people are afraid their children will be raped if it is normalized

Gamers and MAPs are the most oppressed peoples on the planet, unironically.

>>25605572 The Bible says something about rape. Do you know what it is?

>>25605581 that its bad

Until 1871 when it was lowered to 7 years old.

>>25605575 They are the same people

>>25605584 Yes but the Pentateuch also states that a rapist is to marry the girl he rapes if she isn't engaged. It also says the rapist can not divorce the girl he raped. Exodus 21:7-11 >7And if a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to go free as the menservants do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who had designated her for himself,b he must allow her to be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, since he has broken faith with her. 9And if he chooses her for his son, he must deal with her as with a daughter. 10If he takes another wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of his first wife. 11If, however, he does not provide her with these three things, she is free to go without monetary payment. Numbers 31:17-18 >Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Judges 21:12 >They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 >If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. https://biblehub.com/lexicon/deuteronomy/22-28.htm https://biblehub.com/lexicon/judges/21-12.htm https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5291.htm

>>25605587 Unbelievably Based!

>>25605587 Congress argued that 7 is a real woman. And they are right.

>>25605606 I'm not a biologist I can't answer that question

>>25605612 Kek!

>>25605594 irrelevant because modern christians dont care about what the bible says, least of all american """christians""".

>>25605594 Christians don't follow the OT.

>>25605623 True. The only real Christians left are CI.

Only when cultural and governmental power are taken can change in the right direction be made. Learn from the left. Infiltrate, influence, and indoctrinate.

>>25605646 The NT is predicated on the OT. Retard.

The first duty of every MAP is to be educated.

>>25605668 >any books about girls? >no jewish bullshit list

>>25605594 Incorrect. The only one which is conceivably relevant (and which constitutes a law, neither the passages from Judges or Numbers constitute a law and I doubt you could tell me the context of the Numbers passage if I let you google it) and which is in fact frequently abused by enemies of the faith to assault the bible is the Deuteronomy passage. You quote from a liberal translation which stands almost alone (certainly among remotely literal translation) in rendering the word as "rape". The underlying Hebrew means to grab, to take, to lay hold of, a definition which is consistent through the Old Testament. Only a feminist would look at a man saying he took a woman and assume that is rape. The reason he is said to have "violated" her is plainly for the same reason her father is paid compensation, namely that he violated her ritual sanctity (having taken her virginity). The law immediately preceding this one clearly states the penalty for rape is death. Furthermore note the text says "if they are discovered". The Hebrew word is indeed neuter and plural, it is the intent of the author to include the female in the discovery; how could the victim of a rape be said to be "discovered" in that act?

>>25605668 Pic one's a bunch of faggot shit

>>25605722 You have any book on girls to add the list? No? So stop being annoying and pick the rest of the books. Also, hetpeds who are bothered by gays are so annoying as LGBTs who are bothered by MAPs.

>>25605589 I just realized the "filled directly with doritos" like taking them out of the packaging and just dumping them into the backpack, damn that's actually funny

>>25605776 >You have any book on girls to add the list? No? No, just like there's no books about how being attracted to women is normal. Girl-love is just normal and always has been unlike disgusting, unnatural homosexual acts, the idea pure love between men and girls is wrong is very new. >Also, hetpeds who are bothered by gays are so annoying as LGBTs who are bothered by MAPs. Go take your PrEP and change your diaper

>>25605783 Just makes sense, he's only got so much free time for his hand to get chips before he has to get back to the game.

>>25605567 >When will MAP rights be acknowledged again? When Islam takes over, don't worry it will happen once EU breaks down from a combination of having wasted all their weapons and money on organized crime in Ukraine and Trump derangement syndrome plus lack of adrenachrome starts rotting their brains for real in 1-2 years.

>Women are sexually developed on average at 12 years old and can fully engage in reproduction The year is 2025 and this single fact of reality STILL makes antis seethe beyond oblivion

>>25605808 Just because they can doesn't mean that they should.

>>25605788 The books "on boys" investigate certain relationships historically. It's possible that have some book on girls about Victorian era, for example. Any way, argue about what it's natural is worthless here. Someone outside could argue that having any sexual relation with prepubescents is not optimal for reproduction or another bullshit. I know you don't like Gay people, but you live in a society that subjects you to same apparatus used against gays in the past.

