Dude people constantly advocate for loli porn and claim watching it is not pedophilia. They use the same retarded rhetoric as antifa does to claim they are not a group.
They do not even care that it's not being called to be banned. They flat out refuse to acknowledge that jerking off to it makes you a pedophile.
Also everyone that upvoted his defense of Loli not being pedophilia
BigNose1998 posted explicitly arguing for pedophilia
todiwan thinks that not liking loli makes you a pedophile
JustHereForTheSalmon thinks that not liking loli means you support taking children to drag shows because condemning pedophilic "art" means you are a left wing pedophile
Steampunk_Moustache thinks that pokemon porn and loli are just normal shit that everyone is into. He also "thinks" people do not watch porn for sexual gratification and they are totally not into the material they view.
Steampunk_Moustache thinks that pokemon porn and loli are just normal shit that everyone is into. He also "thinks" people do not watch porn for sexual gratification and they are totally not into the material they view.
Rebuttal? This is fabricated nonsense.
He is presenting an utterly skewed version of my position on cartoon porn - my position being that anime is not real and just because someone enjoys a depiction of something in fiction does not mean they wouldn't be horrified by it in real life - a basic fact that anyone who has ever enjoyed a war movie or a horror movie should understand.
I am in favour of public execution via Vlad Tepes style impalement for child molesters, and the complete legalization of fiction. I consider this a basic position for anyone able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I’ll say it again. Back in the very early 00s someone told me that the end game for lgbt extremists was pedophilia. At the time I told him he was being paranoid
They were openly advocating pedophilia originally then stopped because even with the sexual revolution pedophilia was unsavory and unsuppportable to the general population. Now that they've managed to seize power they're back at it
If you read the original academic sources for the modern LGBT movement back in the 60s, pedophilia was just another “alternative sexual lifestyle” to those academics. Pedos have had a place in Queer Theory since the very beginning. They’ve just been quiet about it in more recent times.
Someone here has a copypasta with links to the source materials. I’ll link it if I can find it.
Yes kids don't judge , there isn't time for that. Pull out a glock or if your aren't armed go to your nearest quiet kid and seek their assistance and remember always double tap...
If reading the comments and this was taken out of context to gaslight, then it's example of why teachers should stick with stranger danger and no touch areas than try to explain hypocrisy to a class.
Good commonsense judgement on the part of her administration:
'“Personal opinions on really sensitive matters don’t belong in the classroom,” Daniel insisted. “It’s up to the families to provide education on some of these really sensitive issues. It is not the role of the school district to do that.”'
The source, however, dishonestly pictures a kindergarten class or a class decidedly younger than high school age in the article's illustration, taking advantage of the fact that a large number of "readers" do not actually read beyond the headline.
I've read that she is anti-pedo and was bringing this up to point out the absurdity of calling them 'MAPs' and justifying their behavior. Still probably not something to bring up in class regardless.
Nah she was being completely unironic. The board investigated her and apparently there was even more beyond that tic tok video, but she wasn't being sarcastic or anything.
"Board trustee Daniel Call initially said, citing a district spokesperson, that the teacher’s comments were taken out of context. Instead, Parker was “pretending to advocate a position she didn’t actually believe in (in) order to challenge the students in preparation for them reading the book ‘The Crucible,’” Call said."
But if you read the MSN article, that same board member Daniel Call changed his tune and says there's no way he could've voted to keep her on the faculty.
It was a clip on tik-tok probably taken out of context but is hard for me to see a good context.
Is not along the lines of some people are trying to justify pedophiles by calling them map, it was :
“Stop calling them that. You’re not allowed to label people like that. Stop it… We’re not gonna call them that. … We’re gonna call them MAPs — Minor-Attracted Persons. So don’t judge people just because they wanna have sex with a five-year-old.”
Maybe it was an example of gaslighting, I could see it but I found nothing about it.
This is a really common speech tool where you speak rhetorically as if you were on the other side. Example: "Trump is like 'We need to build a big glorious wall'. Well, NO! He's wrong and racist and evil and orange." (then take out of context 'we need to build a big glorious wall' makes them sound like a trump supporter)
I mean, just think about it; saying this shit is beyond crazy even for their side at the current moment. Even if they were for calling pedos 'MAPs', they would never say 'don't judge people just because they wanna have sex with a five-year-old.' That's right-wing framing of the issue.
