Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A passage prohibiting paedophilia

bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 9:52:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can someone produce a biblical passage prohibiting paedophilia?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 7:49:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.
That is the very definition of my question. Paedophilia has been happening for over 100,000yrs and was most certainly a normal practice in bronze age palestine and in stone age arabia 1000yrs later and is the reason that the gods who allegedly dictated the books didn't prohibit it. The men who wrote the books participated in paedophilia and were not going to prohibit it's conduct. Absolute unequivocal proof that it was men who wrote the books. In your case you can reference the rule brought by muhammad that says men can only have four wives but the prophe3t could have as many as he liked, as well as the lack of prohibition against paedophilia.. Wasn't there anybody there who smelled a rat when he came out with this self serving stupidity?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:01:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

Why is it that those that claim to not believe God always measure themselves to that standard and find themselves (surprisingly) on the winning side?

Is there a single verse in the Bible that endorses paedophilia? There is the verse that states that if a man owns a and raises her and if he wants to marry her when she's of age. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm fairly certain it's in there.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:05:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:01:11 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

Why is it that those that claim to not believe God always measure themselves to that standard and find themselves (surprisingly) on the winning side?

Is there a single verse in the Bible that endorses paedophilia? There is the verse that states that if a man owns a and raises her and if he wants to marry her when she's of age. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm fairly certain it's in there.

Err, I daresay because we are right?

No, but if God has time to create a commandment about not 'coveting thy neighboughs things' and three commandments basically about only worshipping him, you think he might given the odd slot to, you know, don't be taking child slaves.

Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:09:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:05:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:01:11 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

Why is it that those that claim to not believe God always measure themselves to that standard and find themselves (surprisingly) on the winning side?

Is there a single verse in the Bible that endorses paedophilia? There is the verse that states that if a man owns a and raises her and if he wants to marry her when she's of age. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm fairly certain it's in there.

Err, I daresay because we are right?

No, but if God has time to create a commandment about not 'coveting thy neighboughs things' and three commandments basically about only worshipping him, you think he might given the odd slot to, you know, don't be taking child slaves.

Regards,
Ben

Slavery is the most perfect type of sin as demonstrated in the new testament. Slavery is a man made institution and is not inherently evil. Servitude is still practiced today. Are governments evil because they allow you to sell yourself into military service for money and a college education?

If God had outlawed slavery, it would be considered the most righteous institution on the face of the earth the men. The problem is not the laws, it's the concept of acknowledging a sovereign God that offends you.
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:18:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:09:09 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:05:15 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:01:11 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

Why is it that those that claim to not believe God always measure themselves to that standard and find themselves (surprisingly) on the winning side?

Is there a single verse in the Bible that endorses paedophilia? There is the verse that states that if a man owns a and raises her and if he wants to marry her when she's of age. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm fairly certain it's in there.

Err, I daresay because we are right?

No, but if God has time to create a commandment about not 'coveting thy neighboughs things' and three commandments basically about only worshipping him, you think he might given the odd slot to, you know, don't be taking child slaves.

Regards,
Ben

Slavery is the most perfect type of sin as demonstrated in the new testament. Slavery is a man made institution and is not inherently evil. Servitude is still practiced today. Are governments evil because they allow you to sell yourself into military service for money and a college education?

If God had outlawed slavery, it would be considered the most righteous institution on the face of the earth the men. The problem is not the laws, it's the concept of acknowledging a sovereign God that offends you.

There is a huge difference between working for the government and being a slave. If you don't see it, you don't see it, but for one the government doesn't own and sell my children.

Not to mention the pay thing.

Yes I will not acknowledge anything that claims to have divine authority over me, especially when the evidence for it's existence is somewhat scanty and it just so happens other prime mates think they understand its will and are quite happy to tell me what that will is.

I mean, if I created an entire universe, I wouldn't very well let people know about it by appearing in the most backward illiterate part of the middle east and having a human sacrifice there.

I daresay the great dictator could think of alternative methods, YouTube perhapes?

