"Looking out of lust": What this REALLY means for pedophiles

Many men are troubled in some way by Christ's command not to look at a woman or child out of lust. I do support all commands in the Bible that come from God, but this one is often misinterpreted in a way that is spiritually abusive for pedophiles. I look at girls all the time out of lust in public, and don't find myself guilty of any sin. It is how your look that makes it sexual abuse.

Christ says at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:27-28 KJV:

Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman out of lust hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The Greek root word translated "lust" is επιθυμέω (Latin: epithumeo) and refers not merely to sexual desire for a child, but sexual desire leading to seeking to impose said sexual desire, with the perception of that being fornication (GRK: πορνεία), but instead clear adultery (GRK: μοιχεύω). It is sexual entitlement, meaning wanting sexual relations or control with a child to the point of seeking to impose said want onto a child, leading to child sexual abuse by way of offense perceived. In the case of a young girl, any time I look at her with lustful intent, meaning intent to create a relationship that shouldn't be there and never will exist in God's eyes, I have just committed the abuse already, and must correct my intent.

I am guilty until proven innocent in relation to my own motives in relation to children, meaning I am an entitled, wretched adult whose sin nature means harm towards a child, with me hating children just for existing in relation to them. I must distrust any intent of mine to be around a child I like until I have every reason to believe that I mean well, meaning if I want to make a big step in relating with a child by going to her house, I must be sure both that I have intent other than prurient self-interest, meaning I am willing to be in her company in more wholesome ways that cannot be fetishized, and that I have every reason to believe I won't abuse the child, and no reason to believe that I will abuse the child, with the child's emotional reactions to my presence being a guide. Look for shock and awe type reactions, and apprehensive expressions, or else watch for a child flipping me off and calling me a "creep". 

This method has centered me to not look in a way that pesters or offends a child, meaning I just don't exist to them when I look. They ignore me, and don't notice my presence. Every once and a while, I have an incidental abuse incident with a child where I look at a young girl, and she glares at me, and then I am set straight.

Child sexual abuse is a form of sexual entitlement imposed on a child, perceived by the child, and the Title IX policies in workplaces and schools set a good boundary - menacing/leering to rape/lust murder. All are covered by the Bible as fornication against the child, thus abuse. "Leering" refers to the child's perceptions, not the abuser's, and if the reaction of the victim has immediate reformatory effect on the perpetrator, then it is incidental abuse, meaning everyday sexual abuse against a child.

A child feels threatened by the gaze of a man in particular when he has lustful intent, meaning intent to go up to her that he is holding back, meaning he literally has urges towards children, which is usually a non-issue - most cases of pedophilia are actually just intrusive thoughts that need to be accepted, meaning let go and not fought back. Children have fight or flight instincts that detect dangers to bodily autonomy and other rights regarding autonomy. A bulk of men do have sexual desires towards children meaning individuals under age 18, namely teenagers, and so if you are aware of it in a non-offending light, meaning you know it is wrong but just let the thoughts go by, not fighting them or stuffing them, that is the ultimate sign of non-entitlement in relation to children, so when I see young girls in swimsuits during the summer, simply note their attractiveness, and move on. Children don't mind that. They mind when you look at them to case them out for a possible opportunity of an offense towards a child, in which case abuse starts when the child feels uncomfortable and suns out the glare of the glare of the adult.

No pedophile, by my judgment, is going to Hell, meaning the true pedophiles who abuse no child. There are the pedophiles and the abusers, and a child molester is an abuser who has crossed over and ceases the right to call themselves a pedophile. They blew it, and by then it is too late - the child is harmed for life, and so we need to lock the sick puppy up. We can't help them beyond a certain point, as I don't want my tax dollars going to court ordered treatments when the sex offenders who do want help will find it anyway, meaning I am opposed to court orders as a mandate to treat thugs who refuse to change...All sexual abusers are either defiled parents or defiled adults, depending on their relation to the child, and you can enter the job title of the defiled adult and keep them labeled as "defiled" next to their job title.

The defiled adult fornicators, by my beliefs, are in Hell until they cease their behavior of adult sexual entitlement, in which case God foreknew and knew they were never in Hell to begin with...We are pro-pedophile here at Opposing Parental Entitlement. Pedophiles have the right to diagnose themselves and identify by a clinical condition, and should not feel ashamed by mental health stigma to label themselves such.