I just don't wanna dogpile someone who's on our side. That said I haven't hear the full tape so I could be wrong.
Yeah, when lefties were caught out trying to backdoor the term "MAP" into common use, they dropped it real fast, and that was a couple years ago now. It's not often that you see a leftist so out of date on their own strategy, and it's unlikely that you'd see an actual leftist pedo using that language in such a public place - they've already got much more discrete and effective ways to normalize it. It's only their opposition that still uses the term, only ever in reference to leftist pedo advocacy, and even then, more so from conservatives than actual reactionaries.
I suppose it's possible she's just a particularly stupid sperg, but it's a weird enough situation that you'd need to take a closer look to know for sure.
This leads me to a debate / argument I had with my wife about judging people. She is somewhat more religious and we were talking about judging people and how it is not our place to judge people. This was related to abortion but it applies here.
If we are suppose to not judge an adult human being fucking 5 year old then there is something very wrong.
Edit: I would not mind a religious persons perspective on this one. How far should not judging others needs to go?
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Matt 7:1-2)
I'm not a biblical expert but I am fine to be judged by the measure of 'wanting to fuck a five year old.'
Fellow Christian here. I’m sure you’ve seen over and over where someone is engaged in disgusting behavior and they throw out the “don’t judge” if you say something about it.
I am a devout Christian. This argument of your wife's is very common but very mistaken belief. There are a ton of scriptures that talk about how we should judge:
You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. -- Leviticus 19:15
These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. - Zechariah 8:16
Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. -- Matthew 7:2
And why do you not even judge by yourselves what is right? -- Luke 12:51
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. - John 7:24
But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. -- 1 Corinthians 11:31
For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. -- 1 Corinthians 5:3
In addition to these, there are a plethora of scriptures about rebuking wicked behavior, discerning right from wrong, executing justice and any number of other things that requires judgement.
Christians who take only this first part of scripture in Matthew 7 and extrapolate it out to mean we shouldn't judge are just young and immature in the faith and haven't spent enough time walking as a Christian or reading the Bible to understand it.
That depends on what you mean by "condemn". We don't have a right to condemn a man's soul for his sins against God, but we must certainly have the authority or right to condemn a person for the wrongs they've committed against others, otherwise justice couldn't be served at all in this life.
What would you call it when a man commits murder and is caught and punished by the authorities? Isn't this "condemnation" for committing murder? What about when Paul judges those in Corinth who are engaged in sexual sin? Isn't this condemnation?
That depends on what you mean by "condemn". We don't have a right to condemn a man's soul for his sins against God, but we must certainly have the authority or right to condemn a person for the wrongs they've committed against others, otherwise justice couldn't be served at all in this life.
Right exactly, thanks for pointing that out. Condemnation of the soul is the second death and eternal obliteration, not at all the same as legal sentencing
I had a friend whose brother had raped a little girl. He got out of prison and was invited to a family reunion. They made sure children were never near him, but also treated him with love.
Would it be kindness to not judge an alcoholic by giving them a beer, or by going somewhere to not drink? To me it's the same as a friend with a broken leg not being able to skateboard at the moment. A tall friend can't fit in things as easily as a smaller friend.
It's not judging, it's recognizing the problem and finding a way to still be happy and dealing with the problem with love. Did Christ judge when people woke him up from a nap? No, he dealt with the problem, and then went back to bed. Trying to hold on to a grudge, or constantly view things angrily solves no problems and makes it difficult to think straight and see joy.
The left wants forgiveness where the children are put back with the man who just came out of prison. They are demanding that the kid in the wheelchair can still compete on a skateboard. The alcoholic should go to pub tomorrow and drink with mates. They think tall people can see the bottom shelf at a store. They want the problem ignored, or hold a grudge against those who mention the problem. They judge because they think someone else is judging.
This is part of being Christian, we need to seek a solution to a problem with love. It's not always easy, and can mean extra rules at a family reunion, but it is possible.
So on a roadtrip many years ago I was listening to Dr Laura on the radio (a guilty pleasure of mine).
This one caller was talking about how her brother had molested her when they were young, and she didn't want her own kids near him. Her parents were upset that the whole family couldn't be together at Christmas and were pressuring her to accept him, saying he had changed, etc etc etc.
Dr Laura just goes "Ok. I'm going to say this very simply. As soon as I am done you are going to hang up the phone and you are going to call the police. All the evidence says that pedophile rapists who abuse child do not change. They are almost all repeat offenders. If you were abused, it is almost certain your brother has raped other kids as well. Call the police."
