Looking with lust: Why that does not ban sexual fantasy about children

 Many Christians have heard the phrase about looking at a woman out of lust, and how it is a sin. Some men take it literally, meaning take the text at face value, and avoid any look at a woman whatsoever that could lead to "falling into lust". Many Christian churches preach this to pedophiles, namely young pedophiles, as a form of spiritual abuse. The reality is that looking at an attractive child is not the same as looking out of lust.

Christ preached, on the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5:27-30 KJV:

Ye have said that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh onto a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable by thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable that one of thy members would perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Christ did not come to abolish the Law (as said by Him earlier in the chapter) but to uphold it, and take it further, meaning broaden its application to make way for flexible righteous judgment (pro-social mop). Christians are not bound by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the Law, meaning gentile believers aren't bound by the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law, but are bound by what the New Testament lifts up, usually in broad strokes. Sensory gaslighting was used as a form of righteous judgment in the Early Christian context. The young girl who felt objectified by male gaze had the right then to stand up in some way.

Young girls usually did not stray too far away from their mother, and the man that would be sexually objectifying them would be their father, meaning the young girl would run to the mother and hide behind the mother's legs, and the mother had the right to defend her child from adult sexual entitlement, meaning a scheming gaze that rules out ways to "get caught" for sexual abuse of a child. The mother had the right of divorce in such a situation, as it says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 KJV:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away her wife.

Divorce was a form of righteous judgment on the husband, as stated in 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat.

The Greek root word translated "covetous" is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to entitlement, in this case spousal entitlement. Basically, this means the attitude of "I am the man of the house, and I have rights over my woman" leading to demanding, controlling, or otherwise violent behavior. It means basically the slightest of entitlement, meaning wanting things from a wife to the point of seeking to impose said wants, leading to theft/abuse. This can mean ordinary demanding behavior from a male head of household that renders the husband incompatible as a spouse. Think anything that violates the wife's boundaries, or controls the wife in any way, or else anything the wife finds hurtful that cannot be answered. This can also apply to child abuse, in which case the child's judgment would have led to the divorce from the husband - a simple signature on a divorce decree - meaning mother's rights started with Christ. I support both mother's rights and father's rights, depending on the merits of the case, and who was the main abuser. I am guided solely by the best interests of the child.

Children were naked within a domestic setting in the biblical context, as was the wife. Yet, the Law states that such is no excuse for abuse, and in the Old Testament, abusers either were stoned to death or burned alive at the stake for sex crimes against children, and only rarely. Pedophilia was not named as a spiritual condition by the Early Christian church, as the term was coined in the 1800s by Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, as a medical term and discovered mental health disorder. In biblical times, it was referred to in other terms, with fathers supporting each other in not falling into lust, and abusing a child sexually. The commandment not to provoke a child to anger in Col. 3:21 refers to sexual abuse, partially, but also any abuse.

Nudity, or partial undress, in the biblical context, was seen as vulnerability of a private sort, and a moral crime not for the child who is nude, but for the adult who takes advantage of such a situation. This can mean the slightest of antisocial "leer", meaning looking in a way that the child finds offensive, alarming, or uncomfortable, in which case that alone can be a form of child sexual abuse.

The depraved and sexually entitled parents will BURN! Fornicators and all defiled child predators will suffer the second death, and will burn! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!