Children self-protect, and adults abstain (the biblical order of the family, in terms of child protection)

Many parents believe in protecting children, meaning maybe getting a gun and protecting their "defenseless" child from harm. Children are vulnerable, but they aren't defenseless, especially older children and teens. You can teach children as young as 11 or 12 how to use a shotgun, and then they can hide it under their bed in the case of any threats.

Children self-protect and adults abstain are two children's rights acronyms that involve an equal relationship between adults and children. This model was first tried with keeping children safe around pedophiles by allowing children to feel their instincts, and not question them, leading them to being able to set boundaries with a pedophile, and self-report their abuse. 

But first, adults must abstain, and that means Christian love for children. Christian love for a child is a parent being convicted, out of reverent fear, to surrender to God through their children, surrendering all adult power and control to their footstool, protecting them from your own flaws as a parent as if they are royalty. Reverent fear is denoted by the Greek root word ψοβός (Latin: phobos) and refers to parental fear of one's own aggressive instincts in relation to children, leading to the parent being broken down to tearful conviction that they have wronged their child, leading to surrender to the child, giving up the fight, knowing your child knows best about their needs, even if they can't express it, even if they express their needs irrationally and perhaps even with blows, loving your child unconditionally for their flaws and not despite, doing good works in relation to your child's every need, starting with oneself and one's abusive, aggressive instincts being turned inwards, being struck by the fury and wrath of God on behalf of children, through your child's cries and pleas for the abuse to stop. It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to another form of surrender, meaning one of running to parents and surrendering everything about oneself to parents, sharing everything, making parents confidants, being completely oneself in relation to parents, owing absolutely nothing in return to parents, yet nonetheless showing gratitude for their good works and good graces towards you by hearing their voice, understanding based on developmental capacity, leading to obedience based not on fear of a parent's voice, but reassurance and familiarity with the child's voice, with the voice of parents carrying that gentle pull to get you to do what is right, knowing you will never be punished for everything. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" refers to ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, meaning the torts and damages under the Eighth Commandment, which prohibit assault and battery against a child, including as kidnapping in the case of punishing children (see Deut. 24:7, Exod. 21:16, esp. "in his hand"). In the New Testament, all this context is summed up to the slightest of offense perceived by the child, coming from the entitled behavior of adults, meaning any entitlement that a child perceived as directed against their person, meaning if a child feels controlled or punished, they have the right to speak out and set the adult straight. Kidnapping was a moral crime under the church ordinances of the Early Christian church, and since it was a capital offense in the Old Testament, it was a collective offense and the whole church community excommunicated and shunned the abusive parent, sticking with the non-abusive one. It was a specific sensory perception of a child - being held in an iron grasp.

Children ruled from beneath in ancient Israel and adjoining churches, meaning children were outspoken about their needs, at their own level, and were very important people to their parents, and pro-social deification was a common parenting attitude towards children, meaning no Hebrew parent then would ever even think of punishing a child. Children were extensions of God to their parents, in a way nobody else would understand, held high above their parents, worshipped in a pro-social manner by their every need being doted on. Children were technically submissive under the law, known as providing custody, but were idolized by their mothers and fathers as even as much as a guide as to where to move to on moving day, meaning children were put first. Children first, parents last.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger through punitive or permissive behavior will not inherit the Kingdom of God! They will instead be cast into the ever-burning lake of fire and burning sulfur, prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Why strictness is for parents, not children

Many parents hate their children. We all, as adults, hate children in some way, in some form. The idea is not to hate the child in order to love them, but to char and purify oneself. Strictness is often forced on children, but isn't intended by God for them. Strictness is intended for parents.

It says in Hebrews 12:5-11 KJV:

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh to you as unto children, My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons. Furthermore we have fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers in his holiness. Now no chastening for the present is ever joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. 

