a good practice for that time and place.
>force rapist to marry girl, he provides for her and their future children for the rest of his life
>kill rapist, tribe is down 1 warrior, girl is now used goods and maybe even a single mother that no one will want to marry since she's not a virgin anymore
>add 50 shekel clause so that people don't just find a pretty girl and rape her, and instead aim to court her and get blessing from her father first

>>512713121
That rule was for Israelite slaves, not foreigners like Midianites. Jews were allowed to keep foreign slaves for life.

AHHH MEN!

>>512714103
the difference is, muhammad is muslim's pattern of conduct to emulate.
the Bible is full of broken and corrupt people, especially the jews, only Christ is good.

>>512714083
YIKES

>>512714663
>only Christ is good.
Christ is literally supposed to be the very same God who sanctioned Moses taking little girls as wives/slaves. If you believe in the Trinity, Jesus was watching when they did that

>>512714567
thanks for the correction.

>>512711595 (OP)
why do people direct questions at Christians that should be addressed to Jews?

>>512712593
AI is heavily kiked and I won't listen to it. Maybe try to do some thinking for yourself

>>512711595 (OP)
It is though

>>512714791
Because you believe Jesus and the OT God are the same God.

>>512714733
>the very same God who sanctioned Moses taking little girls as wives/slaves
in the context of ancient warfare, the alternative for captured populations, especially orphaned girls, was often death or abandonment.
preserving them within israelite society may seem brutal by modern standards, but more humane than leaving them to die.
least bad option.

>>512714948
Hahahahahaha. I could read you the original hebrew myself in person and you would still find some reason to not believe me.

>>512715357
>in the context of ancient warfare
There you go again, saying "it was le different time". The Bible says God never changes. So if he disapproved of that behavior, why didn't he tell Moses?

NGL
YHWH's obsession with circumcized penis is kinda Gay

>>512715424
God's moral nature doesn't change, but His instruction often reflect the realities of human history.
just as He permitted divorce "because of the hardness of hearts" He also gave laws that regulated (not endorsed) certain wartime practices.
the mosaic law was a step forward in a brutal world, not the final word on morality.

imagine worshipping these Jewish Faggots

>>512714663
>The difference is our prophets are criminal rapists, and Muhammad is not!

>>512711595 (OP)
the OT has no prohibitions against child sex.
jews rape kids.

>>512711595 (OP)
>1 Corinthians 7:36-36But if anyone thinks he is behaving improperly by remaining unmarried, and if he is past the bloom of youth, then this is what should take place: Let him do what he wants; he does not sin. Let them marry.

WE-And if a man feels that he is doing the right thing for the woman he is to marry, then let him marry her. That is, if she is no longer young, and if he wants her very much. Then he must do as he thinks best. It is not wrong for him to do it.

WEB-But if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he desires. He doesn’t sin. Let them marry.

RGT-But if any man thinks he is behaving less than optimally toward his virgin, if she has passed the flower of her age, and so requires, let him do what he will. He does not sin. Let her be married.

NKJV-But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

NET-If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry.

NASB1995-But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgindaughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.

NASB-But if anyone thinks that he is acting dishonorably toward his virgin, if she is past her youth and it ought to be so, let him do what he wishes, he is not sinning; let them marry.

>>512715384
>Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28; 5:31-32; 5:38-39, 5:43-44
Jesus expanded on the law. God's law is revealed over time. Our hearts were hard in that period of time so that was the best we could get. (Still not conceding on child rape though). What law do you think Jews followed before Moses? What does you think people did before Abraham?

>>512711595 (OP)
>>512716115
ESV-If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin

ERV-A man might think that he is not doing the right thing with his fiancée. She might be almost past the best age to marry. So he might feel that he should marry her. He should do what he wants. It is no sin for them to get married.

DLNT-But if one thinksthat heis behaving-dishonorably toward his virgindaughter— if she is beyond-the-bloom-of-youth, and it ought to be so— let him do what he wants. He is not sinning. Let them marry.

