/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Saul murdered Christians, while breathing out threats and curses upon them; later in life considering himself the 'Chief of Sinners' and saying of himself that he was an example* of how merciful Christ is, that even one such as he could be rescued from unregenerate hatred of God to be given the role of an Apostle and a new name of Paul

assuming you are male who has this desire to be a girl - it would seem you are similarly unregenerate in your innermost being, and rebel and revile God's natural order, this being the natural outworking of an enmity with Christ; rejecting your Maker by rejecting how He has made you

but like any other sinner, or even a Chief of Sinners, you too can repent and place your trust in Jesus to rescue you from self-destruction, being set free from a slavery to Sin, and instead made a slave to Righteousness

~

* 1Timothy 1:12-17

>>824343

Thief on the Cross.

>>824350

>As a side note, pedophilia is not a sin. There are no ages restrictions on sex or marriage in the bible and in Jesus' time people would be married off soon after hitting puberty

THAT'S ILLEGAL

>>824350

pedophilia, is prepubescent and definitely not what you were thinking of.

Though I get what you intended, Mary was I believe 12-14 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph. Jewish custom had it that you could get married at 12.

>>824351

>>824355

I'm not that person but why do these mods censor literally every opinion?

>>824363

christian channel, no swearing.

>>824364

They didn't swear

>>824363

The mods are too quick to delete things, which prevents discussion. It can be annoying at times. A while ago I typed out a long reponse, but by the time I was ready to post it the post I was responding to was deleted.

>>824365

its a pewd meme. Also what he said was plainly wrong. I like the censorship, screw lolbertarians, the mods are great and should keep up the good work.

>>824368

You only say that because you're Catholic.

>>824368

This, those that hate the heavy hand of the mods are no different than those that hate the sword of Ceaser.

>>824343

>Steven Anderson says…

Steven Anderson is a fraud and a charlatan. Feel free to ignore any and everything that comes from his mouth until he repents. Embed related

Also, stop thinking you want to be a girl. It is an unnatural feeling you think you want because satan has tricked you. Do as this anon, >>824391, says and cut off porn completely from your life. And pray the rosary, it will make everything easier for you and bring order to your chaotic mind.

>>824343

If you can repent then you can be saved. People like Anderson don't like this fact because they are full of wrath and hatred. God wants all sinners, no matter what they did to come to him and to be saved.

>>824425

That videos so easily debunked.

I might literally just debunk it one day

Catholicism is so stupid. I pity you all

>>824488

feel free to go and easily debunk it right here if its so easy

>>824425

I see more Steven Anderson more of a subproduct of Evangelical communities that never fully developed his Theology to its final form before starting to preach.

The fact he is a good public speaker makes him confused said skill with that's he's good with the Bible. (and later on, overconfident)

He's more of a confused guy than anything else, but in practice it's kinda the same I guess.

>>824343

Deus Vult

omnes homines fieri sunt

Acording to Steven Anderson only good works send you to hell

>>827112

I don't even care for Anderson and don't want to defend him, but I'm pretty sure you misheard him. For all of his antics, hes just a typical fundamentalist Baptist. Their doctrine is simple: He believes in Justification by Faith, not Works. That doesn't mean works are bad, let alone send people to hell! It just means that they are nothing without faith in Christ. It's just about priorities.

>>827113

let me offer a clarification, he's not a typical fundamental baptist. In regards to his doctrine of justification, yes he's like all baptists, but as a movement they call themselves NEW independent fundamental baptists to clarify their deviation from the old independent fundamental baptists, who want to set themselves apart from the larger fundamentalist baptist movement.

>>824343

It's more that homosexuality and pedophilia are guaranteed signs of reprobation. Read Romans chapter 1, Pastor Anderson isn't wrong on this.

>>827115

Pastor Anderson explained that the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement is the same as the old one but with younger preachers who aren't afraid to say what the boomer preachers said back in the 90's. Eventually the old will die out and the new will no longer be new.

>>824343

>It's honestly freaking me out how much I think I'm low key Reprobate especially since I want to be a girl.

Of course wanting to be a girl is a serious mortal sin that will bar you from heaven, but that does not mean that you can not repent of that sin by stopping to do it and confessing it to a priest.

>Can people who do super serious sins like rape, murder, pedophilia along them lines be saved?

Yes, every sin can be forgiven. You should ask a local priest on confession.

I'll just say for myself as well, woe to all who do not fully repent.

>>824343

>super serious sins like rape, murder, pedophilia

Ah yes, I remember that commandment, “thou shalt not be a pedophile”

Pedophilia isn’t a sin. Biblically speaking a relationship between an adult and a child is no more sinful than one between two adults. The holiness code contains no age of consent law. Do not add to God’s law

>>829549

Kiddy diddler, winnie the pooh off

>>829551

Are you prepared to stand before the judgement seat of Christ and and answer for why you spoke to your brother this way?

>>824343

Anderson’s reprobate doctrine is a meme, don’t fall for it

>>829555

>But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Repent.

>>829556

Likewise, pervert.

>>829558

Of what would you have me repent? As far as I can tell you’re the one sinning here

>>829612

You’re a modernist. I hope you will condemn all the great theologians of church history for being “a sick winnie the pooh that wants to corrupt children”, because your view is painfully modern. Your crazed belief in conspiratorial non-human “kiddy diddlers” going around trying to maliciously deceive people would not even fit in a few decades ago, let alone a few centuries. I would be eager to see some scripture that actually supports your position, but I think you’ve demonstrated your phenomenal skills in civil and convincing argumentation, you absolute fool

>>829631

Medieval western canon law set the minimum age at 14 and 12, and big differences in age could be serious grounds for an annulment(so in practice, it was so that teenage peasants could get wed, among themselves or with

"barely legal" adults).