Oh wait, that would require him to acctually exist, oterwise he never gets past the damn security letter thing.
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:20:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:18:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:09:09 AM, Naysayer wrote:

Slavery is the most perfect type of sin as demonstrated in the new testament. Slavery is a man made institution and is not inherently evil. Servitude is still practiced today. Are governments evil because they allow you to sell yourself into military service for money and a college education?

If God had outlawed slavery, it would be considered the most righteous institution on the face of the earth the men. The problem is not the laws, it's the concept of acknowledging a sovereign God that offends you.

There is a huge difference between working for the government and being a slave. If you don't see it, you don't see it, but for one the government doesn't own and sell my children.

Not to mention the pay thing.

Yes I will not acknowledge anything that claims to have divine authority over me, especially when the evidence for it's existence is somewhat scanty and it just so happens other prime mates think they understand its will and are quite happy to tell me what that will is.

I mean, if I created an entire universe, I wouldn't very well let people know about it by appearing in the most backward illiterate part of the middle east and having a human sacrifice there.

I daresay the great dictator could think of alternative methods, YouTube perhapes?

Oh wait, that would require him to acctually exist, oterwise he never gets past the damn security letter thing.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to go about it. If you create a universe, let me know how it goes for you. *shrugs*
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:25:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:20:59 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:18:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:09:09 AM, Naysayer wrote:

Slavery is the most perfect type of sin as demonstrated in the new testament. Slavery is a man made institution and is not inherently evil. Servitude is still practiced today. Are governments evil because they allow you to sell yourself into military service for money and a college education?

If God had outlawed slavery, it would be considered the most righteous institution on the face of the earth the men. The problem is not the laws, it's the concept of acknowledging a sovereign God that offends you.

There is a huge difference between working for the government and being a slave. If you don't see it, you don't see it, but for one the government doesn't own and sell my children.

Not to mention the pay thing.

Yes I will not acknowledge anything that claims to have divine authority over me, especially when the evidence for it's existence is somewhat scanty and it just so happens other prime mates think they understand its will and are quite happy to tell me what that will is.

I mean, if I created an entire universe, I wouldn't very well let people know about it by appearing in the most backward illiterate part of the middle east and having a human sacrifice there.

I daresay the great dictator could think of alternative methods, YouTube perhapes?

Oh wait, that would require him to acctually exist, oterwise he never gets past the damn security letter thing.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to go about it. If you create a universe, let me know how it goes for you. *shrugs*

It was going well until I revealed myself.

Worryingly that sentence works well for a lot of situations in my life.
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:26:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 8:25:18 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:20:59 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:18:28 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 8:09:09 AM, Naysayer wrote:

Slavery is the most perfect type of sin as demonstrated in the new testament. Slavery is a man made institution and is not inherently evil. Servitude is still practiced today. Are governments evil because they allow you to sell yourself into military service for money and a college education?

If God had outlawed slavery, it would be considered the most righteous institution on the face of the earth the men. The problem is not the laws, it's the concept of acknowledging a sovereign God that offends you.

There is a huge difference between working for the government and being a slave. If you don't see it, you don't see it, but for one the government doesn't own and sell my children.

Not to mention the pay thing.

Yes I will not acknowledge anything that claims to have divine authority over me, especially when the evidence for it's existence is somewhat scanty and it just so happens other prime mates think they understand its will and are quite happy to tell me what that will is.

I mean, if I created an entire universe, I wouldn't very well let people know about it by appearing in the most backward illiterate part of the middle east and having a human sacrifice there.

I daresay the great dictator could think of alternative methods, YouTube perhapes?

Oh wait, that would require him to acctually exist, oterwise he never gets past the damn security letter thing.

I'm sure there are a lot of ways to go about it. If you create a universe, let me know how it goes for you. *shrugs*

It was going well until I revealed myself.

Worryingly that sentence works well for a lot of situations in my life.

lol. I'm sure.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 8:56:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

God didn't change his mind regarding this, it's just that people left the scriptures and changed morality, which doesn't make them any right, He is timeless ?! not sure what this means, but He is eternal.The part that I said maybe called paedophilia today under secular laws, but isn't immoral under religious laws is the marriage between a young adult and an mature adult , and if religions like Christianity and Islam take the lead over liberalism again, those practices will change denominations and be acceptable again! because it all depends on politics!!
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:03:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When posters make the "Why didn't God include...." I can't help wondering how serious they are.
First, there are a thousand different things God could have added in the ten commandments. No matter how many things God included, someone would always be able to say, "Why didn't He add in this?" It is a spurious argument.