DARBY-But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

CSB-If any man thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, if she is getting beyond the usual age for marriage, and he feels he should marry—he can do what he wants. He is not sinning; they can get married.

>>512715357
>in the context of ancient warfare
>by modern standards

>>512715602
>God's moral nature doesn't change, (except if it's a prophet we don't like)

So that means that Muhammad, the Ishmaelite prophet, was justified in everything he did back then. Right?

>>512715992
yeah i didn't say that.
muhammad is absolutely a rapist, and a voluntary rape victim as well if you read the story of his night rendezvous with the dark men of al-zutt.

the (((Vatican))) is gayer than
a Pride Carnival Cruise!

>>512716266
LOL OK

Wasn't your gawd sired by a Roman soldier called Pantera, and your whole death cult a coverup for the subsequent pregancy?

>>512716376
>Pantera
>source Talmud
>source Celsus, a 2nd century Greek philosopher

>>512716544
And?

>>512716251
God's moral nature is constant, but His governance adapts to human conditions.
think of it like a parent guiding a child through different stages.
the rules evolve but the values behind them don't.
the old testament reflects God working within violent tribal societies, not endorsing their norms but regulating them to limit harm.

>>512716376
>it's a muslim
had a feeling.

>>512716716
>God's moral nature is constant
Is that why he killed more people than Satan in your "holy book"?

Didn't he regret making humans, then kill almost everyone on Earth then regret that as well? How is that constant?

>>512716637
Celsus hated Christians and Jews hate Christians. Both of these theories were compiled roughly 2 centuries after Jesus died. You don't see any reason why they wouldn't want to take away the divinity of Jesus?

Now go read Numbers 31:40. A bunch of those girls were given to priests. The implication is that their virginity wasn't taken but given to God. Either they became nuns (unlikely), concubines of Levite high priests (the only group forbidden from mixing. Unlikely to be brides), Or were virgin sacrifices to God (most likely).

>>512711595 (OP)
Mark 9:42-49 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

>>512716989
>Celsus hated Christians and Jews hate Christians
And?

Aren't Jews the chosen people?

>>512716956
Satan was responsible for bringing death into the world in the first place

>>512717195
So Dinosaurs never died before humans brought Satan into the world? Nothing died before Adam was made?

>>512714733
Moses was facing a mutiny. He literally had to let his men have teen cunny to avoid getting killed. The shameful part is he said God sanctioned it when he clearly didn't if you paid attention to what Moses said at first; and it got written down in the Bible like that.

>>512716956
the author of life (God) has authority over life and death.

anyway, let me tell you of the tale of muhammad (pbuh) and the men of al-zutt.

so one day, muhammad called his buddy ibn masud to journey with him.
they went out into the desert and then muhammad drew a line and said "don't leave this circle, if you do, you're finished boy"
then muhammad stepped away from him and a group of tall dark naked scrawny black men appeared.
they started taking turns mounting him as muhammad began moaning out recitations of quran.
one of them stepped closer to the safety circle ibn masud was in, so he sat down to protect his butt.
after a whole night of being ridden, muhammad crawled over to ibn masud, in pain and exhausted and said "i'm so tired" and rested his head in ibn masud's lap.

>>512717281
>He literally had to let his men have teen cunny to avoid getting killed
Wow. What a moral quandry, if you're a jewrat

>>512717349
When you're done writing shit nobody will read, we can go back to talking about your Incest/Rape/Genocide Manual

>>512711595 (OP)
>Why do Christians pretend the Bible is anti-pedo?
QUESTION: By what objective standard does a scoffer call anything to "wrong"?

As a bible-believing Christian I can know why things are immoral, but the scoffer is begging the question when the scoffer tries to conclude anything God does/allows to be "wrong".

>>512717170
Matthew 21:43:
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

Galatians 3:28-29:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Romans 11:25-26:
“For I would not, brothers, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits: that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘There will come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.’”

>>512717528
Here comes the random ramblings from the New Testicle

Just answer the question with a yes or no

Are the Jews the chosen people or not? After all, you're quoting from their book

>>512717674
They expect Jews to be perfect. That's why Jesus said you had to be perfect.