"But my mom says .... "
"Hang up the phone. Call the police."
"But my kids won't get to have a relationship with grandm-- "
That's part of the repentance process. It's not just forgiveness by God, but showing you are actively going against your own sin. Going to prison for your sin can be part of what is needed. Helping a friend to go to prison is a hard thing, but needed.
A martial arts instructor I had once beat up the abusive husband of his sister. The abusive husband also went to prison for three, which saved his life. It turns out he had a liver problem and the prison was able to get him the surgery. The abusive husband is divorced, but still good friends with my martial arts instructor.
But we know the caller didn't call the police, did she? Thank goodness that she didn't, for that man would go on to have an illustrious career in American politics, eventually rising to the highest office of the land. That man's name? Joseph R. Biden.
I would never have invited that brother into my home. You can go visit them, talk to them, whatever, but you do NOT bring evil into your home, especially in a home with children around, no matter what. It doesn't matter that he's sorry as long as he is the way he is, and it doesn't matter that they put the children in another room or whatever. Acceptance of evil is one of the worst things you can do.
The child rapist brother wasn't healed. You didn't even say he was repentant.
Fellowship with unrepentant sinners who are still under the bondage and influence of sin is wrong and not biblical (1 Corinthians 5). Whether it's in a home or in a park makes no difference.
If the man were healed AND repentant, then the situation may be different, but only after much prayer and weighing it before the Lord.
To me it doesn't matter. He will likely deal with these problems the rest of his life. He won't be healed in this life. If he was an alcoholic, I wouldn't take him to pub.
Since I don't know your exact faith, I can't really answer what you mean by being healed, nor can I really discuss it.
I view it in this way, there are scriptures that say we shouldn't allow others who speak other religions into our homes and ones that say if we so much as give a man of God a glass of water we will be blessed. It becomes my choice on if I want safety or blessings. You aren't wrong to deny them entrance, I just choose to bless others.
I've been trying to be more religious of late. I've been an atheist/ agnostic for a long time but started going to church and reading the bible. Not judging and not hating is freaking hard to do. There is something evil about hamming children that that makes my blood boil.
Don't forget that as a Christian you live in God's Kingdom, but you also live in The World, in Babylon. "Judging and hating" is often a ridiculous admonishment (used for purely motivated reasons) to ignore your necessary participation in the world, as a citizen. The entirety of (non-religious) law is of the world, and it's built of nothing but what society finds abhorrent. What society "hates" and "judges." You have a seat at that table.
If you take your religiously-informed judgment out of your part in civic engagement, and like-minded and like-hearted do the same, all you're left with is ungrounded atheists calling the shots.
That's what we're dealing with when it comes to "family-friendly drag shows" and the like. There's a collusion of perverted academics and their enablers in the administrative bureaucracy, supporting in each other when they say "age-appropriate and culturally-appropriate!" even though to anyone with functioning morals, ethics, and aesthetics, it's clearly not okay. These people don't share your values. Don't be fooled when they ape "Judge not!" at you just to get you to decline your responsibilities as a citizen.
It's not supposed to be easy. Christ didn't give easy commandments. He forgave the soldiers actively killing him. I don't think I could do that.
I think it goes with the story of the good Samaritan. A man saves the life of someone who hated him. Others who were considered good men did not save the man. Who was the neighbor?
Instead, it's a way to look past the accusations, find a way to take care of the problem itself and share it with others. That's not an easy thing. Saul actively killed christians when God converted him. Naaman was captain of the enemy forces when he went to Elisha. When Elisha was surrounded by a host of the enemy, he prayed for them and asked God not to slay them. He then led them into captivity after blinding them.
The answer doesn't mean don't protect yourself or ignore the problem. Satan always gives false choices and says they are the only answers.
Not religious, but I always liked the idea of Christianity when I heard some priest or pastor or some such talk about Paul.
He said something like: "Paul persecuted and caused the deaths of many Christians, but all the saints and angels were rejoicing in Heaven when he repented and was saved".
Really made me appreciate what Christians are asked to do. Sure, nobody is perfect, many are Christian in name only, but the source of their faith is very pure and it's easy to see nothing that's horrible and done in the Christianitys name is because of the Bible. I can't say the same for some other religions.
