What's Worse? Christians, Help Me Please!

I hate to point this out, but obviously the priest was not wrong at all! Since you were not and are not actually Presbyterian!

He wasn't making a judgement based on ridiculous preconceived notions, but you need to understand why. Presbyterians do "hate" Catholics, and they hate Episcopalian Protestants as well. "Presbyterian" means "Priestly" with the implication of priests alone as the gateway to God, and "Episcopalian" means "Bishoply" with the implication of a church hierarchy, under the command of Bishops and Archbishops, and ultimately the King ... or the Pope. The entire raison d'être of Presbyterianism is to deny the temporal authority of bishops and kings over the godly affairs of the people. A true Presbyterian, therefore, would not be marrying a Catholic without either renouncing his Church, or ensuring that his wife renounced hers.

Just as a matter of information, you would have done much, much better simply to have told that Catholic priest that you followed no religion. He would have been far more tolerant than the average Lutheran.

Sure he can, didn't you see? The Books of Jacob and of Alma!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, so you can chop off your leg if you want. After all, it won't kill you if you do it right. Same with blasphemy--it may not be unforgivable, but it's still a sin.

What gives you the idea that atheists can sin freely? That simply isn't true.

You are correct. Therein lies the difference between the three perspectives of the three kingdoms of heaven: the Celestial person does the right things for the right reasons, regardless of fear of punishment or expectation of reward. The Terrestrial person does the right things for the wrong reasons. And the Telestial person does the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

I agree, as does God. Only the truly penitent are saved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please see Doctrine & Covenants Section 19 for a reference.

Also, see Doctrine & Covenants Section 76.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I know. I feel Adstar was so put out by me asking, knowing that he could not defend his claim in any way whatsoever, that it caused him to say he never wanted to talk to me again. You on the other hand have tried a response, but the very first words of that response make my case.

The biblical god has no objection to kiddy-fiddling. You might - as you should, but those are not god laws or morals, but human laws and morals.

Alas it could also serve as a convenient excuse for all those priests currently bonking children - because they answer to god, not man.

I would personally ask that a one sentence addition be put in the bible, that says; "Thou shalt not bonk kiddies". That would sort a lot of the problem out instantly.

But god was never one for saying "it is ok to..", but instead to say "it isn't ok to..", or more often "it is detestable to.."

The excuse that god doesn't openly state it's ok to do is a highly insufficient one. It is also fallacious considering your god is the one openly declaring that a person, (or parent), must kill their children via stoning if they're naughty. If that is not "license to abuse children", then I don't know what is.

Deut 21:18 'If a man has a rebellious and stubborn son.... take him to the town gates and stone him to death'.

There are other passages where god makes it more than clear that the slaughter of one's children is fine if that child dishonours their parents or is badly behaved.

The bible and god have not changed opinion in the last few millennia, luckily society has. god's word is redundant.

I thank you for providing the passage, but alas, it only caters for young jesus believers. It doesn't mention non-jesus believers. Do you espouse that it is therefore ok to bonk non-religious children?

That is from your own set of human morals, and while I agree, god clearly does not.

I thank you though for taking the time that Adstar was incapable of.

Grr... it was what I was working upto.. f00!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's simply not true. "Kiddy-fiddling" is and always has been against God's laws.

His prophets in modern times speak for Him, and their words are His voice to us today. I just gave you a passage from a talk by a modern-day Apostle, who speaks for God.

No, and neither does God. Again, President Packer said that molestation is wrong with all children, and he speaks for God.

 

Good point! I think what I really objected to was the use of the word Hate, especially at that time when I was doing my best not to ruffle feathers. It may not be to you but it was to me, mindboggling to realize that this kind of petty prejudism was still rampant. If not me then he was judging every Presbyterian. If 2 people fall in love before their religious orientation is known then it doesn't matter. Love is stronger than religious conviction in most cases.

*By the way. my family roots are Presbyterian and the only church in the small village where I was raised had our family name attached to it. To be honest I didn't see the necessity of staying with it as I got older.