The Greek root word referring to chastisement and correction is παιδεία (Latin: paideia) and refers to the chastening of the Lord, meaning chastening oneself and regulating one's emotions in the Lord, in this context in relation to one's child. The Greek root word translated "scourgeth" is μαστιγόω (Latin: mastigoó) and refers, literally literally, to a scourge of cords under Roman law, which refers ultimately to the rod of correction under Jewish law. The rod of correction literally was a tree branch used as a form of judicial corporal punishment, and only in the Old Testament, hence this is simply punitive nostalgia that should be interpreted as self-directed on the parent in a self-flagellant way, not as a means of promoting corporal punishment for children. Corporal punishment was not a part of the ordinance of the Early Church, and thus the rod of correction had a symbolic meaning, meaning boundaries, meaning if you actually received 40 minus 1 lashes as an adult offender in the Old Testament, you were on the edge in terms of respecting the boundaries of others and society, most likely. When used here, it means God sets the boundaries, often in a way human beings don't like.

The idea behind strictness and chastisement is to char yourself as a parent in front of yourself as a parent. This means dropping the parent label, and simply implying it with your good intentions towards your child, which don't deserve praise as such is commonsense. It is centering oneself in relation to children with God guiding you by the fact that you are evil, wicked, and depraved, and deserve nothing from them that is good, and everything bad and "disrespectful", meaning I deserve hatred from children. The idea is to let these principles guide you as a parent to children, and know your duty and place as caregiver, and once children are grateful for your kindness, or else are kind to you undeservingly, purify yourself in that moment, and replenish, knowing your sacrifice paid off. See vs. 11.

The Greek root word denoting love in the New Testament is αγαπαο (Latin: agapao) and refers to first being convicted of one's depraved sin nature, charring oneself as a parent in relation to oneself, and to God, in relation to a child, leading to surrender to God with children in place of Him, with adult power and control being left at the footstool of the child, treating them as royalty, fearing reverently their every need as their enemy, leading to good works in terms of providing a child's every need to them, including attachment needs, expecting absolutely nothing in return from children. It says in Ephesians 6:1-4 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and mother, as is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live along the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to anger: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The Greek root word translated "nurture" is παιδεία (Latin: paideia) and refers to chastening oneself up in the Lord as a parent, in a way that regulates one's emotions in an exemplary way in relation to children, meaning co-regulation, where the parent is calm and chastened up, but in a way that listens to and validates the every emotion of a child, not complaining or dismissing the child's needs, but simply reassuring presence. On another level, it means exemplary teaching of Christian family values to children, alongside minimal instruction in discussion format, using Socratic reasoning to allow children to think for themselves by asking them questions in relation to questions, opening dialogue between equals. There are many levels of the chastening of the Lord in parenting, but the primary is by way of example, just as Christ taught His children by example. The Greek root word translated "admonition" is νουθεσία (Latin: nouthesia) and refers to the admonition of the Lord, meaning the word "no" or its various variants, meaning any limit or boundary set by a parent, which should be rare, and only verbal in nature. The severity of the boundaries set is weighed by the Greek root word παροργιζο (Latin: parorgizo) and refers to the offenses under the biblical context, meaning the torts and damages system under the Eighth Commandment, including assault and battery laws that were extended to children, meaning no legal defense under Jewish law exempted parents for prosecution for kidnapping, which would be the statute used for a pro-spanking parent, meaning immediate excommunication and disfellowship from the church, usually starting with a man being divorced by his wife and the mother of his children (1 Cor. 7:10-11). However, this all was summed up after Christ, and taken further, with the slightest of offense perceived by the child stemming from entitled adult behavior, meaning any entitlement directed towards the child or around the child recklessly in a way that the child's needs were ignored willfully in any way, including attachment needs.

Any sort of punishment was against Jewish law when directed towards children, including even fits of anger from a parent, as anger was to be saved for court, and children were not subject to the Law, and were exempt from Divine Prosecution until they became of age, meaning the age of majority, and until then, children were only expected to be taught, and at their own pace. Attachment parenting was the norm then, with young children being swaddled up to age 3, and children sleeping next to mothers long afterward in the form of co-sleeping, and otherwise children playing freely, yet in close range to parents. Fathers were encouraging, usually in a friendly, amicable way, and encouraged study of the Law, not beat it into children. It was an interest in every young Hebrew boy, and was an interest that was encouraged by fathers then, in a collaborative way. Children were expected to ask questions, and were encouraged to by fathers...Punishment was only acceptable under Jewish law for adults, and only after due process. Before that, nobody could be whipped with the rod of correction.