>>25605808 >>Women are sexually developed on average at 12 years old and can fully engage in reproduction who are you quoting? because i'd say that girls can be fertile at ten. sometimes younger.

>>25605842 >Someone outside could argue that having any sexual relation with prepubescents is not optimal for reproduction or another bullshit. Just saying "not optimal" concedes the point. It's an infinitely greater concession that homosexuals could ever have. In 10 years, my child bride will yield children. How long until your boyfriend gives you butt babies? >you live in a society that subjects you to same apparatus used against gays in the past. That's like saying we shouldn't punish murder because some people can be wrongly accused.

>>25605863 >In 10 years So, wait 10 years. >That's like saying we shouldn't punish murder because some people can be wrongly accused It's more like saying: The reason you punish something (sodomy, let's say) would make other things (pedophilia) as wrong too, because the whole framework is wrong. Something being "normal" (no matter by what this name means here) doesn't translate into a right or wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

I want my child gf.

>>25605913 >So, wait 10 years. That's so epic of you to parrot an anti meme, it was just as retarded as when they do it. >The reason you punish something (sodomy, let's say) would make other things (pedophilia) as wrong too, because the whole framework is wrong. Except we just established that's not true at all and consistent application of principles won't produce equal outcomes (maybe that's why they weren't treated the same by the vast majority of people in all times). In a best case scenario you are a coward. You are a big pussy who is so terrified of being "judged" you want to hide behind a shield of tolerance and you see actual degeneracy being judged disfavorably and say to yourself "oh no, I may end up getting judged too, I better stop all this judgement that's happening" and by associating yourself with the actual degenerates who ought to be pushed of society you ironically bring that judgement to yourself and rightfully so. And if it's immoral to judge people for being immoral, then it's immoral for you to judge me for judging others. Tolerance is not a virtue, it is a lack of virtue.

>>25605855 Yes of course, earliest recorded pregnancy was at 5 years old. 12 years old is just the average for most women. I have no source because it's obvious common knowledge since the dawn of human civilization

>>25605841 Ah yes, the illogical open-ended cope.

>>25605960 >Except we just established that's not true at all You establish this? >and consistent application of principles won't produce equal outcomes (maybe that's why they weren't treated the same by the vast majority of people in all times) Probably, but again, this doesn't answer the why this is right or wrong Also, the rest of the text is pure bullshit.

>>25606010 >You establish this? Yes.

>>25605993 Women can be President of the United States of America but that doesn't mean that they should.

>>25606027 >Except WE just established that's not true at all So, speak for yourself

>>25605567 Because criminals have no rights. Expect no quarter.

>>25606080 The same people that legalized sodomy decided it is a crime, why should anyone respect such law?

Gay rights.

>>25605572 If it has to be normalized then it is not normal.

Bump!