 

Where? I have given you ample opportunity to provide passage/s where god says kiddy fiddling is a no-no. You haven't so far managed. Well? Where is it?

The bible, (especially the early parts), are full of gods laws. He even goes so far as to say that a man having long hair is a disgrace. If he can manage something as petty and trivial as that, he could easily have added one small tiny wee sentence that says "dont bonk kids". No such sentence exists.

He told you what animals you couldn't eat, what hairstyle you could or couldn't have, what people you could or couldn't sleep with, what diseases you could or could not remain in camp with, but not once did he say anything against having intercourse with children.

You can say "that's simply not true", but you can't back up that statement.

Who knows, perhaps god himself is a kiddy-fiddler, and that's why he demanded the first born, (ok, from a "realistic" perspective that has come from the simple fact that even now 1 in 3 first time pregnancies ends in miscarriage), but hey, god is above science and "reality", so.. is god a paedo?

Are they by any chance working on an N-NT? All I remember is jesus saying something about many fakes. These "modern day" prophets are working on "modern day" society morals, not god morals. If they were, and some are, they'd have no quarrels with bonking kiddies. Many don't.. Guess they are the true prophets.

Nobody speaks for god. Is he mute? Is he unable to string a sentence together? Is the almighty incapable of making his will and laws known? He did so once, in a book. Not once in that book did he say it was a sin to bonk children.

Nowhere in the bible does god say it is ok to breathe. Does that mean you can't? The case here is that god clearly defined what wasn't acceptable, by handing down a shitload of rules and regulations. included in those laws were many of a sexual nature - that informed man that he could not sleep with his parents, sisters or indeed lie with a man as he did with a woman. Nowhere in that long list of sexually related laws did god say it wasn't ok to sleep with children. You're trying to excuse god by bringing some unknown priest from some small little church out in the middle of nowhere into the discussion, without realising he is irrelevant. You belittle god by thinking he would not and could not put the command in with all the other sexually related commands that he made in the bible. Instead what you're doing is attaching yourself to some modern dude, because times have changed, and morals have changed. god didn't ever say it, so you have to rely on some modern day human - and then naively claim that he has taken god's place as rule setter.

"Let humans speak for humans, let god speak for god".

 

Ditto. :m:

 

(Mat 18:3 NIV) And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Mat 18:4 NIV) Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

(Mat 18:5 NIV) "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

(Mat 18:6 NIV) But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

(Mat 18:7 NIV) "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

peace

c20

 

Snake Lord, your mistake is assuming that the Bible contains all of God's words, and that He hasn't spoken other words. He has, including the Book of Mormon in ancient America, and the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price in modern times. I can't find the reference right now, but the D&C indicates that (to paraphrase) "Thou shalt not commit adultery, nor do anything like unto it." (emphasis added). Child molestation is "like unto" adultery, so it is forbidden.

Perhaps if we had a complete record of all the commandments and statutes that Moses was given, we would have the command to abstain from molestation. Or maybe it was just assumed by the Israelites that it was wrong, and God saw no reason to tell them differently.

The modern prophets speak for God today, and their word stands in spite of any criticism by the world.

 

why are you trying to twist his words, he never said that, I've bolded,coloured and numbered, for easy reference.
(1) this does not mean he can do no wrong, understand.

(2)
but he did say that christians could sin with inpunity.

so we can gather from this and this is not twisting your words it's what you state.(3)
all atheists are celestial,(however we are just humans with a conscience.) and all christians are are terrestrial.

 

Nope, doesn't follow. It's true that atheists with a conscience are of higher moral character than Christians without one, but there are atheists without conscience, and (most) Christians have one. It differs from individual to individual. Blanket statements like "all atheists are this way" and "all Christians are that way" are fallacious to the extreme.

 

This is a good one, since fornication is a sin, having sex with children causes them to sin because it is fornication.

The sin of fornication is enough deterrent to having sex with children.