>>512718084
>>512718084

>>512717674
John 1:11-12:
“He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”

Romans 2:28-29:
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly. And circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, and not by the letter. His praise is not from men, but from God.”

Hebrews 8:13:
“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

1 Peter 2:9-10:
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. In times past, you were not a people, but now you are the people of God, who had not received mercy, but now have received mercy.”

>>512711595 (OP)
I'm not a Christian but it's probably better that they were taken as brides than murdered. What's silly is that they killed the midianites because their loose women had sex with Israelites. And they caught a plague.
Baal begets Asheteroth, and ashteroth begets mammon. Sexual immorality leads to too many children, which is what leads to child sacrifice. So I can understand why you'd want to punish the midianites.
But the Israelites just said that the plague was God punishing them so they took revenge like retards.

>>512711595 (OP)
32 of them were part of the LORDS share, which is supposed to be burned by the way. They couldn't have worked in the temple either. And it had tunnels underneath it, too.

>>512711595 (OP)
Why is pol polluted with projection threads?

>>512713532
The Son is more lenient than the Farther. Go read Joshua and Moses and the burning bush story. God the Father forbids taking war loot. God the Son in an angelic form goes and tells Joshua that it is ok after the soldiers did it anyway so they don't get punished again when when it is clear they will be repeat offenders. Moses talks to a the Son in the form of a burning bush. God the Father immediately has a hissy fit about his son not being circumcised right after this encounter.

Although he had done no violence
and had said nothing deceptive,
10 yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness,
to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering.
If he does, he will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his days;
and at his hand Adonai’s desire
will be accomplished.
11 After this ordeal, he will see satisfaction.
“By his knowing [pain and sacrifice],
my righteous servant makes many righteous;
it is for their sins that he suffers.
12 Therefore I will assign him a share with the great,
he will divide the spoil with the mighty,
for having exposed himself to death
and being counted among the sinners,
while actually bearing the sin of many
and interceding for the offenders.”

>>512717462
>stop besmirching the prophet subhanahu wa ta'ala please!!!
no,
now we're going to move on to one of the biggest piece of shit things he ever did.

so, muhammad adopted this kid named zayd ibn muhammad as his son.
muhammad liked the little guy.
anyway, he goes over to zayd's house to hang out with him, but zayd's wife opens the door instead in a state of undress.
muhammad's eyes go wide, she's beautiful, so he pops a boner and says "uhhh nothing! nevermind!" and runs away.

later, zayd learns about this incident and goes up to muhammad saying "oh muhammad, you are my father and my prophet, please, take my wife."
muhammad, fearing this is sort of incestuous and that people will gossip about him if he does this turns it down "n-no, that's okay zayd, i have plenty of wives in my harem already, you keep her."

but then later, muhammad receives a revelation!
>"oooooh muhammad, you should take zaynab as your wife"
so he does so, but then, the people start gossiping about him, just as he'd feared.
taking the wife of his own adopted son? that's like marrying your daughter in law.

muhammad stresses out about this.
but then later, muhammad receives a revelation!
>"ooooh muhammad, i don't regard adopted children as real children, in fact, let's get rid of adoption altogether."
now zayd is not only out a wife, but out a father too.

and this is why in islamic societies, adoption is no longer a thing, just because muhammad wanted to fuck his son's wife.

>>512718363
LMAO

How long did it take you to type all of that up?

>>512718464
i type fast as fuck, ~110 wpm when i'm good and caffeinated.

>>512717499
>you can't have objective morality without God
>my objective morality is whatever this jew egregore was said to have said by some jews
>I have objective morality and you don't.

What if I think objective morality is gay, and it's what has lead to treating nons and jews as people?

>>512717674
God played on hard mode on getting his message out. He quit at 33 AD and just made anyone with the right beliefs and conduct his chosen people.

>>512711595 (OP)
>Why do Christians pretend

Could have just stopped right there. Their emperor is naked and the only thing they can do is redefine naked for themselves so it no longer applies.