Second, do the posers of this question know that they are making a logical error? This reminds me of a story set in the future 2000 years from now where atheists ask why didn't God ban the use of wood because in that time trees are scarce and cutting one is considered the height of evil. The atheists in the story simply cannot venture out of their chrono-centric box to see that both the question and the implication behind is absurd.

Third, if one law covered several acts, there did not need to be separate laws for each act. Intercourse was not permitted outside of marriage. Thus a man in a relation with a child was a sin. Also in those days, marriage was primarily for procreation, a child could not procreate. Of course the atheist will now pretend that his arbitrary line of where childhood ends is objective and should be universally accepted.

God made it clear even in the Old Testament that to harm others in order to satisfy your lust was a sin. Sex with a very young child hurts them both physically and mentally.
The Bible itself says that if it added all that could be added all the books in the world couldn't contain it. Thus God, limited by time and our MTV attention spans, had to add in the more common things. For the same principle our Supreme Court have chosen to deal with many more cases of racial bias against blacks than against whites. It's simply has been more common.
Basically the claim boils down to, "God has not done what I think He should have done therefore there can't really be a God cause if there were, He would have behaved by my personal morality."
The funny thing is, is that people who use this argument almost always also believe that there is no such thing as an objective morality. Go figure.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:09:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 7:37:02 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.

But God is 'timeless', did he not know that it was on the way?

You know, along with the gender equality act and abolition of slavery.

Oh wait, that was us...

Your right. God is timeless and He was the one who created all these sexual desires to confuse His people. The laws of God are meant to be disobeyed during this age as a delusion. Only us saints who are drawn out of this delusion can obey the laws of God because we learn that we are the law of God.

All the energy of God is the laws of God and energy is the invisible heaven where creation exists. This energy is how we get the illusions of this world but only because this energy is processed into language we can understand, just like how a computer operates by programmed 0's and 1's in a binary code.

We can program sexual desires by cartoon figures in a computer program so God can easily program His people to have sexual desires that go against His laws. So paedophilia is only meant to deceive man from knowing the truth, not something that is looked at by God as something evil.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:22:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:03:21 AM, ethang5 wrote:
When posters make the "Why didn't God include...." I can't help wondering how serious they are.
First, there are a thousand different things God could have added in the ten commandments. No matter how many things God included, someone would always be able to say, "Why didn't He add in this?" It is a spurious argument.

Second, do the posers of this question know that they are making a logical error? This reminds me of a story set in the future 2000 years from now where atheists ask why didn't God ban the use of wood because in that time trees are scarce and cutting one is considered the height of evil. The atheists in the story simply cannot venture out of their chrono-centric box to see that both the question and the implication behind is absurd.

Third, if one law covered several acts, there did not need to be separate laws for each act. Intercourse was not permitted outside of marriage. Thus a man in a relation with a child was a sin. Also in those days, marriage was primarily for procreation, a child could not procreate. Of course the atheist will now pretend that his arbitrary line of where childhood ends is objective and should be universally accepted.

