Thread 5911110

Hidden rats welcome.

>>5911110 (OP)
Pretty sure the Bible only forbids sex with animals and between 2 men (providing you get married first)

>>5911231
Sodom and Gomorrah can be interpreted as rape and not homosexuality.

>>5911242
Pretty sure when they demanded to fuck the angels, Lot offered them his daughter and they refused. Strong indication that they sought gay sex in particular. Additionally, the Benjaminites actions later echo the Sodomites but features them raping and butchering a woman, probably to indicate they weren't quite as bad as the Caananites. Since the Bible generally condemns homosexuality when it comes up its hard to support these more creative interpretations.
>>5911231
Yeah I think child brides are permitted. But you can't have a mom and her daughter at the same time iirc. And no incest. It really is a total minefield and I don't know how I'm ever going to find a wife if I have to follow all these rules.

>>5911242
Yeah but that would be an incorrect interpretation.

>>5911256
Multiple wives isnt a thing in modern Christianity tho. The rules for marriage in early Christianity were a lot closer to the rules taught in islam than what is taught in Christianity today, especially if you choose to include liberal shit like gay marriages.

>>5911117
me watching women with massive tits get breast reductions

>>5911111
Why was I so turned on by pregnant women when I was nine?

this is the best one.

>>5911110 (OP)
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Sanhedrin 55b4 : 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse.

Deuteronomy 22 28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

>>5911321
>>5911409
KEK

>>5911429
damn, I thought this scene looked cool but it turns out it's from some capeshit show

did not think i would see the day 4chan boards would start resembling a facebook feed but here it is. this is some of the most unfunny shit i have ever seen. half of the time the text adds nothing to the image and the sole idea to make memes formulaic is so fucking stupid. i wonder what husk of a soul it takes to enjoy this or let alone create this vile imagery and then i realised that people make it because it's easy. it takes zero effort to make something like this. your shit sucks, fuck you.

>>5911231
Child sex is hurtful for the child both physically and spiritually. Christ told us that anyone who gets a child to fall will suffer greatly.

>>5911110 (OP)

why lie? the bible is fine with having sex with minors.

>>5913039
the reason the clit is at the top of the vagina is so that if the penis is too big, it will rub the clit which will arrouse the female. human pussies are literally designed with a 'if im too small, its gonna be okay' switch.

>>5913246
No, we were not designed by God for us to have fun. The sexual pleasure is one of the great fruits of fulfilling one of the great commandments He gave and therefore should not be stolen by non-reproductive means or sex outside of the proper (marital) context.

>>5913039
Im not arguing for it or saying its harmless im just pointing out that the bible does not specify any particular age and historically christian girls were usually married by the time they had their first period and often significantly before but the marriage was not consumated untill she had bled.

>>5913326
>does not specify any particular age
Yes, that's because we have more general laws about avoiding sex, especially pre-marital. Any sensible interpretation on those laws would heavily be against child marriage and child sex.
>historically christian girls were usually married by the time they had their first period and often significantly before
I'd assume that's mostly stemming from roman and jewish customs. The jews (mainly in their rabbinical teachings) embraced children as sexual objects while the romans were extremely hedonistic and use marriage for social alliances mostly.

>>5913247
>we were not designed by God for us to have fun
this is your mind on protestantism

>>5913392
Ur talking about interpretation and stuff thats not even in the scripture at this point.
I think its safe to say you dont know what ur talking about and just think religious teachings can/should be warped to fit ur personal opinions and feelings.
Yeah any sensible person would choose not to engage in these activities but it does not mean they are forbidden in scripture

>>5913643
I'm not protestant

>>5913646
>Ur talking about interpretation
Correct, everything needs to be interpreted, otherwise no one would ever need to explain scripture but that's what Jesus did.
>stuff thats not even in the scripture at this point.
Like what?
>and just think religious teachings can/should be warped to fit ur personal opinions and feelings.
No, but your kind of thinking is exactly why Jesus criticized the pharisees.
>it does not mean they are forbidden in scripture
Your take is extremely dumb. You could basically add the internet to any crime and now it would be acceptable to you. I'd love to call this bait but I have seen people express the opinion that any body of law needs to cover all cases and be 100% precise while still remaining future proof somehow.