Christ didn't tell us to not judge, He told us to be prepared to be judged by the standard that we use. It's more a caution against religion than morality (so-and-so doesn't tithe enough, they're going to hell!).
There's also plenty of scriptural support for hating evil. Right now, I particularly like this bit from Jude:
22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" wasn't followed up with Christ picking up a rock and chucking it to begin the stoning process. In even your example, it's pulling them out of the fire, not pushing them into it. It is still saving, salving, succoring. Which, you know, is kind of important to an all-forgiving being. But it certainly doesn't affirm "fuck 'em all, they're all evil. Brimstone, floods, and salt pillar time.", that's more Old Testament flavor.
I didn't say all that and I still affirm what I did say.
Paul says to pray for all, but also warns to beware of ex-companions who are spreading bad teachings (almost literally says "don't have anything to do with [Greek name], he has been nothing but trouble." Maybe in Timothy, I don't recall off the top of my head).
Titus has a verse about removing "self-condemned" people (those who persist in evil despite warnings) completely from your life.
How do you "save with fear" without, you know, inducing fear?
That is about hypocrisy and pretending to he holier than thou. Jesus also says to rebuke your fellows and further twice says to drown pedophiles and other child predators in the sea
Not only will I judge adults who want to have sex with a five year old, I'll judge anyone who says I shouldn't.
There's a whole contingent of them on this site
People say all kinds of crazy things on this site but I’ve never seen acceptance of pedophilia being the one of them.
Dude people constantly advocate for loli porn and claim watching it is not pedophilia. They use the same retarded rhetoric as antifa does to claim they are not a group.
They do not even care that it's not being called to be banned. They flat out refuse to acknowledge that jerking off to it makes you a pedophile.
lmao what section?
MattTheBlack, obviously.
Easy as fuck to do: yoisi
Also everyone that upvoted his defense of Loli not being pedophilia
BigNose1998 posted explicitly arguing for pedophilia
todiwan thinks that not liking loli makes you a pedophile
JustHereForTheSalmon thinks that not liking loli means you support taking children to drag shows because condemning pedophilic "art" means you are a left wing pedophile
Steampunk_Moustache thinks that pokemon porn and loli are just normal shit that everyone is into. He also "thinks" people do not watch porn for sexual gratification and they are totally not into the material they view.
Strawman arguments are unworthy of any attention.
Rebuttal? This is fabricated nonsense.
He is presenting an utterly skewed version of my position on cartoon porn - my position being that anime is not real and just because someone enjoys a depiction of something in fiction does not mean they wouldn't be horrified by it in real life - a basic fact that anyone who has ever enjoyed a war movie or a horror movie should understand.
I am in favour of public execution via Vlad Tepes style impalement for child molesters, and the complete legalization of fiction. I consider this a basic position for anyone able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Bingo
I’ll Taurus Judge them.
Bro, phrasing, parsing, English pronoun order...
I’ll say it again. Back in the very early 00s someone told me that the end game for lgbt extremists was pedophilia. At the time I told him he was being paranoid
They were openly advocating pedophilia originally then stopped because even with the sexual revolution pedophilia was unsavory and unsuppportable to the general population. Now that they've managed to seize power they're back at it
Even the T was unsavory back then. I'm still shocked how it became mainstream in a few years
Big Mike will remember that
Most of it's astro turfed but now they're working on the kids.
I remember that was always the rumor but the media did such a great job of denying it
If you read the original academic sources for the modern LGBT movement back in the 60s, pedophilia was just another “alternative sexual lifestyle” to those academics. Pedos have had a place in Queer Theory since the very beginning. They’ve just been quiet about it in more recent times.
Someone here has a copypasta with links to the source materials. I’ll link it if I can find it.
Foucault and Derrida were all diddlers ithink
Foucault became a philosopher because he was so screeching faggot mad that the French government wouldn't condone him fucking little boys.
Cool. Thanks
Yes kids don't judge , there isn't time for that. Pull out a glock or if your aren't armed go to your nearest quiet kid and seek their assistance and remember always double tap...
If reading the comments and this was taken out of context to gaslight, then it's example of why teachers should stick with stranger danger and no touch areas than try to explain hypocrisy to a class.
Good commonsense judgement on the part of her administration:
'“Personal opinions on really sensitive matters don’t belong in the classroom,” Daniel insisted. “It’s up to the families to provide education on some of these really sensitive issues. It is not the role of the school district to do that.”'
