Many adults support a higher age of consent. However, a vocal group of pedophiles instead wants there to be no age of consent. I, as a pedophile, support merging the concepts of the age of consent and the marriageable age. I oppose all sexual relations outside of the context of a Christian marriage.
The Greek root word translated "fornication" in the New Testament is πορνεία (Latin: porneia). This commandment does not prohibit identifying as a pedophile, and it would be nice if society allowed pedophiles to identify. However, all sexual relations outside of marriage are banned according to this highlighted Greek root word.
The age of marriage in biblical times was always in line with the age of majority, wherever it stood. Sexual relations was not seen as a right for everyone, but instead a duty between spouses in a Christian marriage. God's Law reads in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 KJV:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her body, but the husband: and likewise the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye give yourselves to fasting and prayer: and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
The Greek root word here is πορνεία as well, and here refers to anything considered sexually immoral then. This passage makes it clear that sex is not a right, but a duty between spouses in a Christian marriage. The main reason for a Christian marriage is sexual accountability. This passage ultimately cross-references the commandment to obey all worldly authority, including the marriage laws in your home state. See also Rom. 13:1-4.
The Early Christians were strict about equity in a marriage. Marriage then was only allowed if the spouses were same age, or else in the case of the bride being 4 years older at the most. Intergenerational marriage was not a valid concept in the Early Church. Maybe the age of marriage then was 13, but nowhere is that age found in the Bible.
We live in a free society, meaning we can have our opinion as to where the age of consent should be. However, we need to draw the line somewhere. Any lowering of the age of consent/marriage serves only to cater to the self-interest of adults. The Bible is clear that Christians work against their self-interest, and when this abstinence is applied to children, we call that children's rights.
As a Christian pedophile, I am opposed to any lowering of the age of consent/marriage, as I oppose what I want to the point of not wanting it. The most I want in terms of self-interest is children being allowed to go naked to my eyeshot. But, even that is not a huge injustice for me. I myself ultimately am the reason for marriageable ages in the United States being raised to 18.
The ancients in the Bible did not have a concept of an age of consent. The age of consent was lumped in with the age of marriage. All sexual relations outside of marriage was considered illicit and unlawful. Casual sex was clearly banned in the Early Church, as was any sex work on the part of the men involved. Even pornography was banned, with masturbation instead happening properly without pornography. Rape and sexual assault were also banned, with sex offenders swiftly being excommunicated from the church. Anything outside of marriage towards another human being was considered sexually amoral, and thus fornication. A Christian man then went only two ways - towards his wife or towards the masturbation basket. Most men then did masturbate in order to stay out of trouble, in the form of solo masturbation to mental images in their imagination.
A pedophile can hold an anti-fornicator viewpoint. It is a myth that we all are waiting for a sexual rapture to come, in order for mankind to behave like apes. I myself have a different policy as a pedophile - if she isn't my wife, she isn't for me. Bur, since I have no wife, masturbation will have to suffice. Masturbation clears the mind of sexual cobwebs and helps you think clearer about your own sexual choices. However, I am not allowed sexual relations with a woman who isn't my wife, even if I have no wife. Righteous masturbation is a pick-me-up that quenches unrequited sexual desires towards children, and helps me stay out of trouble. I am an anti-contact pedophile, meaning I support the age of consent/marriage being where it is currently. However, my future context view holds that all sexual relations outside of the confines of a marriage being banned entirely as a sexual offense, including all pornography and sex work.
In the context of the Early Church, most male clergy were pedophiles. Whenever the council handed down a guilty verdict, the child was given a choice - stay with parents, or go with pedophiles. Usually, children went with pedophiles, with pedophiles simply lactating to nurse a child back to health. When a child did want to go with parents, the pedophile in question was put under investigation. The concept was not righteous barter, but instead Christian charity. Obviously, we have a different setup today, but this context clarifies that pedophilia alone is not fornication. The word "pedophile" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, even though the ancients had a concept of pedophilia, with the pedophile with the cleanest record being appointed church elder or church deacon.
The depraved and decadent, defiled adults who advocate for a right to sex with children will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them descend into torrents of Hell-fire prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.