>>5913656
>Correct everything needs to be interpreted.
Ok show me a Bible passage that can be interpreted as "married sex is forbidded unless both parties are over 18"
>like what
Ur claims that the Bible forbids stuff that it dosent would probably be the best example
>your kind of thinking is exactly why Jesus critisizef the pharisees.
That was more due to their hypocrisy and lack of real faith not their legalism. Although that was part of it.
Im not overly legalistic In asking you for any proof to back up ur claim that something that the mother mary took part in is forbidden by the Bible lol
>your take is extremely dumb.
Oh the irony

>>5913667
>Ok show me a Bible passage that can be interpreted as "married sex is forbidded unless both parties are over 18"
Mat 18:6.
>That was more due to their hypocrisy and lack of real faith not their legalism.
Wrong. Mat 23:23
>that something that the mother mary took part in is forbidden by the Bible lol
Mary did not have sex in order to conceive Christ.

>>5913671
>Heavily be against child marriage
>Mary did not have sex in order to conceive Christ

>>5913671
>Mattew 18:6
is talking about leading new christians astray it has nothing to do with what age marriage shouldnor shouldnt happen.
>Mattew 23:23
is about their hypocrisy in how they pay attention to laws surrounding little things but dont give a shit about more important shit.
Do you have insanely bad reading comprehension or something?

>>5913392
Calling the Romans hedonistic is very much a pop history narrative, partially created by later Christian Romans to shame their pagan ancestors. They still punished things like promiscuity and drunkenness much more than today

>>5913671
Yet she was 13 while married to Joseph and no other character seems to find this unusual...

>>5913716
>is talking about leading new christians astray it has nothing to do with what age marriage shouldnor shouldnt happen.
He literally mentions kids the verse before as He's holding up one.
>but dont give a shit about more important shit.
Through their legalism

>>5913720
>They still punished things like promiscuity
Really? Why didn't that pan out when augustus tried that?

>>5913721
Yes, she was married. It was not her will and they did not consumate their marriage. Tradition tells us that the was so old by then that sex would not have been much of a possibility.

>>5913790
You do realize that they had kids after Jesus, right? James, for instance, and several other siblings.

>>5914177
>You do realize that they had kids after Jesus, right?
You do realize that in their culture you would call both your stepsiblings as well as your cousins brothers and sisters, right?

>>5914182
Adelphoi and adelphai are used in specific context with relation to named siblings and his mother. In other contexts where cousins are mentioned, they use anepsios.
I know there's no arguing with a catholic as you can't admit that Mary wasn't an eternal virgin, so I'll just say cope more.

>>5914187
>Surely they spoke greek and not aramaic as the Bible itself says
I'm not a catholic but I'm also not allergic to patristic commentary to understand the position of those God deemed worthy to canonize the Bible. Of course prots don't care much about that, otherwise they simply wouldn't have called some of God's word 'not divinely inspired'.

>>5914188
If you're saying that we have to consider the language other than what's written in surviving texts, your speculation is as valid as mine.

>>5914193
No I'm saying we need to consider the culture He and his disciples grew up in. If we don't do that, there is no point in trying to claim validity in any interpretation as it's just personal. That's the problem sola scriptura and protestantism constantly faces and why there are according to protestant thought thousands of correct churches.

>>5914199
I don't really give a shit about sola scriptura or other made up doctrines. There's plenty of scholarly secular analysis that considers the original context of the culture at the time and considers tradition while not being beholden to it.

>>5914210
>There's plenty of scholarly secular analysis that considers the original context of the culture at the time and considers tradition while not being beholden to it.
Secular analyses of spiritual matters is completely absurd. It's like if ants tried to investigate big human cities. The different methods which stem from the scientific method presuppose multiple earthly truths but can not be simply extrapolated to the supernatural.
If it there was such an easy way to understand scripture, Jesus wouldn't have needed to use symbols or explain scripture to us.

>>5914215
Damn you got me there

>>5913790
I dont think theres any point arguing with you because you clearly think you know better than everyone and think the Bible just means whatever the fuck you want it to mean.

>>5914430
>and think the Bible just means whatever the fuck you want it to mean.
But I already told you I'm not protestant?

>>5914435
Catholic, Protestant neither of those make any difference to the fact that you are just making stuff up and saying the Bible says it when it does not. Also that was another anon you were talking to I have only just come back to the thread

>>5913716
>>5914435
That was the last post I had made in our conversation untill now

>>5914456
>that you are just making stuff up
I'm basing myself on the holy fathers, not my personal interpretation which you are demanding.

>>5914463
LMAO if you say so

>>5914215
Kek

>>5911117
lol