God made it clear even in the Old Testament that to harm others in order to satisfy your lust was a sin. Sex with a very young child hurts them both physically and mentally.
The Bible itself says that if it added all that could be added all the books in the world couldn't contain it. Thus God, limited by time and our MTV attention spans, had to add in the more common things. For the same principle our Supreme Court have chosen to deal with many more cases of racial bias against blacks than against whites. It's simply has been more common.
Basically the claim boils down to, "God has not done what I think He should have done therefore there can't really be a God cause if there were, He would have behaved by my personal morality."
The funny thing is, is that people who use this argument almost always also believe that there is no such thing as an objective morality. Go figure.
I'll get around to reading your apologetics response, but you need to do some reading as well. Then we can talk because the baptist has derailed it temporarily'
At 8/16/2013 7:49:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 7:28:35 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The term paedophilia is something recent, can you start by giving a definition ? because the greatest part of what is called paedophilia today is forbidden in the bible, but not all of it.
That is the very definition of my question. Paedophilia has been happening for over 100,000yrs and was most certainly a normal practice in bronze age palestine and in stone age arabia 1000yrs later and is the reason that the gods who allegedly dictated the books didn't prohibit it. The men who wrote the books participated in paedophilia and were not going to prohibit it's conduct. Absolute unequivocal proof that it was men who wrote the books. In your case you can reference the rule brought by muhammad that says men can only have four wives but the prophe3t could have as many as he liked, as well as the lack of prohibition against paedophilia.. Wasn't there anybody there who smelled a rat when he came out with this self serving stupidity?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:27:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:03:21 AM, ethang5 wrote:
When posters make the "Why didn't God include...." I can't help wondering how serious they are.
First, there are a thousand different things God could have added in the ten commandments. No matter how many things God included, someone would always be able to say, "Why didn't He add in this?" It is a spurious argument.

Second, do the posers of this question know that they are making a logical error? This reminds me of a story set in the future 2000 years from now where atheists ask why didn't God ban the use of wood because in that time trees are scarce and cutting one is considered the height of evil. The atheists in the story simply cannot venture out of their chrono-centric box to see that both the question and the implication behind is absurd.

Third, if one law covered several acts, there did not need to be separate laws for each act. Intercourse was not permitted outside of marriage. Thus a man in a relation with a child was a sin. Also in those days, marriage was primarily for procreation, a child could not procreate. Of course the atheist will now pretend that his arbitrary line of where childhood ends is objective and should be universally accepted.

God made it clear even in the Old Testament that to harm others in order to satisfy your lust was a sin. Sex with a very young child hurts them both physically and mentally.
The Bible itself says that if it added all that could be added all the books in the world couldn't contain it. Thus God, limited by time and our MTV attention spans, had to add in the more common things. For the same principle our Supreme Court have chosen to deal with many more cases of racial bias against blacks than against whites. It's simply has been more common.
Basically the claim boils down to, "God has not done what I think He should have done therefore there can't really be a God cause if there were, He would have behaved by my personal morality."
The funny thing is, is that people who use this argument almost always also believe that there is no such thing as an objective morality. Go figure.

I'm sorry but I have now read your support for the paedophilia of the goat jockeys who wrote your most holy book of spells and have decided that you have no more to add to an intelligent discussion than the wine glass in front of me has. On your way paedophile defender.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:09:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:27:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:03:21 AM, ethang5 wrote:

I'm sorry but I have now read your support for the paedophilia of the goat jockeys who wrote your most holy book of spells and have decided that you have no more to add to an intelligent discussion than the wine glass in front of me has. On your way pedophile defender.

Whoops. Sorry. I mistake you for an intelligent person who by being on a debate site wanted to debate. My apologies. The fact that there would be people with different opinions than you on a debate site seems to be a surprise for you. OK Bye.

For any of you Gentle Readers out there who aren't in the mold of bulproof observe.
In my opening post I wondered whether people making the argument in the OP were serious. I know for at least one poster now.

He goes on to make the claim that no one provided a verse. Of course, it turns out he wanted a verse with the actual word paedophile in it. That is like claiming the constitution condones killing hermaphrodites because it never mentions hermaphrodites using the word hermaphrodite!

Sometimes being molested as a child gives rise to irrational anger in adults that is directed at anything and anyone who the victim labels as a pedophile defender. In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with them. Cases like these are more prominent when the abuser and the victim are of the same gender.

We can only hope they someday find peace.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:26:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal.

Naysayer, I think by " erudite rebuttal" bulproof means like this,
..."goat jockeys who wrote your most holy book of spells..."

Erudite no?

And when he said,
"I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment."

I think he meant to show you how it doesn't work with this gem,
"On your way paedophile defender."

See?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:56:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:26:37 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal.

Naysayer, I think by " erudite rebuttal" bulproof means like this,
..."goat jockeys who wrote your most holy book of spells..."

Erudite no?

And when he said,
"I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment."

