You would wonder why paedophiles who think God made them that way are so drawn to the Church when they will be erased and condemned and expelled and hated if they act on their desires.

One attraction is now the faith makes the legal system look godless and evil. 

The Bible which the Church says is the word of God and infallible states that Christians are not to go to pagan judges with their disputes (1 Corinthians 6:1-11). The Bible did not say untrustworthy pagan judges but just pagan judges meaning that God has decided that only Christians should put Christians on trial. They would certainly have to be more than Christians but also very upright people according to the Bible standard which is pitifully poor I might add. If you can’t take somebody to court when it is just pagans running the court how can you go to a court run by Christians whose piety and holiness is dubious? The Bible Jesus says of such Christians that they are neither hot nor cold and he will spew them out of his mouth. So they are despised as much as pagans in the Bible and by the Bible God. There are few Christians about and the most devout of them are often hypocrites. The Christians were told to stay away from pagan judges in Corinth which didn’t have any Christian judges out of the closet. Christians were few and far between then. So the message is clear: though you need judges to have a decent society better to have no judges than pagan ones and better to have no justice than faulty justice or justice that is not justice as Christianity sees it. This shows extreme antagonism towards pagans. It shows that the vast majority of court cases today are sinful by Bible standards. It commands then that justice be controlled by the Church. If the Catholic Church had been holding the courts there would have been no mercy for clerically abused children and no consideration for them at all. The true Catholic cannot regard the finding guilty of paedophile priests to be morally valid. To them it can have no legal force. The paedophile then will feel persecuted and will feel that he is the wronged one!
Deuteronomy 19:15 has God forbidding any attention to be paid to any accusation that is made by only one witness (see also Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Numbers 35:30). Deuteronomy is forbidding attention to be paid to most children who report molestation for in the vast majority of cases it is just the child’s word against the abuser. And Jesus gave witness to the correctness of the rule centuries later (John 8:17). Jesus said that the law declared that what two men testify to is true. The same commandment was approved in 1 Timothy 5:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 by Paul the apostle. So Christians must not say that the commandment was done away by Jesus for it was validated in New Testament times.
The Bible can only make Christian paedophiles feel outraged and persecuted when they are sent down. It is no wonder there is little convincing remorse among religious child sex offenders but they cannot admit that their faith and holy book and therefore God are their inspiration in the ways of evil. The Bible has been responsible for the abetting of child-abuse and covering up that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have recently being exposed for (which they admit was done because of the Bible teachings just mentioned). It certainly tells those who cover up that they were doing right. Maybe the covering up done by the cult and other cults like Roman Catholicism was done to hide the fact that Christianity and the Bible produce and/or encourage paedophiles.

Lot’s virgin daughters who he raped when drunk had to be underage and yet 2 Peter says Lot was a righteous man. Even if he didn’t know any better, Lot could not be held up as an example. Clearly Peter was condoning what Lot did.  He was envying him.  This was supposedly Peter the apostle the first pope and who was authorised by Jesus to speak for him.  The New Testament sanctions child abuse as much as the Old Testament does.  And this was in a culture which accepted such abuse.  Even in pagan nations, men slept with little boys and raped them with public approval.

If a girl was found to be a non-virgin on the wedding night her husband was to have her stoned to death. Yet rape of a virgin, meaning a girl who could have been a child, got a superficial token punishment. Read Deuteronomy 22:20-29.  This is as good as a clear endorsement of rape of a female child.

The Church likes to keep the fact that the Torah, the Law that God dictated to the evil Moses, did nothing about the Hebrew tradition of marriages being arranged between men and girls who were just children hidden under the mitre. The Law railed against adultery and fornication and homosexuality but its God turned a blind eye to this perversion. He did not even have the decency to lay down a minimum age. It made it clear that these marriages, usually the first marriage a man would contract, were lawful and not to be sullied with adultery. It even let men take more child-brides later. There is absolutely no reason why God couldn’t have insisted on the age of the brides being increased. To say he couldn’t is as absurd as saying that we should reduce our age of consent to twelve because many children are having sex these days. Evangelicals stand up for God no matter what he does so if they want to then they should have the laws of the land made to please rebellious selfish people. They should reward insubordinancy thus.

Jewish girls were married as soon as they reached puberty or started to menstruate (page 13, 30, Son of Joseph). They were betrothed which was a kind of marriage that took place shortly before full marriage, at about 12 years of age (page 35, Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).  There was no concern for the girl being mature enough or ready for marriage. Girls of that age would have been more innocent and inexperienced and easily taken advantage of than girls today. We are talking about a serious abuse of young girls here. They were used by men and by religion. Rape is not too strong a word to describe what was done to them on the wedding night. The marriage was their lot whether they wanted it or not. The psychological pressure must have been intense. The man who rapes by pressuring a woman is as much a rapist as one who holds the woman down. In fact he is more hateful.

And the New Testament comes out and sanctions this behaviour when it says that God gave Mary a pregnancy before the wedding. It was bad enough after the wedding but before it meaning she was a younger mother than usual.

Matthew and Luke say Mary was pregnant without sexual intercourse.  We do not know what is meant by conceived by the Holy Spirit.  It could be a euphemism for Mary getting "miraculously" pregnant during sexual molestation by Joseph or somebody else.  The text never excludes the possibility of sperm.  Given that Augustine said we should read the Bible in a non-magical way then Joseph must have been Jesus' father. 

The New Testament gives divine approval for the abuse of children. It is bad enough to have sex with a child but to make one pregnant is a hundredfold worse. But Christians are strangely appalled at the idea that Mary might have had sex or come close to it and conceived that way and delighted at the idea that she conceived without sex or a man well below what anybody in their right mind would consider a decent age. So illicit sex is worse than an illicit pregnancy! This is another manifestation of the majority Christian belief that pain is good and pleasure is bad.
Luke says that when the angel told Mary she would have a baby she was shocked and wondered how she could have a baby when she did not know man? The angel did not actually tell her she would have a baby without a man only that she would have one. She talks as if she had not reached puberty yet and this entity was talking to her about babies. No wonder she was bewildered! Even she knew she was too young to get pregnant - and that was by the standards of that time!
Whoever says that the girls were not underage in those days so that their getting married at 12 or at the start of puberty is not a problem is one sick individual. First of all, the point is that they were emotionally and mentally and physically unprepared for sex. Second, they had no sex education. Third, they are implying that the only thing wrong with abusing children is that the law says they are underage and the fact that they are not ready doesn't matter! This is silly for the law is only about regulation. The law saying something doesn't automatically make it right.
Jesus was asked if any man could divorce his wife. Jesus said no and if he did he was making her commit adultery. He was recognising the validity of the underage marriages based on abuse and degradation of the female. He was approving of paedophilia. He was even forcing them to stay married - such was the strength of his pro-paedophilia stance.  He said whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  Those divorced women were married as children and thus were not married at all.  They did not even consent to the marriage for the man took the marriage vow not the girl.

Out of solidarity to those who are psychologically harmed by Bible teaching, the monstrous attitude of Jesus, the underage victims of rape, all victims of sexual predators in religion we should remove Christianity from our lives.


No Copyright