The depraved and entitled parents provoke not your children to anger! Let them burn and rot in the ever-burning lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Opposing Parental Entitlement's righteous judgment strategy

Many survivors have a way of judging the abusers, usually pedophiles. I judge parents, not pedophiles, as I am one. I go by the concept of pro-social generosity, mixed with pro-social guilt, knowing that all of us adults are sinful creatures, and have something to hide, yet trusting your neighbor not to at the same time.

It says in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not by the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

The Greek root word translated "judge" and "judgment" is κρινο (Latin: krino) and refers to the spirit of the Law, lifted up from the Old Testament, with the Christian being an individual righteous judge of the world, with the presumption of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt, panning out around them like surround sound, with superficial suspicion marked by the Greek root word "appearance", which is denoted by the Greek root word οψις (Latin: opsis) and refers to "what the eye cannot see", meaning that only the material or eyewitness evidence exists in front of you, as hard evidence, meaning most people around you are deemed not guilty until given a hearing, but that evil can exist in anyone, because it exists in everyone due to original sin.

I judge a parent by way of reason to doubt their guilt, until I have no reason to doubt their guilt in abusing their child, and then I call them out, and when they defend their entitlement to abuse a child, I cut them off and shun them, and they'll never hear from me again, until they admit to their original sin, which isn't really sin, which is abuse from entitled parents. Once they blame a parent, and I hear about it, they are marked off the list for deletion, with me as an extension of God called to judge the world of it's sin, pruning the world in a grand investigation that involves Satan, and centers around the rights of children...If I have any reason to believe you are innocent, and you give me reason to believe that you mean well, I must accept that as evidence, trusting my neighbor. 

What righteously upsets the presumption of innocence is if a victim of their abuse makes an allegation, in which we should, by default, presume guilt in the perpetrator, and presume the victim innocent of wrongdoing. Even if the victim's credibility is in doubt, trust the victim first while taking their claims with a grain of salt, investigating the perpetrator to righteously discredit the victim. In a confrontation, it is the victim pro-social promoting the evil of the abuser, meaning promote in the reverse, and the abuser just sits there. From there, trust in such an individual should be shattered in a moments notice, leading to pro-social irrational(ity) and pro-social hysteria, especially when a child makes an allegation. Even then, the child's wishes become more paramount as the child gets older, meaning the child may just want the abuse to stop, and there are ample medical facilities in the United States, such as ASAP International for that purpose. A child does not see something as low level as sexual abuse like an adult would, meaning an adult would say "get me out of here" whereas a child would say "make it stop", and it can stop, usually in the beginning stages, before it gets life threatening. Most abuse is not life threatening, and is situational in nature, meaning remove one variable, and the abuse is gone. Victims of corporal punishment may not be willing to have their parents confronted because it would blow back on them. Thus, a children's rights advocate out and about should not rush into these things, and most of the time. you can only mark someone as guilty in a public establishment for entitlement alone towards a child, or child abuse as well if the child is as much takes the slightest perception of offense. Under a spanking ban, parents and children would likely engage in moral legal exchange that would resolve a parenting struggle, meaning pro-social argument on an equal level, and the parent would apologize for what happened later. True police intervention to the point of imprisoning a parent would be rare, and to make an example out of a parent.

It says in 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or an extortioner; with one an no not to eat.

The concept of theft, meaning abuse, is implied in this verse, with any parent that is entitled being a sinner and abuser. The Greek root word translated "covetous" refers to entitlement, and is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting things from children, or for children to do things, to the point of imposing said want onto a child, leading to abuse by way of offense taken, which is instead mentioned in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Entitlement, by my birds eye view, in a public establishment is anger or aggression imposed on a child, in which the aggression counts as parental entitlement. Depending on the amount of entitlement exposures, and the apparent will of the parent to control their child, they may be deemed a known and entitled parent.