The source, however, dishonestly pictures a kindergarten class or a class decidedly younger than high school age in the article's illustration, taking advantage of the fact that a large number of "readers" do not actually read beyond the headline.
Yeah, this one smells a bit fishy. I'm reserving judgement until I see a full video.
Your instincts may be correct. It's coming to light that the situation may not be as cut and dry as initially represented:
NotTheBee - This Texas teacher was fired for saying we shouldn't judge pedophiles "just because they want to have sex with a 5-year-old" ... but it might be a masterclass in things taken out of context
EDIT: u/Galean FYI
And this, children, is how someone outs themselves as a pedophile.
I've read that she is anti-pedo and was bringing this up to point out the absurdity of calling them 'MAPs' and justifying their behavior. Still probably not something to bring up in class regardless.
Nah she was being completely unironic. The board investigated her and apparently there was even more beyond that tic tok video, but she wasn't being sarcastic or anything.
She has since been fired.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220913030043/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teacher-fired-for-telling-students-to-call-pedophiles-minor-attracted-persons-instead/ar-AA11K8Ix
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article265551171.html
"Board trustee Daniel Call initially said, citing a district spokesperson, that the teacher’s comments were taken out of context. Instead, Parker was “pretending to advocate a position she didn’t actually believe in (in) order to challenge the students in preparation for them reading the book ‘The Crucible,’” Call said."
Yeah I fuckin doubt it lmao.
That doesn't even make sense in regards to The Crucible. Nobody in that book advocates for a cause they don't actually believe in.
She was caught being a pedo and is embarrassed and worried so now she's lying. Shocker.
But if you read the MSN article, that same board member Daniel Call changed his tune and says there's no way he could've voted to keep her on the faculty.
It was a clip on tik-tok probably taken out of context but is hard for me to see a good context.
Is not along the lines of some people are trying to justify pedophiles by calling them map, it was :
Maybe it was an example of gaslighting, I could see it but I found nothing about it.
This is a really common speech tool where you speak rhetorically as if you were on the other side. Example: "Trump is like 'We need to build a big glorious wall'. Well, NO! He's wrong and racist and evil and orange." (then take out of context 'we need to build a big glorious wall' makes them sound like a trump supporter)
I mean, just think about it; saying this shit is beyond crazy even for their side at the current moment. Even if they were for calling pedos 'MAPs', they would never say 'don't judge people just because they wanna have sex with a five-year-old.' That's right-wing framing of the issue.
I just don't wanna dogpile someone who's on our side. That said I haven't hear the full tape so I could be wrong.
It makes sense
Yeah, when lefties were caught out trying to backdoor the term "MAP" into common use, they dropped it real fast, and that was a couple years ago now. It's not often that you see a leftist so out of date on their own strategy, and it's unlikely that you'd see an actual leftist pedo using that language in such a public place - they've already got much more discrete and effective ways to normalize it. It's only their opposition that still uses the term, only ever in reference to leftist pedo advocacy, and even then, more so from conservatives than actual reactionaries.
I suppose it's possible she's just a particularly stupid sperg, but it's a weird enough situation that you'd need to take a closer look to know for sure.
This leads me to a debate / argument I had with my wife about judging people. She is somewhat more religious and we were talking about judging people and how it is not our place to judge people. This was related to abortion but it applies here.
If we are suppose to not judge an adult human being fucking 5 year old then there is something very wrong.
Edit: I would not mind a religious persons perspective on this one. How far should not judging others needs to go?
I'm not a biblical expert but I am fine to be judged by the measure of 'wanting to fuck a five year old.'
I think it's more of a warning to police your own behaviour, than it is an admonishment to just let everything slide.
It's just a convoluted way of saying, "watch what you do, lest you be called hypocrite."
That would make sense if we were nonces. But we're not.
I've always read that as an admonishment against irrational prejudice, not all judgement, especially moral judgement.
Some denominations take this REALLY far but as a Catholic, I would say it's clear we are allowed to punish evil on earth.
The thing about "not judging" is more twofold meaning to give everyone fair treatment, and to not speculate on where their soul might end up.
Fellow Christian here. I’m sure you’ve seen over and over where someone is engaged in disgusting behavior and they throw out the “don’t judge” if you say something about it.
I am a devout Christian. This argument of your wife's is very common but very mistaken belief. There are a ton of scriptures that talk about how we should judge:
In addition to these, there are a plethora of scriptures about rebuking wicked behavior, discerning right from wrong, executing justice and any number of other things that requires judgement.