Eastern canon law specifically semi-bans marriage with big age gaps.

And no, nobles didn't usually wed kids, they entered into ponsalia de futuro, which was a non-binding promise to marry once they are older.

If you did consummate a marriage with a child, it's highly likely you'd end up like that byzantine noblegirl that ended up traumatized and infertile for life, because children aren't made for sex, you sick winnie the pooh.

So no, wanting to screw children would have gotten your teeth kicked in back then, too.

Just because you saw that newspaper clipping of that 20-yo redneck with a 9-yo bride doesn't change things.

>Your crazed belief in conspiratorial non-human “kiddy diddlers” going around trying to maliciously deceive people would not even fit in a few decades ago

https://books.google.ro/books?id=W3OEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT170&lpg=PT170&dq=pedophilia+sexual+revolution&source=bl&ots=HtZSbUzKc4&sig=ACfU3U2zTQetzTQCfSrZLLE_2ekMRsI48Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN0tyWsKfoAhWORBUIHfETBB0Q6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=pedophilia%20sexual%20revolution&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

And the 70's weren't the only time you tried to raise your heads and normalize yourself.

Medieval schools specifically had rules to not allow adults and kids to interact alone, while the Liber Gomorrhianus(who had way lighter punishments for sleeping around with women or men) made pedos among the clergy be shackled in chains, beaten and spit upon, because your kind is a special kind of vermin that needs to be squashed like bugs whenever you rear your heads.

>>829674

>Medieval western canon law set the minimum age at 14 and 12, and big differences in age could be serious grounds for an annulment(so in practice, it was so that teenage peasants could get wed, among themselves or with

>"barely legal" adults).

>Eastern canon law specifically semi-bans marriage with big age gaps.

>And no, nobles didn't usually wed kids, they entered into ponsalia de futuro, which was a non-binding promise to marry once they are older.

Irrelevant. I didn’t say anything about canon law, large age gaps, or what the typical practice of the nobility was (though I will note your tacit admission of my position by recognizing that these relationships were merely atypical, not unheard of).

As for the rest of your post, I see much in the way of baseless assertion and conspiracy theory, but little in the way of scripture or ancient tradition. Because fundamentally, your position is in no way derived from these sources, it is in its entirety taken from modern sentiment due to your passive unquestioning absorption of the culture around you, in this way you nullify the scripture by your modern tradition. Considering this fact, to be consistent you would have to be embracing of homosexual activity, since that too is the stance of modernity, against God’s law.

And I repeat my demand for even one verse of scripture that unequivocally and explicitly condemns sexual relationships between adults and children.

>>829674

Also, you clearly misunderstood my point regarding the novelty of your views. I wasn’t saying your conspiracy theory was false (it is, it’s absolute garbage), I was saying it was an understanding that did not really exist until the 1980s at the earliest. That’s really the key issue here, your entire understanding of history on this point comes down to one word: anachronism. The anti-pedophile hysteria you so take for granted simply did not exist in the past. Take for example the various damning quotes of Lewis Carroll, such as when he expressed his fondness for the naked bodies of prepubescent girls declaring that he struggled to understand why they should ever be clothed, which provoked minimal reaction, if any. Or the criticisms of the Shirley Temple films, which did not object so much to the fact that a child was being presented as a sexual object as that anyone was being presented as a sexual object (sometimes conceding her as a desirable sexual object, such as in Graham Greene’s notorious review of Wee Willie Winkie wherein among other things he says the child had a “well-shaped and desirable little body”). People in the past did not hate pedophiles like you do, friend.

>>824488

Maybe if you just shout your bad theology really loudly like Anderson does you can get your own cult of personality.

>>829549

If you cause a little one to stumble…

>>824488

Thou shalt not worship these false idols.

>>829716

>I didn’t say anything about canon law, large age gaps, or what the typical practice of the nobility was

No, you made it about "tradition" and "christian morality".

Well, in that case, what society and the eastern and western churched in early antiquity and middle ages did is highly relevant.

And what they did is declaring relationships with kids illegal, specifically didn't allow kids alone with teachers to prevent pedos, and if you were a priest caught having sex with kids, they dragged your ass to a monastery, locked you in chains, spit and beat the s— out of you.

(though I will note your tacit admission of my position by recognizing that these relationships were merely atypical, not unheard of).

If Billie Bob in the middle of nowhere marrying a 9yo makes old timey news, yes, that's not "atypical", that's "man bites dog" tier weird.

>>829717

Listen, maggot, i know you and your child f*cker friends shared this little bulls— copy-pasta about how the lack of sex offender registries and the existence of undressed children in art means kiddy diddling was normal and encouraged, but at the end of the day, if you were normal, you wouldn't have had to join all the other sexual minority freaks in the sexual liberation movement to try and get recognition from society.

>>829765

>No, you made it about "tradition" and "christian morality".

Who are you quoting? I didn’t use either term.

I notice that you did not meet my challenge concerning the teaching of scripture. So am I to understand that you in fact concede that the bible does not condemn pedophilia?

>>829553

I'm not so sure Reprobate doctrine is a meme, there are a lot of homosexuals dying from covid-2019 right now because they refuse to abstain from their extreme sexual promiscuity for just 2 weeks. They're told that they just need to temporarily practice social distancing but they still can't do it, and die from it. This is clear evidence of a seared conscious, because God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

>>829778

The fact they have a reprobate mind is the truth and we will see consequences of this play out again and again. Those that want a more trendy, modernist worldview will continue to make up post-fact justifications to continue to hide from that truth. This is the constant equilibrium.

>>829772

I will take that as a yes, and I accept your concession.

How about anyone else? Would anyone else like to claim that pedophilia is a sin, or are we all in agreement that there is nothing inherently wrong with it?

>>829797

1 Timothy 6:3-5.