Parent branding occurs behind the back of parents here in Berks County, as we are Anti-Parent here at Children's Rights. I observe as a fly on the wall your behavior as a parent, and regularly report to base with my findings. Children's rights canvasses the world, sailing the seven seas, exploring all terrain, flipping up the burgers behind closed doors which stick out in public as an eyesore, which are known and identified parents. All of this is done as discreetly as possibly. You may be namelessly described in a profile on this very blog, for all you know, and you'd only know if you found my hidden blog, and/or asked me up as a survivor. I observe like an eagle from straight above and aside you as you lash out with your child, having your little parent hissy fit, then mark you for deletion, promoting your evil in the reverse for the Lord. All I do is nod, and the good Lord will take care of the rest of you. Entitlement and controlling attitudes towards children will not be tolerated here in Berks County...I am a witness to evil towards children, in an evil world that hates children and keeps them down, and has from the very beginning. I bear witness for the good God up Above for the Divine Culmination of Investigation.

The worst punishment I have is saved for my family (as progress starts close to home) - refusing to eat with my enemy, meaning abruptly getting up and walking out of the room, refusing to engage in disrespectful and degrading talk about children. Even worse? Getting up and insisting on leaving (I don't drive) without an explanation, begging one. All logical consequences, but if you see it as a punishment enough to protest as such, you are entitled and the rest pans out.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the everlasting lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

"No matter what": What adult abstinence means

Many parents talk the talk about protecting their children from abusers, but do they walk the walk? Love is not just about protecting children from external threats. Every single adult in this country is an abuser to children, meaning YOU, the parent, have one attached to you.

It says in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 KJV:

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in inequity, but rejoiceth the truth; Beareth all things, believeith all things, hopeth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether they be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This refers to the Christian concept of pro-social psychopathy, meaning a form of love that stops at nothing. This pro-social psychopathy is self-applied, meaning no matter what, as a gentle parent to children, I am to protect a child from my evil traits, seeing the threat, in terms of view, as centering on me, not a remote corner of the world, as an example for others to emulate, being the salt and light of the world.

This means reverse plow, meaning whatever selfish wants you have besides your child or of your child, you must shed them, plowing ahead within one's own sin nature, purging oneself of want in relation to your child, dedicating yourself to your child, surrendering to God through your child, with their every need mattering, and your selfish needs being shoved aside, with parents sacrificing for children, taking up the cross just as Christ did for His children.

Love never fails in protecting children from its own nature, plowing through one's own muck and filth that is parental entitlement, purging oneself of it by choosing in the Lord not to want things from children, to the point where want only exists aside of care for the child, and the parent is completely devoted to care for their child. If love fails, and a parent punishes a child, there was never any love, but when the parent makes amends, there was never any hatred towards the child.

Adults abstain, and children self-protect. The latter acronym means that when your abstinence fails, your parental aggressive drives stop in front of the child, at her stophand. Love is bound to fail, but usually in small increments if you care about a child.

I myself have a "love" addiction, meaning I have misused the label in the past in relation to children. Love is something otherworldly, that carves our nature in a way that leads a selfish nature to serve others and protect it from its might and menace. I used it as a form of inordinate affections, meaning to unlawfully justify such.

Love never stops at its selflessness. Selfish, entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and will burn in the ever-burning lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices. Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! 

Can a child be blamed for being "disrespectful"? - Why the answer is "no"

Many parents shame children for being disrespectful. Among gentle parents, there is one side that would gently but firmly assert to children, without risk of punishment, to "speak nicely and use your manners, I never deserved this sort of treatment, did I?" in a soft voice. Others, like me, let them pile on the defiance, meaning pro-social rebellion. A child is incapable of being disrespectful to me without me being somehow to blame, or else another adult influencing them.

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to surrendering to parents not by fear of punishment, but by running to parents for shelter and comfort, with parents being safe people, with children feeling safe and secure in sharing with them everything and anything, owing nothing in return in relation to parents, yet nonetheless showing gratitude by heeding to the voice of parents, out of reassurance and not fear of punishment, in a familiar way. This stems from Christian love, meaning surrendering oneself to God through one's child, giving up every bit of adult power and control to your child's footstool, sacrificing for your children, taking up the cross for your own child, rendering oneself beneath your child, devaluing yourself as her servant and caregiver, leading to good works for the sake of doing good works for children, expecting absolutely nothing in return. 