Christians who take only this first part of scripture in Matthew 7 and extrapolate it out to mean we shouldn't judge are just young and immature in the faith and haven't spent enough time walking as a Christian or reading the Bible to understand it.
Yes, "judge not" essentially means "condemn not."
If "judge not" meant "don't recognize other people's evil deeds" then we would have no way of telling right from wrong.
That depends on what you mean by "condemn". We don't have a right to condemn a man's soul for his sins against God, but we must certainly have the authority or right to condemn a person for the wrongs they've committed against others, otherwise justice couldn't be served at all in this life.
What would you call it when a man commits murder and is caught and punished by the authorities? Isn't this "condemnation" for committing murder? What about when Paul judges those in Corinth who are engaged in sexual sin? Isn't this condemnation?
Right exactly, thanks for pointing that out. Condemnation of the soul is the second death and eternal obliteration, not at all the same as legal sentencing
I had a friend whose brother had raped a little girl. He got out of prison and was invited to a family reunion. They made sure children were never near him, but also treated him with love.
Would it be kindness to not judge an alcoholic by giving them a beer, or by going somewhere to not drink? To me it's the same as a friend with a broken leg not being able to skateboard at the moment. A tall friend can't fit in things as easily as a smaller friend.
It's not judging, it's recognizing the problem and finding a way to still be happy and dealing with the problem with love. Did Christ judge when people woke him up from a nap? No, he dealt with the problem, and then went back to bed. Trying to hold on to a grudge, or constantly view things angrily solves no problems and makes it difficult to think straight and see joy.
The left wants forgiveness where the children are put back with the man who just came out of prison. They are demanding that the kid in the wheelchair can still compete on a skateboard. The alcoholic should go to pub tomorrow and drink with mates. They think tall people can see the bottom shelf at a store. They want the problem ignored, or hold a grudge against those who mention the problem. They judge because they think someone else is judging.
This is part of being Christian, we need to seek a solution to a problem with love. It's not always easy, and can mean extra rules at a family reunion, but it is possible.
So on a roadtrip many years ago I was listening to Dr Laura on the radio (a guilty pleasure of mine).
This one caller was talking about how her brother had molested her when they were young, and she didn't want her own kids near him. Her parents were upset that the whole family couldn't be together at Christmas and were pressuring her to accept him, saying he had changed, etc etc etc.
Dr Laura just goes "Ok. I'm going to say this very simply. As soon as I am done you are going to hang up the phone and you are going to call the police. All the evidence says that pedophile rapists who abuse child do not change. They are almost all repeat offenders. If you were abused, it is almost certain your brother has raped other kids as well. Call the police."
"But my mom says .... "
"Hang up the phone. Call the police."
"But my kids won't get to have a relationship with grandm-- "
"HANG. UP. THE. PHONE. AND. CALL. THE. POLICE"
That's part of the repentance process. It's not just forgiveness by God, but showing you are actively going against your own sin. Going to prison for your sin can be part of what is needed. Helping a friend to go to prison is a hard thing, but needed.
A martial arts instructor I had once beat up the abusive husband of his sister. The abusive husband also went to prison for three, which saved his life. It turns out he had a liver problem and the prison was able to get him the surgery. The abusive husband is divorced, but still good friends with my martial arts instructor.
But we know the caller didn't call the police, did she? Thank goodness that she didn't, for that man would go on to have an illustrious career in American politics, eventually rising to the highest office of the land. That man's name? Joseph R. Biden.
And now you know... the rest of the story.
Good day.
I would never have invited that brother into my home. You can go visit them, talk to them, whatever, but you do NOT bring evil into your home, especially in a home with children around, no matter what. It doesn't matter that he's sorry as long as he is the way he is, and it doesn't matter that they put the children in another room or whatever. Acceptance of evil is one of the worst things you can do.
It took place at a park so I guess that solves that question.
Imagine the man who had to heal Paul. That had to be hard.
The child rapist brother wasn't healed. You didn't even say he was repentant.
Fellowship with unrepentant sinners who are still under the bondage and influence of sin is wrong and not biblical (1 Corinthians 5). Whether it's in a home or in a park makes no difference.
If the man were healed AND repentant, then the situation may be different, but only after much prayer and weighing it before the Lord.