>>512718168
>32 of them were part of the LORDS share, which is supposed to be burned by the way.
In other words they were Moloch'd

>>512718842
They were jewed

>>512718297
The Biblical Moses never existed. Exodus is pure fiction, the Elephantine Papyrus debunks it entirely. Jews were never enslaved or freed from Egypt.

>>512718561
So you admit all you have is your subjective opinion.

>>512711595 (OP)
Tell me what the Book of Numbers is about without asking Google or ChatGPT. You can't. All you can do is quote random verses out of context.

>>512711595 (OP)
Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the Jews or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the Jews of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

https://youtu.be/eT_RUdBTlp4

>>512711595 (OP)
as far as i recall the age where marriage is allowable according to the canons is the age of menarche. below that marriage is not allowed.
so, definitely not pro pedo from what i recall.

>>512719097
>All you can do is quote random verses out of context.
In what context does "take the young virgin girls for yourself" mean anything not sexual? If it's not sexual why is them being virgins relevant?

>>512718894
Exodus happened like over 1000 years before the Elephantine Papyrus?

>>512719533
Because they haven't engaged in sexual sin yet and can still be incorporated into the community

>>512718363
so then days later, this is when muhammad really starts going off the rails.
he throws a big shindig, inviting a bunch of people over to celebrate his new marriage to his son's wife.

he's wanting to spend most of his time fucking his harem, but people keep asking him stupid questions about the faith he doesn't feel like making up answers to.

so then, muhammad receives a revelation!
>oohhh believers! do not enter the homes of the prophet without permission! don't come over too early and linger until the meal is ready! if you're invited, then enter on time. once you have eaten, then go on your way! don't stay to chitchat! such behavior is truly annoying to the prophet! he is too shy to ask you to leave but I allah am not shy! also, when you ask my-- er his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier! it's purer for your hearts and theirs and it is not right for you to annoy the messenger of allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. cucking me-- er him after i-- er he dies would be a major sin in the sight of allah! (surah 33:53)

>>512711595 (OP)

Only about 20% of this christjew spam originates from shitskinned Nick Fuentes followers. 80% originates from jeet spammers/bots. Why are jews paying jeets to blanket spam christjewery into far-right spaes? I think the goal is to associate the far-right with christjewery which will repulse White normies, 90% of whom are atheists. Also, so that the shitskins see the christjew spam and see a backdoor into our movement as "brothers in christ" and then start infesting our spaces.

>>512711595 (OP)
The Bible isn't about sexualizing children, that's only in your talmudic edomitish (jewish) mindset.

A young woman is a virgin, we still use that wording for in German. A Jungfrau (virgin) is literally a "young woman".

>>512719877
>anothee European meme flag
Show flag

>God commands Christians to slaughter the enemy, and spare the virgin females.
>Scoffers bitch about it.
QUESTION: By what objective standard does the scoffer conclude anything God does/allows to be "wrong"?

If all you have is your mere opinion, then no one cares...not even those of us that care about the truth.

>>512711782
>That doesn't say "for wives"
It doesn't say for rape either. The context would be known to who it was written for. Marriage seems the most likely candidate since fornication was illegal.

>>512711595 (OP)
>Christians
>quotes some random OT shit that has nothing to do with Christians
I see you Rabbi.

>>512718917
First off, your interpretation is subjective because no one can agree on anything. And it's still just your opinion that the Hebrew scriptures are the basis of the universe (KEK).
Second, you sound no different than a yid who thinks it's okay to fuck 9 year old boys because the Talmud says so.
Is it okay to cut off your genitals because Jesus said so? Is it immoral to eat shellfish because God said so? Congratulations, you have an objective morality that is a little retarded and you can only expand upon it with fucking pilpul. Which is how the Talmud came to be.
Thirdly, I reject the notion of a fully objective morality. Morality has always only applied inside groups. It is a kindness to apply your morality to a new group and expect it to be reciprocated. Blacks and semites largely cannot be expected to reciprocate. Morality is intuitive to people. I am morally superior to those other groups because I am white and it is intuitive.