The underlined text indicates that a child cannot objectively be called disrespectful by a parent or adult, because children are exempt from all Law, meaning objective moral culpability, and are under the grace of parents. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and indicates that a child can find YOU as an adult or a parent to be disrespectful whenever they perceive an offense, to the degree that they perceive it, meaning you don't police disrespect, THEY do, and when they defy and rebel against you, there is always good reason for that, either medically, but usually simply a disconnect between parent and child, meaning the parent must find out what the problem is, and how to reconnect with a child due to the disconnect, and thus lapse in attachment. This usually means an apology of some sort, meaning a genuine, heartfelt apology towards your child, perhaps in tears depending on the severity of the infraction in their eyes. Children are an authority to lean on, as children self-protect, and are the masters of their body and autonomy, and are the boss of everything regarding their needs, including benign wants as attachment needs - children see the goodies at the store as coming from you, even when you don't see such gratitude in them. Do they want things from you enough to ask impatiently? That's gratitude, otherwise they'd be afraid to even ask.'

Children never intend to disrespect adults except when they are disrespected. Defiance, in that regard, is an attempt, usually flawed, to "abuse parents back" by way of intentionally getting under the skin of parents to demonstrate that parents are getting under their skin in the same way. Many pedophilic children, usually with autism but while having a trajectory to become a pedophile, never internalize that they "deserved" spanking or punishment, and sought to retaliate against their parents and punish them back. I was one of those kids, and I never bought into that crap that I should just shut up and take it because I am a child. I fought tooth and nail, using passive resistance tactics mostly, to prove I had rights as a child, which the Bible allows for as natural rights. I was cooperative with adults that were cooperative with me...When a child is being disrespectful to you, do some soul searching to find out why your child might be reacting to you that way. It is most certainly a flaw of your parenting.

Children weren't called "disrespectful" in the Early Church, meaning children were seen as the highest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Parents were seen as disrespectful towards children automatically in ancient Hebrew culture, including in the Early Church, when their child showed open defiance and rebellion. Usually, children were energetic and rebellious in a pro-social manner towards parents at home, or elsewhere when close to parents, in a way that begs for needs, including attachment needs such as loving attention or time with a parent, as well as using parents as confidants for any emotion, feeling, or random thought, like a ragdoll or punching bag. That's how selfless parents were then.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them BURN! Let them ROT in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Vaccine rights for children: Understanding informed consent under biblical law

Many people today are getting vaccinated for COVID-19, but some aren't. Vaccine rights means the right to decide for yourself whether you want to get vaccinated, based on your personal beliefs as to whether it would be effective, or whether it would be against your religious beliefs.

It says in Exodus 20:17 KJV: 

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

The Greek root word translated "covet" is לחמוד (Latin: lachmod) and refers to wanting things from children, including any consent from them, to the point of seeking to impose said want onto children, leading to abuse stemming from offense taken. The Greek root word cross-referencing this commandment, and taking it further, is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to the entitled attitude of "I am the parent here, and I own my child's body" leading to wanting children to put something in their body without informed consent, leading to offense. It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to the offenses, namely any bodily contact that the child perceives as offensive, namely when such a situation is created by entitlement over the child's body, not allowing them to make choices on their own about what chemicals to put into their child's body.

Most children, when they know the risks of not being vaccinated, want vaccines, and this can go the opposite route in an anti-vaccine home. Some children might have developed a phobia of needles. Sure, they should want to confront that fear, but maybe they aren't ready to do that yet, in which case exposure therapy would simply revictimize the child. In narrow instances like this, a religious exemption would be warranted for regular vaccinations mandated for school attendance.

It is not an attitude I'd encourage in a child, but one that I would merely tolerate, meaning not punish, as punishing a child for any rebellion is against my religious beliefs myself. The First Amendment has no age requirements for it to be binding in its original text, meaning children can hold whatever view they wish, and should be able to do so without adult interference...This article is simply a testament as to how important bodily autonomy rights are.

The depraved and entitled parents who control their child's body in an entitled manner will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them BURN in everlasting Hell-fire! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!