>>25607014 >Please point out where in the preceding verses it is stated that a man should be punished (by death) for raping an unbetrothed virgin These laws are in the context of unfaithfulness and fornication, not the context of rape. This is an iron age legal code, and not a modern legal code. The obsession with precision and specificity that defines modern law did not exist for the audience for whom this text was written. It is transparent what your argument is and it is anachronistic, the reader was intended to take the rape provision and extend it to any rape because the author knew that's what his audience would do. To illustrate, there is no express law concerning what the specific response to a sodomitic rape ought to be, but that does not mean the victim is to be put to death in such a case because it is implicit from this text (though it refers to the rape of a woman) that the victim of a rape incurs no guilt. This is the way the apostles of Jesus Christ interpreted the law, as we see for example Paul drawing on Leviticus directly condemn lesbianism in a way it did not, because the prohibition of male homosexuality is also applicable to female homosexuality. >Every single verse from 22:22 to 22:27 refers to either married or betrothed women. So, let's follow your logic. Following your logic the rape of a married woman, or an unmarried non-virgin has no legal status. Because there is no specific and particular law saying the exact same thing but with these specific words, it must mean according to you it's open season on them, it's like it doesn't even happen. <but verse 22 says they will be put to dea- Doesn't matter, it doesn't repeat itself while using the specific word rape >at best the verses are ambiguous w.r.t. what to do with the rapist "He shall be put to death" does not seem very ambiguous to me. >The broader term, "taphas"/take is used here because no such distinction is being made between rape and non-rape. Take is not a broader term. To take a woman means to have sex with her. If I say "I had sex with that woman", is rape part of your interpretation of that sentence? If it is consult a psychiatrist. Precisely the same kind of language *is* what is used in the prior verses when it describes the adulterers as lying down together, another generic phrasing that simply means to have sex, yet you have already conceded it is excluding rape despite not explicitly spelling it out like you suddenly insist it must for this verse. This text compares rape to murder, is murder something that's only punished with specific victims or something which is universally reviled? >reinterpret the plain reading of a text from antiquity The plain reading of a text from antiquity is its plain reading in antiquity, not to someone in his gamer chair wearing programmer socks flapping at a cheeto-dust covered fairy-lit keyboard. You are a degenerate loser who wants to justify his bestial desire to rape a woman because he couldn't possibly acquire one otherwise. >to make it better accord with modern vaginal prejudices I told you the proper response to fornication is a non-divorceable shotgun wedding. You're an idiot. >christcuck Oh, there's the spaghetti, you couldn't help yourself from throwing off the mask for even one post! How embarrassing. I expect any reply to be more overtly in bad faith, probably with more anger and clown words like "fairy tale" or "magic". And by the way, I know you've never read Tertullian, so tell whatever tranny or bull dyke you're getting all this from to shove it.

Pedos should have rights and lefts

>>25609246 Self-conscious sexpat.

>>25609255 Better than being an unconscious nonce.

>>25609246 Niggers prove themselves to be the most violent once again

>>25609246 >>25609246 Niggers prove themselves to be the most violent petty criminals once again

>>25609246 What did he mean by "that shit"?

>>25609261 I disagree. An unconscious British sexpat in China is superior to a self-conscious, insecure British sexpat in China.

As long as I can't enjoy my tongue rubbing the inside of a 5~6 year old loli's anus and vaginal canal all day, this news doesn't matter much to me.

>>25609376 The nigger decided to rob him for his wallet and phone and the people around him we going with it

>>25609261 On that note, an unconscious British sexpat in China is still superior to a self-conscious, insecure one. At least he's not wasting his time overcompensating.

>>25609459 >anus ew

>>25609544 A LITERAL PEDO has no right or ability to criticise anyone else. Consider that when society celebrates nonce bashers as heroes and the authorities refuse to prosecute them for their actions, what they must then think of you. You are the lowest of the low.

>>25609863 Im glad youre so upset.

>>25609208 Tertullian literally agrees with me: >The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife (Deut. 22:28-29). Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! You are contradicting one of your early church fathers with this pathetic apologetic. Cope harder christcuck. >blah blah blah All those meaningless words and mental gymnastics when you didn't even bother reading my citation. >The plain reading of a text from antiquity is its plain reading in antiquity. Hammurabi's Code has a similar provision to Deut. 22:28-29. Wife kidnapping and war brides weren't uncommon in antiquity. Roman patriarchs had the right of life and death over members of their household. You're the one operating on anachronisms here. >You are a degenerate loser who wants to justify his bestial desire to rape a woman because he couldn't possibly acquire one otherwise. Insane vaginal projection. I'm not a christcuck, so I don't need to justify anything. I'm approaching the text from a disinterested POV, the very same POV you'd be using to approach any non-biblical text. Like Hammurabi's Code or w/e. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about the use of the word na'ara (pais in the Septuagint and puellam in the Vulgate).

>girls married are such and such age in such epoch >this means that this specific woman married at such age By that logic all women marry at 30 now

>>25609468 I thought he wanted to fuck him. Maybe I have a sick mind.

>>25609847 You mean like God or all of the biblical Patriarchs?

>>25613447 All may be stretching it, but most is certainly true in the West.

>>25605567 >>25605575 >>25605668 wtf is a map >>25605776 >hetpeds wtf is that gay shit >>25609847 You're just jealous UwU