>>512719877
i'm a big shill for the gospel and i don't like fuentes.
i've only seen 2 clips of his, him sparta kicking that blue haired grandma (which was funny) and one where he was saying something like
>heh heh, why would i want a girl i have common interests with? did the holy spirit look around something like that? no, it picked the young virgin mary
which was blasphemous and retarded.

>>512720235
>Morality is intuitive to people.
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, while their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them,

Screw the Christianity thing. I'm just some guy from King David's line. The entire world is going to end after 400 years and everyone on the planet will die off due to depopulation and infertility.

Just don't have sex.

>>512720235
you're a stonetoss comic

BREAKING NEWS !!.....
God allows Satan to exist.

I know this really bothers the scoffer, and the scoffer thinks negatively towards God on many topics.......but here's the thing: The Christian has God as THE OBJECT STANDARD OF RIGHT by which we can know that which does not comport. When the scoffer complains about God doing/allowing anything to happen, the scoffer is begging the question: By what objective standard do you determine anything to be "wrong"?

I'm a bible-believing Christian. When a scoffer bitches about slavery, I don't hide from Scripture...I ask the question being begged: According to you, what's "wrong" with slavery?

>>512713162
Not even jews, extinct hebrew goatfuckers, modern kikes are cannanite mistery meat mutts

>>512720115
>has nothing to do with Christians
Jesus' entire selling point is that he is the fulfillment of OT Messiah prophecies.

>>512720115
All of the bible is Christian Scripture, retard. If you reject the OT, then you have not Jesus Christ.

>>512720857
I know God allows Satan to exist, which casts doubt on his claim of being "all good"

>>512720235
>First off, your interpretation is subjective because no one can agree on anything.
The existence of so many getting things wrong, does NOT mean there isn't the right they fail to espouse. (NOTE: I did not bother reading past what is quoted, and therefore my response is limited solely to the retarded garbage quoted)

>>512721247
that iritated me too.
internet atheists really struggle with the categories of ontology and epistemology.

>>512720586
King David's not real. Its a judeaiziation of the worship of Thuthmose III, who wiped out Megido and that chosen leper colony moved in.

>>512720641
>For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

>And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Yeah, I'd say you're a bad person if you think genital mutilation is fine and bacon is evil. And niggers and jeets are our brothers if they go to church.

>>512721247
I mean the Bible. There's disagreement about the Bible. Which is also retarded to say, because so much of the morality in it seems obvious. But since it's morality itself, doing anything wrong is a sin.

>>512721039
>I know God allows Satan to exist, which casts doubt on his claim of being "all good"
As a Christian the answer is always the same: It's for His glory.

As a scoffer, you're still begging the question: What is "good" according to your worldview?

(NOTE: I am not asking you to list things you like, or approve of, because no one gives a shit. I am specifically asking you to explain the concept of "good" according to your worldview)

>>512711595 (OP)
not all female servants were for the purposes of fucking back then, some peoples the lord ordered the complete destruction of including the young women to prevent israel from mixing with them and becoming the kikes we know and hate to day. if they took pregnant servants who knows what impregnated them the children would introduce racial pollution potentially

>>512721666
oh no not the spooky numbers

>>512721541
>I mean the Bible. There's disagreement about the Bible.
SIMPLE QUESTION: Does the existence of counterfeit money mean that real money 'does not exist'? (rhetorical question...I don't *actually* expect you to answer...the question is just meant to expose just how retarded scoffer commentary is)

I just called you a fucking moron. Because God told me NOT to be kind to worthless meatpuppets that regurgitate Kike propaganda against my Everlasting Father.

>>512721545
>As a Christian the answer is always the same: It's for His glory.
That's a stupid answer and if it's acceptable to you, you're mentally on the level of a bronze age Jewish pedo warlord like Moses

>>512711595 (OP)
Why do retards like (You) always take one verse without context and choose to pervert the word of God ?
Oh wait I know, it's because (You) are a dirty fucking kike that's why.