To me it doesn't matter. He will likely deal with these problems the rest of his life. He won't be healed in this life. If he was an alcoholic, I wouldn't take him to pub.
Since I don't know your exact faith, I can't really answer what you mean by being healed, nor can I really discuss it.
I view it in this way, there are scriptures that say we shouldn't allow others who speak other religions into our homes and ones that say if we so much as give a man of God a glass of water we will be blessed. It becomes my choice on if I want safety or blessings. You aren't wrong to deny them entrance, I just choose to bless others.
I've been trying to be more religious of late. I've been an atheist/ agnostic for a long time but started going to church and reading the bible. Not judging and not hating is freaking hard to do. There is something evil about hamming children that that makes my blood boil.
I guess I have a long way to go.
Don't forget that as a Christian you live in God's Kingdom, but you also live in The World, in Babylon. "Judging and hating" is often a ridiculous admonishment (used for purely motivated reasons) to ignore your necessary participation in the world, as a citizen. The entirety of (non-religious) law is of the world, and it's built of nothing but what society finds abhorrent. What society "hates" and "judges." You have a seat at that table.
If you take your religiously-informed judgment out of your part in civic engagement, and like-minded and like-hearted do the same, all you're left with is ungrounded atheists calling the shots.
That's what we're dealing with when it comes to "family-friendly drag shows" and the like. There's a collusion of perverted academics and their enablers in the administrative bureaucracy, supporting in each other when they say "age-appropriate and culturally-appropriate!" even though to anyone with functioning morals, ethics, and aesthetics, it's clearly not okay. These people don't share your values. Don't be fooled when they ape "Judge not!" at you just to get you to decline your responsibilities as a citizen.
It's not supposed to be easy. Christ didn't give easy commandments. He forgave the soldiers actively killing him. I don't think I could do that.
I think it goes with the story of the good Samaritan. A man saves the life of someone who hated him. Others who were considered good men did not save the man. Who was the neighbor?
Instead, it's a way to look past the accusations, find a way to take care of the problem itself and share it with others. That's not an easy thing. Saul actively killed christians when God converted him. Naaman was captain of the enemy forces when he went to Elisha. When Elisha was surrounded by a host of the enemy, he prayed for them and asked God not to slay them. He then led them into captivity after blinding them.
The answer doesn't mean don't protect yourself or ignore the problem. Satan always gives false choices and says they are the only answers.
Not religious, but I always liked the idea of Christianity when I heard some priest or pastor or some such talk about Paul.
He said something like: "Paul persecuted and caused the deaths of many Christians, but all the saints and angels were rejoicing in Heaven when he repented and was saved".
Really made me appreciate what Christians are asked to do. Sure, nobody is perfect, many are Christian in name only, but the source of their faith is very pure and it's easy to see nothing that's horrible and done in the Christianitys name is because of the Bible. I can't say the same for some other religions.
Christ didn't tell us to not judge, He told us to be prepared to be judged by the standard that we use. It's more a caution against religion than morality (so-and-so doesn't tithe enough, they're going to hell!).
There's also plenty of scriptural support for hating evil. Right now, I particularly like this bit from Jude:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" wasn't followed up with Christ picking up a rock and chucking it to begin the stoning process. In even your example, it's pulling them out of the fire, not pushing them into it. It is still saving, salving, succoring. Which, you know, is kind of important to an all-forgiving being. But it certainly doesn't affirm "fuck 'em all, they're all evil. Brimstone, floods, and salt pillar time.", that's more Old Testament flavor.
I didn't say all that and I still affirm what I did say.
Paul says to pray for all, but also warns to beware of ex-companions who are spreading bad teachings (almost literally says "don't have anything to do with [Greek name], he has been nothing but trouble." Maybe in Timothy, I don't recall off the top of my head).
Titus has a verse about removing "self-condemned" people (those who persist in evil despite warnings) completely from your life.
How do you "save with fear" without, you know, inducing fear?
Don't judge. Send them to the afterlife so the deity may judge them sooner.
That is astonishingly well-put.
Your friends brother should get what Jesus prescribed
That is about hypocrisy and pretending to he holier than thou. Jesus also says to rebuke your fellows and further twice says to drown pedophiles and other child predators in the sea
Control language, control thought.
Control schools, start indoctrination at a young age.
To be fair, pedophiles shouldn't be judged...or have a jury.
you don't need to judge them. they're all guilty. the sentence is death.