 

That's how I interpreted Mat 18:6. How in the hell does a raped baby get labelled a sinner because of the act? If the baby dies as a result then he must go to God as a sinner. How does this baby ask for forgiveness from the almighty and forgiveness for what? Getting diddled?

 

Of absolutely no relevance to whether having sexual intercourse with children is ok or not. The passage defines that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must be like a child, (i.e naive and ignorant).

Again, entirely irrelevant to whether sexual intercourse with a child is ok or not.

You'll find a paedophile probably "welcomes" children more than most people.

Again this is irrelevant.

A) It only relates to religious jesus-believing children and

B) it relates to child sin, (those sins which can be seen described by god, of which child bonking is not included). Thus a child could bonk another child and be free from sin, because nowhere does god say child bonking is a sin.

How you even thought this was of relevance is one of those "paranormal", weird, bizarre, strange, Ripley's believe it or not occurences.

Fuck peace, answer the question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not a mistake at all. I am aware that god hasn't included every little thing in existence. It leaves me wondering whether golden showers are acceptable or not, or indeed if sado-masochism is allowed.

However, god did, as you have no choice but to agree, leave a long list concerning sexual activity. In that list he mentioned not sleeping with one's parents, or siblings. He also mentioned not sleeping with people of the same sex. Admittedly I am not Yhwh, but I would at least see it as reasonable to take the extra 3 nano-seconds to say "don't sleep with kids" - even to the neglect of mentioning that men should not have long hair. It's priorities I guess, and it would seem our priorities differ. As a father, remaining free from paedophile acitivty is the top of my list, as a god I suppose it would be hippy hairstyles - which is even more bizarre considering jesus is imaged as being a hippy.

I'm sorry, but you have no authority here - or well, as much as David Koresh - if that. We are talking the bible - god's word, not any recent offshoots that god has warned us about. All one need do is look at the history or Mormonism to realise it is a fraud. A blatant scam devised to usurp religious history. I do not doubt your veracity of belief, and I will allow you that belief, but to hear god's word, one looks to the bible - not some modern day rewrite - let alone the opinion of one particular little man who lives and preaches out in the middle of nowheresville.

 

LIKE a child - innocent and trusting.

The idea of a child humbling himself before Jesus is hardly synonymous with peadophilia.

In Jesus' name?

Fornication is sin.

For you because you have rejected the message. It is all nonsense to you.

I did.

peace

c20

 

You're mistaken. It is my testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith really was a true prophet of God. And I have more authority in my pinky finger than David Koresh ever had.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Whether it be SnakeLord or somebody else that finds fault or contradictory information within the Christian bible there will undoubtedly be a rebuttal containing biblical passages that supposedly correct the situation. Does this not support SnakeLord's argument that the bible, as it is written, contains God's laws? Any errors or omissions are because God either didn't consider it or deemed it worthless. Since he is all knowing I'd have to believe He thought about "child bonking" but didn't think it as important as long hair. The fact that biblical passages are used to refute statements uttered by the doubters is enough proof for me that everything a Christian has to know is in that book. Heaven forbid they have a thought of their own.

 

If I said, 'It is obvious that my God does not support peadophilia!' what would you say other than 'proove it!'. I could say 'What is written on your heart about peadophilia? Is it right or wrong?' and you could say 'But I want to know what God thinks about it.' So I point you in the direction of the Bible which is the word of God according to my faith. You then say 'See you can't proove anything that is not written in your little book.'

Circular arguments are so dull.

peace

c20

 

You have shifted the focus from the person committing the act, to the victim; when it is the person committing the act, such as a priest, that is what is in question. Even so, I will answer you question:

It is the same sin as selfishness. All babies are born sinners and all sin is equal. God will have mercy on any who do not know right from wrong, those that are incapable of responsibility, such as babies and young children. Once they have the cognitive ability to accept responsibility, they are responsible for their actions. Before then, the sin is on the parent's hands in day-to-day life mundane things, or on the person committing the sin, like a pedifiler; depending on the situation.