I think he meant to show you how it doesn't work with this gem,
"On your way paedophile defender."

See?
Oh stop it you fvcking simpleton, I've got red wine all over the screen at its dribbling out of my nose.
Do you attend the meetings of paedophile defenders or are you a batman in defence of kid fvckers?
Where is the passage kid fvcker. You like to bring up all sorts of other passages, like how important it is that you don't eat prawns. God is very serious about not eating prawns, but fvcking little kids he must have just forgot. Or it is much more likely that the little kid fvckers were the authors of "the magic book of spells and potions and lots of things to convince the terminally bewildered"
As you can see that title just wouldn't catch your attention, so they shortened it to bible.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 11:01:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?

So eating fvcking CRAB is a GREATER sin than FVCKING LITTLE KIDS. Wearing MIXED YARNS is a GREATER sin tha FVCKING LITTLE KIDS.
Here is the wash up either:
You are an absolute FVCKWIT or
Your god is an even bigger FVCKWIT or
The ancient palestinian paedophile FVCKWITS wrote your FVCKING stupid.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 11:05:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 11:01:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?

So eating fvcking CRAB is a GREATER sin than FVCKING LITTLE KIDS. Wearing MIXED YARNS is a GREATER sin tha FVCKING LITTLE KIDS.
Here is the wash up either:
You are an absolute FVCKWIT or
Your god is an even bigger FVCKWIT or
The ancient palestinian paedophile FVCKWITS wrote your FVCKING stupid.

Or you're just really angry and looking for reason to blame God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 11:26:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 11:05:50 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:01:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?

So eating fvcking CRAB is a GREATER sin than FVCKING LITTLE KIDS. Wearing MIXED YARNS is a GREATER sin tha FVCKING LITTLE KIDS.
Here is the wash up either:
You are an absolute FVCKWIT or
Your god is an even bigger FVCKWIT or
The ancient palestinian paedophile FVCKWITS wrote your FVCKING stupid.

Or you're just really angry and looking for reason to blame God.

Well done stupid. READ what I write. I'm not angry at your make believe god, I'm angry at people who have an intellect not being able to understand that if their fvcking god existed and he wrote the fvcking book that says he exists and made all these rules that you MUST live by, then he would have put at the VERY TOP of the list
DON"T FVCK OR FVCK WITH CHILDREN.
But the society from which this tome of gods wisdom originated and which practiced paedophilia as a matter of course didn't even mention it.
Now tell me.
Would the god you claim exists neglect to prohibit kid fvcking but remember to prohibit wearing different fibres?
Which of those would be paramount in your list of prohibitions?
Would men who wrote the book of prohibitions be more likely to prohibit something meaningless in their life (wearing different fibres) or more likely to prohibit a practice that was a natural part of their culture (paedophilia)
If you are capable of answering these two questions HONESTLY. Can you now answer HONESTLY as to who the author of the bible was? It's dishonest to claim multiple authors in this instance and still claim that the bible is the WORD of god. Just saying
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 11:55:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 11:26:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:05:50 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:01:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?

So eating fvcking CRAB is a GREATER sin than FVCKING LITTLE KIDS. Wearing MIXED YARNS is a GREATER sin tha FVCKING LITTLE KIDS.
Here is the wash up either:
You are an absolute FVCKWIT or
Your god is an even bigger FVCKWIT or
The ancient palestinian paedophile FVCKWITS wrote your FVCKING stupid.

Or you're just really angry and looking for reason to blame God.

Well done stupid. READ what I write. I'm not angry at your make believe god, I'm angry at people who have an intellect not being able to understand that if their fvcking god existed and he wrote the fvcking book that says he exists and made all these rules that you MUST live by, then he would have put at the VERY TOP of the list
DON"T FVCK OR FVCK WITH CHILDREN.
But the society from which this tome of gods wisdom originated and which practiced paedophilia as a matter of course didn't even mention it.
Now tell me.
Would the god you claim exists neglect to prohibit kid fvcking but remember to prohibit wearing different fibres?
Which of those would be paramount in your list of prohibitions?
Would men who wrote the book of prohibitions be more likely to prohibit something meaningless in their life (wearing different fibres) or more likely to prohibit a practice that was a natural part of their culture (paedophilia)
If you are capable of answering these two questions HONESTLY. Can you now answer HONESTLY as to who the author of the bible was? It's dishonest to claim multiple authors in this instance and still claim that the bible is the WORD of god. Just saying

God made man to fck children during this age to confuse His people. Don't you understand that God planned and created a major delusion to keep you all confused?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 12:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 11:55:59 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:26:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:05:50 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 11:01:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:22:52 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:14:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:10:29 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:31:51 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:30:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
I do notice however that NONE have produced such a prohibition. There was some moron claimed if it bans one thing then it means all of those things. So don't FVCKING eat FISH you FVCKING SINNERS. lol

It's still fornication.
So's fvcking adultery and male homosexuality and sheep fvcking but they get a start. It's just fvcking CHILDREN that the writers of the bible didn't have a problem with. It don't sound like a god who so loves children would not put that in neon lights. Oh that's right he would NOT have neglected to make that very CLEAR to the goat jockeys unless he didn't have any fvcking thing to do with the goat fvckers book. THAT is, absolutely, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached. Unless you are beyond any capacity to critically appraise the great book of spells.
God either says paedophilia is KOSHER.
OR
The goat jockeys who wrote the book says it's KOSHER.
The goat jockeys indulged in the practice, so you tell me.
It ain't even adultery, let alone fornication if you buy the baby off the father. What sort of sick pseudo christian could even accept those practices?

Your rationale is anything but rational, friend.

I'm waiting for your incredibly erudite rebuttal. Just saying I don't like you doesn't work in either a forum or debate environment. Bring some meat for me to eat. OK just bring the limp lettuce ya got.

Fair enough. You claim that just because the Bible says nothing on the specific subject of paedophilia, the Bible is in support of paedophilia. This is a false assumption.

I have never stated, to my knowledge, nor could you produce evidence of my being opposed to strangling Chinese kids in the streets. You can't use that as proof that I think Chinese kids should be strangled in the street.

Assuming the Bible to be God's word, it would have to be honest about events that happened even if those opposed God's desire. (Think Christians that don't act like Christians, a subject on which I'm sure you could wax eloquent.)

As for someone in the Bible marrying a child, you're going to have to show me that. I don't think it happened. And I said that I'm fairly certain there's a verse that says if you have a female servant, you're only allowed to marry her when she's of age, although I can't find it at the moment.

Who says I don't like you, little buddy?

So eating fvcking CRAB is a GREATER sin than FVCKING LITTLE KIDS. Wearing MIXED YARNS is a GREATER sin tha FVCKING LITTLE KIDS.
Here is the wash up either:
You are an absolute FVCKWIT or
Your god is an even bigger FVCKWIT or
The ancient palestinian paedophile FVCKWITS wrote your FVCKING stupid.

Or you're just really angry and looking for reason to blame God.

Well done stupid. READ what I write. I'm not angry at your make believe god, I'm angry at people who have an intellect not being able to understand that if their fvcking god existed and he wrote the fvcking book that says he exists and made all these rules that you MUST live by, then he would have put at the VERY TOP of the list
DON"T FVCK OR FVCK WITH CHILDREN.
But the society from which this tome of gods wisdom originated and which practiced paedophilia as a matter of course didn't even mention it.
Now tell me.
Would the god you claim exists neglect to prohibit kid fvcking but remember to prohibit wearing different fibres?
Which of those would be paramount in your list of prohibitions?
Would men who wrote the book of prohibitions be more likely to prohibit something meaningless in their life (wearing different fibres) or more likely to prohibit a practice that was a natural part of their culture (paedophilia)
If you are capable of answering these two questions HONESTLY. Can you now answer HONESTLY as to who the author of the bible was? It's dishonest to claim multiple authors in this instance and still claim that the bible is the WORD of god. Just saying

God made man to fck children during this age to confuse His people. Don't you understand that God planned and created a major delusion to keep you all confused?

borno, if you had a dick you would fvck a straw broom and come back for the handle. So what. Fvck off and see if those little blue pills will work, obviously the smart ones haven't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin