Sexual relations between an adult and a minor

Child Molestation is a Sin forum about the webpage at <a href="http://www.freejesus.net/views/child.php">Child Molestation is a Sin</a> <i>Registered Users Only</i>
User avatar
webmaster
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5186
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Tobaccoville NC

Sexual relations between an adult and a minor

Postby webmaster » Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:17 pm

Image

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967699703/qid%3D1033855462/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-8779439-8747103

Book Description submitted by the publisher SafeHaven
Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural "wrongness" based on this "harm" is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.

Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough, Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as "Dares to Speak", edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are currently in print, and are available.

The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas. Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume, "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers", which essentially covers the same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is written in mostly non technical language, with the average citizen in mind. This book, while certainly bound to be controversial, and which espouses certain changes in various laws, is carefully maintained within the limits of current laws, there is nothing in it which could possibly concern any postal inspector, or which could create any legal liability. SafeHaven Foundation Press


About the Author
I have been principal moderator on an Internet site devoted to examining these issues for two years, and was active on another similar site for a year before that. It became obvious very early on that the men - and a few boys - who participate in these sites are not the stereotypical monsters that the media portrays. They are sincere, concerned, loving human beings who simply have - and were probably born with - a sexual orientation that is neither understood nor accepted by most others. The condemnation and reprehension these boys and men are dealt by society are primarily the result of misinformation that has become institutionalized over time by those who are in positions to deceive and mislead public thinking and policy. by David Riegel




Does not this review sound just like what the Homosexuals are saying!
Reviewer: Jariel from USA
As we reach the dawn of the twenty first century, boylove is seen in a similar way that homosexuality was seen at the dawn of the twentieth century. It was seen as evil, wrong, and labelled other such ludicrous things.

This book may be difficult for some to swallow, because it explores consentual man-boy relationships in detail. Most people will have trouble clearing the "child molester" mentality that has been drilled into their heads through the media all their lives.

But I urge you to buy this book and read it with an open mind, because you may just be pleasently surprised.

The fact of the matter is that relationships between men and boys, including sexual and non-sexual ones, can be extrememly beneficial, enjoyable, harmless, and beatiful.

There's such a fear in society of sexual relations between an adult and a minor, when, as this book proves, there is nothing at all wrong with them.

Enjoy this book, and try to think outside the square you live in.
Last edited by webmaster on Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:34 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Guest

Anyone who wants to sodomize young boys is a sicko

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 06, 2002 03:36 pm

I can't believe they allow this horsecocky to printed. There is no excuse or justification for sex with an underaged boy especially to sodomize him. You can right fifty books and it is still degernerative and sick. It's not even a homosexual issue. The last thing a child or young man needs is to get butt f*cked for his own good by some older man who "loves" him. It is incredibly ignorant to think that no damage is done and probably just a move to excuse and to elliviate the guilt you have yourself from lusting after or even abusing some young boy. You sick bastard. I don't hate, mind you. I just think that a couple of years in a federal prison getting your fudge packed by a guy named Mongo would be the best solution for you. Then you can tell us if a little love from a 300 pound murderer is "helpful" to you. Hey it's all "love" what could be better than that?

Spare us your propaganda, I don't need to hear another excuse why you want to take advantage of children.

Next you'll be promotting the new book,
"Buggering Sheep, The Unknown Wooly Pleasure"
and tell us that the sheep likes it and therefore it isn't bad to screw an animal...its helpful. You are the scum of the earth and I would tell you to your face if you were standing here.

User avatar
webmaster
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5186
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Tobaccoville NC

Postby webmaster » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:32 pm

Anybody who is attracted to the same sex is a homosexual regardless of age.


The word homosexuality in the dictionairy states nothing about the person's age, just same sex!
This is a sin!

Young kids is the 2nd part and it is also a sin.
Jesus said would be better for such to have a millstone tied around their neck and for them to be cast into the sea!

Rob a bank with a gun. You are guilty of how many crimes. Just 1? Nope several!

gabii

Postby gabii » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:39 pm

Shame on you, Mr. Lineberry. Have you even read the book? Did you spend the time to look at the photographs and get to know the sweet people who can't live in this world from hate that they have to face from people like you. They believe they will have to deal with this hatered for the rest of their lifes from people like you!

I find you evil, Webmaster. I believe that people like you who preach hate are very dangerous. Shame on you!

skelly

Postby skelly » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:40 pm

I do believe men & boys sexual activities acts are sinful because they involve sex outside of marriage. I do not believe a same sex attraction in and of itself is a sin! It is what someone does with that attraction! Many Christians do not separate between identity and practice when it comes to homosexuality. Yet, a straight virgin may still be considered heterosexual, even though he or she has not yet participated in sex. As I said, I do distinguish between identity and practice, which is why I say that homosexuality is not sinful. But I suppose we could consider any statement of sexuality (identity) sinful, since it could imply desire or lust, but I haven't found any evidence for doing so. The implications of going so far as to call a preference sinful are great, and would affect heterosexuals as much as homosexuals.

User avatar
webmaster
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5186
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Tobaccoville NC

Postby webmaster » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:41 pm

Jesus Christ doesn't distinguish between identity and practice???????
"That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

This man could have been & stayed a virgin his entire life yet he is guilty of Adultry!
Or this man could be called a Homo-Adultry-Sexuality , you could argue he was born that way, but the thoughts of his heart is the same as act of the sin and Jesus Christ says so!

Jesus Christ spends more time talking about the thoughts and intents of our hearts then he does deeds!

The thoughts and intents
of your heart is the same as the sin!

Matthew 5
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit homosexuality:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a man to lust after him
hath committed an abomination with him already in his heart.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit homosexuality:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed an abomination with her already in her heart.

eddy

Why is it so wrong to you

Postby eddy » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:49 pm

Why is it so wrong to you..YOU think God is against it..wow congradualations what about the people who just aren't attracted to the opposite sex..are they wrong for being born like that? you don't understand obviously cause you don't have those feelings. turn the tables and pertend that you were attrated to young boys..would you pretend..no. GROW UP. We are the ones who has to report to the police where we live at for the rest of lives because of small minded people like you!


I Loved the Book!

Sam

What kind of God would advocate violence against someone

Postby Sam » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:50 pm

What king of god, I wonder would advocate violence against someone merely because they were born as a boy lover, I myself am a man who loves a young boy and I know I did not choose to be as I am, as a black or Jewish person does not, and they are not viewed as "sick" or "perverted". I find your comments bigoted and offensive, and the only thing that should be burnt at a stake is sad, small minded people like you who have been corrupted by faith in a god that you dont know exists, and this "divine being" advocates violence and killing? very very hypocritical

Tom

I am clearly disgusted by this webpage

Postby Tom » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:51 pm

I am clearly disgusted by this webpage. I know this is a forum where we are allowed to discuss how we feel about things, so I can listen and accept what people have to say, but to turn around and call the hate the webmaster is dishing out as being Christian is horrid!
First, you attack men who love young boys and then homosexuals like they have anything in common; They are just people who you don't want to piss off, they just want to be treated like human beings. I can not fathom how you hate. Hate! HATE! and say that it is in the name of God. Beating people, throwing bombs at doctors, cold-hearted harassment. How is this what God wants? We are taught to teach the love Jesus came to show us, not hate. Jesus did not hate. He did not beat homosexuals or child molesters , No. Jesus loved people. He loved all people. It was his job to teach us to love, not hate, and I'm sure that he is crying to see people destroying lives and using his name as their excuse to do it. You are sick, people! It is your job to love one another, not to treat your fellow brothers and sisters like garbage.

This disgusting mentality sounds eerily like a group of people that reigned more than a half-century ago. I think you all know who I mean... The Nazi's had the same disgusting mentality you do, and they brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews because they weren't right. And I tell you, if what Hitler did was excusable in your eyes, than you'll all be burning in hell, right beside his evil eeyore. I'll pray for all of your forgiveness, because you know not what you do.

BTW Homosexuals has nothing to do with child molesters

tmmyonline

Postby tmmyonline » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:52 pm

yeah God says being a man who love young boys, etc. is wrong...but Jesus also said HE LOVES EVERYBODY...and you make it sound like..homosexuals or child molesters ...go to hell...and thats not your discision to say that. its Gods. you totally dicrminate against men who love young boys here. thats so wrong. God doesnt want us to look down on ppl...he wants us to pray for them...you went way to far here.....jeeze....and if sumone love young boys, it doesnt mean you will go to hell. noone knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. only God knows. i feel bad for any man who love young boys that goes on this site. you make christainity sound bad. sorry for saying this but this whole page really upsets me. im not men who love young boys or a women who love young boys. i am a strong catholic. and i know men who love young boys ppl. and they are soo nice. its wrong what you said....thats all....

RalphTorel

Postby RalphTorel » Sat Oct 26, 2002 06:53 pm

I am truly shocked that there is a website dedicated to something so obnoxious. Why are you all so upset over homosexuals or child molesters ? No one is asking you to partake in such acts they are just asking you to accept their lifestyles, it isn't your business to agree or disagree. You would think in this day and age people would be more openminded, and less ignorant. Do you really think that it is your place to lay judgement upon any other human being? Who do you think you are? How dare you! Doesn't Jesus preach to love your neighbor, and not to lay judgement upon each other? Personally i am not a man who love young boys, but i have close friends who are, they are good people, with good hearts and have no bad will against anyone. They just want to be respected for the ways in which they live their lives. IT IS THEIR LIVES NOT YOURS. You have no right, you are not above them, and you are completely out of line. Why do you really have a problem with it? Are you afraid your the same, are you that intimadated by things you don't understand? I'm ashamed to know that people like you exist. You think your preaching the word of God, your really preaching hate, and feuling fire that brings upon violence..i'd like to see you find God preaching your kind in the bible. Get a life, and let people live their own peacefully.

a17yroldboy
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 07:06 am

a LOVE

Postby a17yroldboy » Wed Mar 05, 2003 05:48 am

I personally have a condition that many would call sick, indecent, disgusting and horrible. It is more than a condition, it is a of part as are my arms and legs.

For years I couldn't figure myself out. I had established that I was gay. So already I was disgustingly different. The catch was that I had absolutely no feelings for older men, even just a few years older. On top of that I established a dilema inside my head. I decided I wanted a child but I knew that it would be impossible because I of my sexual orientation.

Today's cuture would see me as the abslolute upidomy of a person. They would call me a child molestor and a pedophile. To molest means "to make indecent sexual advances to." What defines idecent? Culture defines if a the love for a boy is right or wrong. Culture changes as time changes but my feeling do not. Did you know that dancing, rock music, and wearing skirts was morally wrong just because of a primitive American culture? They were, but as time went by they became aceppted.

In this writing I hope to speed along the world's cultural development. Some arguments against child lovers is that they are taking advantage of kids who are imcompatent to make their own decisions. In some cases that could be true. For instance, this occurs when a person rapes a child because the child is literally not strong enought to stop it. If the child does not give consent for things to happen then that is horrible to take adavantage. Though their parent's influence may not be fully in mind at that age, they still know what they want and what they don't want.

Being a good friend to a child is wonderful. Personally I feel like a father willing to teach and raise children. My sole purpose isn't to have sex with them for in that lies no love, but lust. I simply desire to have a loving relationship with young boys... and I know that sounds sick, as it should, because it is also culturally sick.

I can't explain it, I cannot make you realize who I am. People have to realize that on this earth the majority's opinion sets rules, laws and morals but they are still simply a majority's opinion. The laws of this world are not devinely correct, they are tangable opinions. One day the opinion may change and one thing that was once wrong will in a while become acceptable, like good ol' rock and roll.

I am at the mercy of culture and your opinion.
I am a 17 year-old boy in pursuit of the truth!

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Thu Mar 06, 2003 06:12 pm

Being a good friend to a child is wonderful. Personally I feel like a father willing to teach and raise children. My sole purpose isn't to have sex with them for in that lies no love, but lust. I simply desire to have a loving relationship with young boys... and I know that sounds sick, as it should, because it is also culturally sick.
The concept of being a good friend (and a good influence) on children is the foundation of Big Brothers. Our society frowns on gay men or men with a gay orientation having any influence over a child since they believe that all gay men are basically pedophiles. This is a misconception based on ignorance and prejudice not facts. National statistics demonstrate the incidence of heterosexual pedophiles far outnumbers the incidence of homosexual pedophiles however it is the homosexual pedophile that gets media attention unless the heterosexual pedophile kills his victim. This is a hypocritical double standard demonstrated in all societies throughout human history. I have seen adult ever-straight men influence children into early sexual activity which is just as traumatic for the immature heterosexual child as being abused by a homosexual pedophile since it gives the child the wrong idea of what sex is all about.

If sex is not your sole purpose, that is fine with this proviso - sex with an emotionally immature person can be extremely traumatic to their emotional, sexual, and spiritual maturity. When a person feels acceptance and love for the first time in a sexual situation they can sexualize all future emotional needs and take a path that will affect their entire lives. Mentoring children requires emotional security in the mentor as well as the desire for friendship. Children need to be taught self-respect and self-restraint. There is no question that sex is pleasurable and the endorphins released in the brain are a powerful influence for future decisions.

A close intimate relationship can be (and is, in my experience) more satisfying than a sexually intimate relationship based on satisfying your libido.
Image

a17yroldboy
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 07:06 am

Postby a17yroldboy » Fri Mar 07, 2003 06:11 am

I agree and now understand...

I believe that my greatest dilemma is that I long to have a child of my own very deeply, but I am gay. I long so deeply for the ultimate friendship parents share with their children.

I have never had sexual feelings for a young child. Before hand I was afriad that they might develope that way, but I forgot that I have control. It is sad that by cultures defenition friends cannot be close and still just be friends. The world is a political battle stage where everyone's actions are closely scrutinized and always worth a rumor.

I want to be a great friend.
I am a 17 year-old boy in pursuit of the truth!

a17yroldboy
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 07:06 am

pedophilia

Postby a17yroldboy » Tue Apr 01, 2003 06:14 am

Everyone must understand at least one thing about pedophilia.

Having the need or desire, for the love of and from a child is a ligitamate feeling. Those people who are not pedophiles see them as monsters when really these feelings are a desireable reality to those who posses them. It is NOT because they are sick and demented. They are simpley feelings every human being has. Somehow, along the way, before pedophiles knew there sexual prefrence, by accident and coincidence, they learned to desire love for a child. This same concept can be applied to homosexuality. Somehow by earlier experiance these people accidently ended up trying to love the wrong people. Again, the same can be applied to heterosexuality, but it is much more likely to occur and is also acceptable.

I think the first step to addressing a problem such as pedophilia or homosexuality is to identify the early parts of your life that lead you to your disfunction.

I recomend everyone to read this wonderful research paper on pedophilia: It should open your eyes to the straight forward reality of a sad disorder. http://members.tripod.com/Tynkrrbell29/pedophilia.htm
I am a 17 year-old boy in pursuit of the truth!

john14_20
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:44 pm
Location: Australia

Postby john14_20 » Sat Apr 19, 2003 05:19 am

Let me get this straight, some people are born with a desire to have sex with little boys, and because they are born with it, it is both natural and OK. It is only the narrow mindendness of this world that frowns upon such normal behaviour. It is quite normal and is not damaging to the child.

If you believe that sodomizing a young boy does not harm him you are an ignorant, grossly uneducated fool!

I was born with a desire to lie, cheat and steal. To think of no-one but myself. To be my own god and lord of my own life and ignore the true God. I was born with it, everybody else seems to be born with it too - it must be OK then.

God is awfully confused coz I am sure he calls this behaviour of mine SIN and tells me to stop doing these things. Someone should tell Him it's really OK after all.

Don't get me wrong - God loves me despite my sin and He loves the child molester despite his/her sin as well. But to suggest that the behaviour is not sinful in the first place is so mind-bogglingly ridiculous that it defies words to express! It is merely an attempt to justify something that you want to do and don't want to stop. If you don't want to stop then don't stop. But don't be so foolish as to try and convince yourself and the rest of the world that what you are doing is good and doesn't hurt anyone.

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Sat Apr 19, 2003 02:51 pm

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ho·mo·sex·u·al (ho´m?-sek?sh?-?l, -mo-) adjective
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

noun
A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (ho´m?-sek´sh?-al?i-te, -mo-) noun

1.Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2.Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
In the 1860's, Karl Maria Kertbeny coined "homosexual" in preference to "pederast," the derogatory term for men who had sex with each other that was in common use in the Germany of his time. According to Kertbeny, many homosexuals are more masculine than ordinary men and are often superior to run of the mill heterosexuals who tend, in his opinion, toward rape and mayhem because they are oversexed. Kertbeny hoped that his new word and his definition of it would help to eliminate Paragraph 175, Germany's oppressive anti-pederasty law, but the strategy didn't work. Instead, Richard von Krafft-Ebing and other doctors adopted it as a diagnosis for mental pathology.
All mankind is born with an orientation to sin. A man or women with same-sex attractions is labeled "homosexual" in our society, however having a gay orientation is not in and of itself sinful. The Bible does not call people with such an orientation "abominations"; the Bible calls same-gender sexual activity an abomination.
Leviticus 18:22
22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. NAS
Any sin has consequences for the person who engages in unrepentant activity.
Leviticus 20:13
13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. NAS
There are boys who gravitate toward pedophiles in order to fulfill their God-given emotional needs biological fathers do not fulfill. However, this is not a justification for adult men to use boys to fulfill their sexual desires since the boys are seeking love, affirmation, acceptance, etc. not sexual experiences.

The Christian’s who condemn all homosexuals out of hand by using Leviticus 18:22 are being a bit hypocritical since Leviticus 18:20 (with 18:26) and Leviticus 20:10 call adultery an abomination, which carries the death penalty.
Lev.18:20 'And you shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.

Lev.18:26 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you.

Lev. 20:10
10 'If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. NAS

Romans 1:24-32 is wrongly applied to the gay community since verses 24 & 25 applies to all mankind and verses 28 through 32 also applies to those who deny the sovereignty and authority of God not just active homosexuals.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. NAS
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 list all sexual immorality, however, our society puts a greater onus on the gay community than is applied to ever straights. It seems to me that the 90% should be cleaning up their own community before they attack the 10% (if you accept gay activisms numbers, the actual percentage is between 3% and 5%).

There is a double standard in our society that stigmatizes man/boy abuse, which accounts for 1/3 of reported child sexual abuse cases yet you do not hear as much condemnation of the 2/3 male/girl sexual abuse cases, this constitutes more hypocrisy in our society and the church. Are boys of greater value or importance than girls?

I have not read this book, however, I have seen speculation from “authorities” who are suggesting the whole man/boy sexual scene be reevaluated. The “authorities” are not gay or even gay supporters; they are men and women with Ph.D.’s in psychology the great god of the present age.

To stigmatize all gay men as pedophiles is ludicrous unless you label all straight men as pedophiles since child sexual abuse happens in both sexual orientations.
Image

TruthaboutCHILDMOLEST

Distract yourselves with inflamatory books

Postby TruthaboutCHILDMOLEST » Thu May 29, 2003 06:45 am

Then try some facts about how to SAVE YOUR CHILDREN

http://www.stopchildmolestation.org/index.html

:cry:

Colleen Morse

Totally Against Pedophiles/Child Molesters

Postby Colleen Morse » Tue Jun 03, 2003 02:55 am

You sure don't see many boys running amuck saying they want to be sexual with middle aged men. The whole idea is totally disgusting. Pedophiles groom kids for seduction, and sometimes go about this process for months to years before finally building up the trust of the boy enough to be sure he won't tell. NAMBLA's motto is "get them before 8 or it's too late." Well, if one comes near my son again he won't have to wrry about it anymore because I will blow the guy's balls off. Why do you think it is that the whole world hates the activities and behavior of pedophiles? It is because they are destroying the innocence of children. Sure, kids have a certain degree of sexualality, it's biological, but they are not mature enough to make sexual decisions. Pedophiles are taking advantage of them to fulfill their own sexual desires for children. It's the same as if murderers or bank robbers or whatever start saying they were born that way, and their victims actually like it.
See my website to educate yourselves on this issue, and also visit the links.
http://www.tigerhawktalk.com/howpedophilesoperate.html
I will fight against pedophiles until the day I die.
STAMP OUT PEDOPHILES NOW!!!

Bystander

Postby Bystander » Tue Jun 03, 2003 07:25 pm

I would just like to thank everyone who spends their whole life worrying about what Jesus thinks and what is right, you create very entertaining web forums. Live your life how you want and worry about what God thinks later. Christianity is only a belief and we may find out later that there is no God, or that Jesus was just a normal person, or even maybe that the Buddhists are correct in their beliefs. Don't get so caught up in religion. Anyways, even if someone is gay, or does lust for young boys, how is that a concern of yours?

User avatar
Alpha
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:15 am

Postby Alpha » Wed Jun 04, 2003 01:19 pm

Bystander wrote:I would just like to thank everyone who spends their whole life worrying about what Jesus thinks and what is right, you create very entertaining web forums. Live your life how you want and worry about what God thinks later. Christianity is only a belief and we may find out later that there is no God, or that Jesus was just a normal person, or even maybe that the Buddhists are correct in their beliefs. Don't get so caught up in religion. Anyways, even if someone is gay, or does lust for young boys, how is that a concern of yours?


Your a bystander right? So do yourself a favor and bystand.

Bystander

Postby Bystander » Wed Jun 04, 2003 07:08 pm

Whats this? No snappy religous mumbo-jumbo come back? No response at all? You can voice your opinion but I can't? Either post a response to the content of my post or ignore it. Oh, maybe you just don't agree with my point of view. You Christians are so caught up in the state of mind that you are right and there is no other way to think.

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Thu Jun 05, 2003 04:51 am

Bystander wrote:I would just like to thank everyone who spends their whole life worrying about what Jesus thinks and what is right, you create very entertaining web forums. Live your life how you want and worry about what God thinks later. Christianity is only a belief and we may find out later that there is no God, or that Jesus was just a normal person, or even maybe that the Buddhists are correct in their beliefs. Don't get so caught up in religion. Anyways, even if someone is gay, or does lust for young boys, how is that a concern of yours?
If someone is gay that is their and prefer to remain so that is their business and under our form of government it is their right. However, gays do not have the right to force their lifestyle on anyone else. How are they forcing their lifestyle on everyone else? By redefining family and marriage, trying through political means to force me, an American, to accept what I consider unacceptable. Therefore how gay activists portray me and my beliefs has forced me to take a stand against the "gay agenda". In other words the gay community has made their lifestyle my business.

As to men who lust after children it becomes my business when our society is diminshed by child sexual abuse. The child will deal with the consequences of one man's selfish, and abusive actions taken against an individual who cannot defend himself.

As to snappy answers, some posts are below contempt and are not worthy of a response.
Image

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 05, 2003 04:26 pm

But marriage is not only a service provided by religious organizations but by the government as well. If a priest doesn't wish to marry a gay couple then that's fine, but then the government should have to. Saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because it imposes on your lifestyle could go for any group of people. What if someone said blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry because the presence of black families in their neighborhood is imposing on their white suburban lifestyle? Or that they don't want synagogues built because the Jewish children are intermingling with their Christian children?

As human bengs, homosexuals have the rights that every other American has, and marriage is one of them. If the government forced churches to recognize gay marriages, that is imposing on your religious lifestyle. But homosexuals attempting to change the views of American culture in general, is not imposing because America was founded on the ideas of secular tolerance, not Chrisianity.

Bystander

Postby Bystander » Thu Jun 05, 2003 07:11 pm

Thank you for replying to my post. I do not agree with everything that you said, but I understand your point, once again, thank you for responding to my comment.

User avatar
Alpha
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:15 am

Postby Alpha » Fri Jun 06, 2003 03:31 pm

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just simply pointing out the fact that your sn says "bystander" but you still decide to post. That's all I was doing. I was not saying that you were wrong.

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Fri Jun 06, 2003 11:45 pm

Anonymous wrote:If the government forced churches to recognize gay marriages, that is imposing on your religious lifestyle. But homosexuals attempting to change the views of American culture in general, is not imposing because America was founded on the ideas of secular tolerance, not Chrisianity.
Where do you see secular tolerance in the Constitution? I see a government of the people for the people and by the people, or the majority rules, not special interest groups who appeal to esoteric philosophy in an attempt to redefine what it means to be male and female.
Image

Boiler Bro Joe
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 09:22 pm

Postby Boiler Bro Joe » Sat Jun 07, 2003 08:06 pm

Homosexuals are attempting to lobby their cause through the system of government that was set up "for the people and by the people". But I suppose a question is, if the entire American public were to vote on the issue of homosexual marriage, what would the decision be?

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:43 pm

Boiler Bro Joe wrote:Homosexuals are attempting to lobby their cause through the system of government that was set up "for the people and by the people". But I suppose a question is, if the entire American public were to vote on the issue of homosexual marriage, what would the decision be?
If the majority of Americans voted to allow same-sex marriages then the majority will have spoken. And then if the religious right gets upset they can look in the mirror and ask themselves why they did not take the time to exercise their right to determine the course of our society by voting. (I heard a report on a Christian TV show that only 25% of the religious right bothered to vote in the last Presidential election.)

I hear many in the religious right complain about our government who then state they will not vote because none of the candidates are worthy of office. Well, then get involved in politics and get the right people in office or don’t bitch.
Image

Amator Puellularum

Pedophiles, Child Molesters, and Sex with Children

Postby Amator Puellularum » Sun Jun 08, 2003 05:26 pm

I stumbled across your forum here, and I could not leave it without expressing myself. I have no illusions that what I write here will convince many of you that you are misguided in your opinions; nevertheless, I believe it is important that you are exposed, one way or another, to the truth of the matter. That way, your ignorance is no longer the result of not knowing the facts, but from a willful refusal to accept the facts.

Unfortunately, it appears that many of you have pre-judged pedophiles based upon an incomplete understanding of what pedophiles actually are. Many people equate 'pedophile' with 'child molester'. This is simply not true. A pedophile, as its root suggests, is somebody who loves children, specifically, somebody who is romantically attracted to children. By this definition, a pedophile is somebody who advocates consensual and edifying relations between any two consenting persons regardless of differences in their age. A child molester, on the other hand, is a person who engages in sexual relations with minors through the use of force, coercion or manipulation, with little or no regard for the well-being of the younger person.

A second popular misconception is that pedophiles primary aim is to have sexual intercourse with children. This is simply not the case. Whilst pedophiles certainly advocate the fulfilment of their love with their chosen partners by means of physical affection, this does not mean that they desire, at all costs, to have sexual intercourse with them. Indeed, most pedophiles are opposed to penetrative sex, whether it be vaginal or anal, with very young children, as they understand that this can severely damage the body of the younger partner. Instead, pedophiles advocate age-appropriate displays of physical affection. With younger children, you will find very few true pedophiles who desire more than hugging, kissing and cuddling.

There is overwhelming evidence that children are sexual beings and can consent to and enjoy physical relations with those whom they love. Attraction to young people is not a new phenomenon; it has been present in human society since time immemorial. Indeed, if we are to believe historians, the Virgin Mary was around 12 years old when she became pregnant with Jesus, whilst her husband, Joseph, was much older, probably in his 30s. If God decided ot use a very young girl to bring his Son into the world, certainly it is not a bad thing? Or do you wish to condemn God as a pedophile???

I find it patently disingenuous for people to condemn so-called 'grooming'. Pedophiles do not 'groom' children for sex. They court people whom they love and want to get to know better. The only difference is that there is often a significant age difference between the two partners. If both the partners were adults, 'grooming' would be called 'courting' or 'romancing'. There is nothing strange for people who love each other to buy each other presents or go out together. The desire to please and spend time with your paramour is totally natural. Children are much more intelligent than most of you are willing to give them credit for. Most children can tell the difference between a phoney who only wants to molest them from somebody who is genuinely interested in them and loves them. Why is it therefore wrong for somebody who has love a child, given him a higher sense of self-esteem and earned his love and respect, from expressing that love in a consensual and edifying fashion?

So that you understand who I am, I am a pedophile who is attracted to young girls, usually between the ages of 9 and 13. I have never had sexual relations with any girl under the age of consent in the country I live in, although I have been friends with many.

You can find out more about what I believe at my website: (URL removed by Aineo. Take your propaganda somewhere else, it will not be tolerated in this forum.)

Amator Puellularum

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Mon Jun 09, 2003 02:36 pm

Any adult who is sexually attracted to a child has severe emotional problems and to justify such desires using history and Mary, the mother of Jesus is ludicrous. Let me ask you this question, have you studied the long-term adverse consequences of using children as sexual objects? Is your love for children so selfish that you can ignore the life-long trauma that many children carry into their adult lives after sexual encounters with adults as children?

If you love is “pure” and “unselfish” you will put the welfare of the child ahead of your baser animalistic sexual drives. Jesus told His disciples:
Mark 10:14-16
14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all." 16 And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands upon them. NAS

Matthew 18:5-6
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. NAS
Your example of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is as ludicrous and heretical as those who teach Christ was gay.
Galatians 6:7-8
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. NAS
If you continue to sow to the baser aspects of the flesh you will reap the consequences.
Image

Amator Puellularum

Thank you for your response. Allow me to rebut...

Postby Amator Puellularum » Mon Jun 09, 2003 08:12 pm

Dear Aineo,

Thank you for your response. I am always willing to discuss my orientation with other people and to help them understand it more fully and recognize that there is a vast difference between pedophiles and child molesters. I must admit, however, that I am disappointed by the fact that you have apparently allowed your religious convictions to cloud your perception of the truth, and that your arguments against my orientation are based neither in fact nor in scripture. Allow me to rebut your arguments.

Firstly you wrote:

Any adult who is sexually attracted to a child has severe emotional problems...


What is your factual basis for making such a bold statement? Could you direct me to some research which validates your claims, or are you simply repeating what you have heard or been led to believe? If you are unable to do so, could you at the very least point me to scripture that condemns pedophilia?

Unfortunately, many of you adopt an ideology based upon your own prejudices but which has no actual factual basis. The danger and foolhardiness of doing so has been demonstrated many times throughout history. One memorable example is the reaction of the Catholic Church to Galileo's insistence that we live in a heliocentric solar system.

Blind ideology and prejudice of the type you are espousing is just the same as the blind ideology and prejudice preached by Osama bin Laden. Rather than actually seeking truth, you are trying to impose your warped understanding of the truth on others. Please try to back up your future statements with facts and evidence. Petitio Principii arguments are not an effective means of debate, and will not be taken seriously by me (or any other intelligent person).

You continued by saying:

...and to justify such desires using history and Mary, the mother of Jesus is ludicrous.


I am not trying to justify anything with my statements about the Virgin Mary. I am simply pointing out a historical fact that throughout much of history, puberty was when children were considered adults and were able to become sexually active. Ages of consent are a relatively new convention, and the original reasons for their adoption were to stem child prostitution (Great Britain) and to pander to the desires of religious extremists (United States).

Please refer to the following link for an excellent academic discussion of child sexuality from the time of the ancients to the present day:

http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.dae/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/HISTORYCHHSWEB.HTM

Much of the problems modern anglo-saxon society is experiencing with teenage pregnancy, date rape and other forms of sexual violence stems from the fact that society floods the airwaves with a message of provocative sexuality whilst forbidding curious young people from coming to terms with and realizing their own sexuality. Puberty undeniably is a very strong signal from nature that the body has become sexually mature. Indeed, the body is flooded with hormones which create heightened sexual desire. To force or manipulate young people into suppressing these desires is foolhardy. For some more factual information about this, please have a look at the following link:

http://www.personal.pse.edu/faculty/n/x/nxd10/adbio3.htm

Among other things, the study states:

Direct vs. Indirect Effects of Sexuality Due to Biological Changes:

Direct effects include:

* Puberty is attributed to the effects of an increased amount of hormones on the nervous system.
* In boys, levels of increased testosterone are related to sexual intercourse.
* Increases in hormones and increases in sexual behavior occur at the same time (Bancroft and Reinisch, 1990).

Indirect effects include:

* Physical maturity makes adolescents more sexually attractive to the opposite sex. This preceding indirect effects contribute to the likelihood of sexual intercourse (Katchadourian, 1990).

For additional information on adolescent development and sexuality refer to the Siecus Web Site at: http://www.siecus.org/


A 1999 government by the British Government poignantly shows the results of adopting a restrictive policy towards teenage sexuality. In the United States and Great Britain, where policies are restrictive, rates are several times higher than in societies (primarily in Western Europe) where policies are less restrictive. Educational systems designed to ignore the real possibility of sexual experimentation and provide teens with information and contraceptives have failed miserably. Abstinence education simply does not work. Please have a look at the following BBC special report for further information about the study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/04/99/teen_pregnancy/319869.stm

Then you asked:

Let me ask you this question, have you studied the long-term adverse consequences of using children as sexual objects? Is your love for children so selfish that you can ignore the life-long trauma that many children carry into their adult lives after sexual encounters with adults as children?


Firstly, I have stated quite clearly in my previous post and on my 'propaganda' website that I am not in favor of using children as sexual objects. I wrote that I am interested in forming romantic attachments with young people and that I believe that physical expression of a mutually experienced love is both edifying and beautiful. Making hasty generalizations of my motives and beliefs will not effectively further the course of this debate. Please try to read what I write not what you expect to see.

Secondly, please provide me with evidence supporting your claim that adult-child sexual relationships have "long-term adverse consequences". I fully agree that non-consensual sexual content between adults and children can indeed be traumatic. The 1998 Rind report, however, calls into question the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. I am providing the following link to the report in case you are not familiar with Dr. Rind's meta-analysis:

http://www.ipca.info/library_8/rbt/metaana.htm

Another report, which appeared in the JournaI of Sex Education & Therapy in 1989, indicates quite clearly that relationships between adults and young people are often not harmful at all and that children indeed do have sexual desires and urges. Allow me to quote:

So far in the professional literature only two types of chfldren participating in intergenerational sex have been identified: powerless and precocious. Very little attention has been paid to the definition of precocious except as a negative outcome of exploitative early eroticization. The continuum model of intergenerational sexual contact, to be empirically correct, must allow for all kinds of children, including informed, consenting, and initiating participants. Such a balanced typology supersedes the unscientific belief that all children who consent and initiate do so because they are powerless. For children who do indeed consent because they are powerless, the continuum model suggests empowering them not by arbitrarily teaching them to say no to sex, but by teaching sex education in such a way that they know what sex is. Thus they will learn the difference between sex and exploitation so they will know which one it is they are refusing.

Until now it has not seemed necessary to classify the children other than as victims since children's sexual feelings have been denied or relegated to the categories of sex play and curiosity. As Okami (1987) points out, however, "these are the same impulses and behaviors that in adolescents or adults are characterized as sexual desire and sexual activity!'


Later in the paper, it says:

Clinical populations reveal nondamaging intergenerational sex. De Young (1982) reports that 20% of her "victims" appeared to be "virtually indifferent to their molestation!" Instead, they tended to be traumatized by the reaction of adults to its discovery (emphasis mine). Constantine (1981), after reviewing 30 studies of intergenerational sexual contact, said "only a very small percentage of cases appear to result in seriously harmful or long-term consequences as judged by standard measures of psychological health and social adjustment!" Sloane and Karpinski (1942), using interviews from five clinical cases, stated that "if nonparticipating adults are comfortable with the known relationship, harm to the child is decreased!"

Henderson (1973) said that intergenerational sexual relations do not always seem to have a traumatic effect and that for some individuals it even "allows a better adjustment to the external world!" Yorukoglu and Kemph (1966) reported minimal, if any, short-term effects for one son in son-mother sex. Herman and Hirschman (1977) could find no distinction between women incest victims and the general population of women entering psychotherapy. Bender and Blau (1937) concluded that incest within an endorsing family can be nontraumatic. Fritz, Stoll, and Wagner (1981) found that 77% of adult women who had been victims of childhood incest had no difficulties with current sexual adjustment, had overcome negative consequences, or did not develop problems in the first place.


For the full text of this paper, please consult the following link:

http://www.ipca.info/ipceweb/Library/nelson.htm

To make myself absolutely clear so that there is no room for misunderstanding, I am absolutely opposed to any sexual activity that is non-consensual. I only advocate romantic relations which occur on the basis of informed consent of both parties.

Next you made the statement:

If you love is “pure” and “unselfish” you will put the welfare of the child ahead of your baser animalistic sexual drives.


Once again, you have obviously fallen into the trap of attributing the attributes of high-profile child molesters to me and to other pedophiles. This is common known as the 'spotlight' fallacy and is yet another ineffective method of argumentation. If you read my site and what I am writing here, you would see that I put the welfare of children very highly and value other facets of a relationship more highly than the sexual aspect. If I were ruled by "baser animalistic sexual drives" (incidentally, this is an excellent example of misleading vividness) I would have to be locked up as I would instinctively try and mount any female whom I encountered. As it is, I have little trouble exercising self-control, and abide by the laws of the country where I reside regarding with whom and under what circumstances I can engage in sexual activity.

You backed up your statement with the following scriptures:

Mark 10:14-16
14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all." 16 And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands upon them. NAS

Matthew 18:5-6
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. NAS


I do not see how these scriptures form a justification for the condemnation of pedophilia. Actually, I agree with both scriptures. I certainly believe that one must approach God as a child. Indeed, one of the reasons I enjoy the company of children so much is that they help me once again to see the world as it is, not as we have been conditioned to see it.

Furthermore, on further examination, these scripture passages say much more in favor of adult-child relations than they do against. If you will recall the context, Jesus told the disciples to allow the children to come unto him when the disciples tried to turn away people who had brought their children to be blessed. The disciples' reaction is quite similar to the way children are often treated today. They are often required to be 'seen and not heard' and are often treated in a condescending fashion by adults who think they are full of 'silly notions' and 'childish thoughts'.

Concerning children and stumbling blocks, I believe that those who insist on not equipping children with factual information about their bodies and their sexuality are the ones who are causing children to stumble. If you recall the report on teenage pregnancy I cited earlier, you will see that in societies where information about sexuality and birth control are widely available, teenage pregnancy levels are lower. The witholding of information is one of the greatest causes of stumbling. Empowerment and enlightenment allow young people to move forward with confidence that they will not stumble.

Incidentally, I agree that very strict measures ought to be taken against those that cause children to stumble or bring harm to them.

Unfortunately, your premise appears to be that romantic relationships with adults cause children to 'stumble'. Unless you can provide proof that consensual relations between adults and children indeed have this effect, I will have to treat this as a case of confusing cause and effect.

Last week, I read quite an interesting article by San Francisco based psychologist Michael Bader about pedophilia and child abuse. In the article, Mr. Bader argues that the hysteria surrounding pedophilia is totally overblown and is actually a disservice to children, since many more pervasive forms of child abuse cause significantly more damage than actual or perceived sexual abuse. You might take a moment to have a look at it.

http://www.tikun.org/magezine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0305/article/030524.html

To close, I will provide you with one of my favorite verses from the scriptures:

Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

—Philippians 4:8


I have no doubts that my attraction to young girls is honorable, just and pure, and anybody can see that young girls are lovely, gracious and worthy of praise. With great joy I think on my love and on the beautiful angels whom are the objects of that love.

With kind regards,

Amator Puellularum

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Tue Jun 10, 2003 02:55 pm

Amator Puellularum wrote:Dear Aineo,

Thank you for your response. I am always willing to discuss my orientation with other people and to help them understand it more fully and recognize that there is a vast difference between pedophiles and child molesters. I must admit, however, that I am disappointed by the fact that you have apparently allowed your religious convictions to cloud your perception of the truth, and that your arguments against my orientation are based neither in fact nor in scripture. Amator Puellularum
My religious convictions are not the main reason I oppose your position. I have not idea how old you are, however, in my almost 60 years I have seen what happens to children who were “loved” by pedophiles as well as the tragic results of child sexual abuse and they are the same!

Modern sexologists are ignoring a few simple facts; societies change, life expectancy has increased over millennia, and social mores determine appropriate behavior not history. Psychology has become a god for our age, a god that changes positions like the wind.

As to the links you shared, I have read a lot of Money’s writings and find him a bit esoteric and a man who promotes immorality in the name of academia. Studies can be used to help or hurt our society and in recent years studies have been used to promote behavior that is socially destructive.

When the ethical treatment of animals supercedes the ethical treatment of men and the promotion of immoral behavior is approved for any reason a culture/society soon falls. AIDS is rampant in Africa because sexual immorality is part and parcel of African cultural mores that only be slowed by education and modification of behavior. Sex can be just as destructive as a gun or weapons of mass destruction when it becomes so important that the welfare of others is ignored.

Love is not love when pleasure takes precedence over the welfare of the object of our “love”.
Image

Amator Puellularum
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 09:18 pm
Location: Europe

How can you expect to convince me of anything without proof?

Postby Amator Puellularum » Tue Jun 10, 2003 07:38 pm

Hi Aineo,

To be perfectly honest, I had expected something a bit more substantive from you. For somebody who has such strong convictions, you appear perplexingly unable to substantiate them with facts.

But allow me to comment on what you did say...

You started out by saying:

My religious convictions are not the main reason I oppose your position. I have not idea how old you are, however, in my almost 60 years I have seen what happens to children who were “loved” by pedophiles as well as the tragic results of child sexual abuse and they are the same!


This is a classic case of a converse accident. You have made an assumption based upon observations you have made within your environment. You have then attempted to make yourself an 'authority' on the question by stating your age.

Unfortunately, such arguments are often believed by people who wish to believe them or who have never been presented with any other argument. Whether or not people believe them, however, they are still often fallacious.

In your case, you are arguing that since the children you have observed who were loved by pedophiles suffered, all children who are loved by pedohiles must suffer. This is a very similar type of argument to that used by racists, bigots and other intolerant people (a black man stole something from my neighbours garage, ergo all black people are thieves).

I am guessing by your rhetoric that you are not a social scientist of any sort. Furthermore, I do not know the details of your circumstances and your environment when you made the observations you are pointing out. Therefore, how am I to trust your conclusions when it seems quite evident that you have used an unrepresentative sample as the basis of your arguement?

Your argument contains yet another fallacy which is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, you have 'seen what has happened' to children who were loved by pedophiles, implying that the 'result' has been negative. Since the negative results coincided with the relationships, you have assumed that the relationship is the cause of the negative results. This is like me saying that I got a headache last night while I was watching television, ergo television watching must cause headaches. Not very smart.

I am not aware of the circumstances of the children about which you talk, but you have not provided any compelling arguments that the negative factors you witnessed were caused by the relationships the children had with adults.

Now to your next paragraph:

Modern sexologists are ignoring a few simple facts; societies change, life expectancy has increased over millennia, and social mores determine appropriate behavior not history. Psychology has become a god for our age, a god that changes positions like the wind.


Could you please explain what the significance of an increase in life expectancy is supposed to prove? Are you trying to imply that people do not need to begin sexual as early because they can expect to live longer and therefore do not need to rush to propagate the human race? If so, that would be yet another dangerous fallacy, that of ignoratio elenchi. Stated another way, such an argument draws a conclusion from a premise which has no logical relation to it.

Incidentally, I might point out that as life expectancy has increased, the average age of puberty has diminished significantly. Furthermore, advances in knowledge and the imposition of mandatory education throughout the Western world have made a much greater amount of knowledge available to a much wider portion of the population at a much earlier age. Therefore, it is conceivable if curricula are formulated correctly, that children can be educated sufficiently to make decisions for themselves and are more likely to become interested in sexual fulfilment at an earlier, rather than a later, age.

As to your statement that social mores determine appropriate behavior, I would point out that such a statement is yet another logical fallacy, that of argumentum ad numerum. This is a very common mistake which assumes that since most people accept a way of behavior or a social more, then it must be right. I find it almost humorous that fundamentalists use this type of argument to try and convince people that progressive behavior is wrong since it is not accepted by the mainstream, while rejecting the exact same type of argument from their children (But everyone's doing it!).

As to your final sentence, 'Psychology has become a god for our age, a god that changes positions like the wind' I must laugh once again. You complain that psychology changes positions like the wind? What about the social mores you have used as a basis for your rejection of my sexual orientation? Was not slavery acceptable 150 years ago? Were not women denied the vote 100 years ago? Was homosexuality not acceptable 50 years ago? Science, even soft sciences change positions based upon the discovery of new facts about a subject. This is why in science you have theories rather than undeniable fact. Of course, as we learn more about the world around us, some theories are disproved and others are affirmed and mistakes have been made. On what basis are society's mores formed, and what makes them such a good determiner of what should be acceptable and what should not?

Let us continue to your next paragraph:

As to the links you shared, I have read a lot of Money’s writings and find him a bit esoteric and a man who promotes immorality in the name of academia. Studies can be used to help or hurt our society and in recent years studies have been used to promote behavior that is socially destructive.


You find him a bit esoteric? What is this supposed to mean? You want to invalidate his work because you do not understand it?

Can you provide proof that studies in recent years have been used to promote behavior that is socially destructive? Would you please provide me with some examples of this taking place?

I do not understand how you can make such baseless arguments and expect for your arguments to be accepted without providing a single shred of proof that your opinions are correct. The fact that you are a gay man who has decided to suppress his sexuality gives you absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

And now for your last paragraph:

When the ethical treatment of animals supercedes the ethical treatment of men and the promotion of immoral behavior is approved for any reason a culture/society soon falls. AIDS is rampant in Africa because sexual immorality is part and parcel of African cultural mores that only be slowed by education and modification of behavior. Sex can be just as destructive as a gun or weapons of mass destruction when it becomes so important that the welfare of others is ignored.


I agree that the ethical treatment of men ought to take precedence over the ethical treatment of animals. Indeed, I believe that we have an ethical responsibility to provide our young people with an extensive and balanced education so that they can form as complete a world view as possible. Ethically, we also have a responsibility to give them freedom to use their minds and not be discriminated against on the basis of age.

Your arguments about the causes of AIDS make me laugh once again. I remember twenty years ago, when my fundamentalist parents taught me that AIDS was God's punishment of gays. Well, it is good to see that that argument has been retired. But it is disappointing to see that yet another moralistic argument has replaced it. Sexual 'immorality' is part and parcel of African cultural mores? Can you really make such a statement with a straight face whilst living in America where sexual 'immorality' is a national obsession?

At least you understand that education and behavior modification (behavior modification in the form of condom use has made major inroads into the spread of AIDS in Uganda, for instance) are needed. People there need to be taught to use condoms, and Western governments need to modify their behavior by leaning on the pharmaceutical companies to provide cheap medication to sub-Saharan Africa, so that the people there can benefit as have their rich AIDS sufferers in North America and Europe.

A final question: if education is so necessary for poor Africans, why do so many fundamentalists oppose educating America's youth correctly about their bodies and their sexuality?

Kind regards,

Amator Puellularum

Note: I did not edit the content, just the BBCode. Incidentally, the latin preposition meaning 'with' is apparently censored here.
Last edited by Amator Puellularum on Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Amator Puellularum, Lover of Little Girls

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:25 am

Amator Puellularum, many people support gay theology and special rights for the gay community based strictly on an intellectual acceptance of psychology. I have chosen not to fall into your pseudo-intellectual advancement of a behavior I find obnoxious, selfish, and immoral. Why? Because I used to be a gay activist and know how counter-productive it is to debate any man or woman who uses psychology, and misuses anthropology to substantiate an immoral desire.

I really could care less about your beliefs or your attempt to justify what the vast majority of people find unjustifiable. As far as I am concerned you are sick, demented, and in need of psychiatric help. I can understand why gay men and lesbian women are the way they are, but I cannot understand why any mature male would see a physically immature male or female as sexually attractive unless the adult is emotionally immature and unstable.
A final question: if education is so necessary for poor Africans, why do so many fundamentalists oppose educating America's youth correctly about their bodies and their sexuality?
Sex education was taught when I was a teen, however, because liberals in our society promote immorality and will not teach abstinence and Biblical morality many fundamentalists oppose sex education.

Some members of the political religious right use homosexuality and AIDS (which they stupidly call a gay disease) as a scare tactic in an attempt to push ignorant and uneducated Americans into the Republican Party so to teach the truth in this country would weaken their case.

Ignorance of how AIDS is spread has resulted in fully 15% of new HIV+ diagnosis being in senior citizens, with the highest increases of new infections being among heterosexual women and sexually active teens, not gay men. So you see, pedophiles are not the only people who misuse the truth for selfish purposes.
Image

Amator Puellularum
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 09:18 pm
Location: Europe

Mystified

Postby Amator Puellularum » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:17 pm

Hello Aineo,

Once again, I am bewildered by your steadfast refusal to provide any proof whatsoever for your statements. I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claims, yet you seem completely unable or unwilling to do so. Since you claim to have been a gay activist at one point in your life, I would have expected your debate skills to be more finely honed than they appear to be.

Amator Puellularum, many people support gay theology and special rights for the gay community based strictly on an intellectual acceptance of psychology. I have chosen not to fall into your pseudo-intellectual advancement of a behavior I find obnoxious, selfish, and immoral. Why? Because I used to be a gay activist and know how counter-productive it is to debate any man or woman who uses psychology, and misuses anthropology to substantiate an immoral desire.


Like many other fundamentalists, you seem to deny the legitimacy of scientific inquiry and discovery. Therefore, I have asked that at the very least you provide scriptural evidence for your positions. Yet you cannot even provide a scriptural basis for your arguments. If you are going to hold strong beliefs, that is your right. However, if you are going to try and convince others with different beliefs, you cannot reasonably expect them to accept them on the basis of your own belief in them.

Once again, I call upon you to provide proof that pedophilia 'obnoxious, selfish and immoral', and demonstrate how psychology and anthropology have been 'misused' to substantiate it.

I really could care less about your beliefs or your attempt to justify what the vast majority of people find unjustifiable. As far as I am concerned you are sick, demented, and in need of psychiatric help. I can understand why gay men and lesbian women are the way they are, but I cannot understand why any mature male would see a physically immature male or female as sexually attractive unless the adult is emotionally immature and unstable.


Right then. Since you are unable to refute my arguments, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks on me. Very sensible indeed. Did I not read somewhere in the guidelines for this forum that such attacks are strictly verboten?

You can understand why gay men are the way they are because you are gay yourself. I do not understand why gay men are the way they are at all. I personally cannot comprehend how a man can be attracted to another man. At the same time, however, I am willing to accept that there are people who do have this attraction, and am willing to accept them and their free expression of their sexuality fully. Just because you do not understand why somebody is the way they are does not make that person a bad person. Such intolerance (especially of the religious variety) has unfortunately led to a great deal of violence and conflict in our world.

If you believe that pedophiles are unstable and immature, then please provide some sort of evidence that this is the case. Flinging mud at us is not going to convince any thinking person that you are correct.
Amator Puellularum, Lover of Little Girls

Fundie

Re: Mystified

Postby Fundie » Thu Jun 12, 2003 03:20 am

Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit fornication:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed fornication with her already in his heart.

So how many little girls will God hold you accountable for? ALL OF THEM!

[align=center]As it is written,
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones
that believe on me to stumble,
it is profitable for him
that a great millstone
should be hanged about his neck,
and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

Image
[/align]

2 Timothy 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Guest

Oh, I see...

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:28 am

Dear Fundie,

Thank you for your most enlightening post. Allow me to ask you a few questions about your use of the scriptures to yet further increase my understanding.

Firstly, allow me to iterate the first scripture you cited:

Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit fornication:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed fornication with her already in his heart.


Firstly, in order to approach this correctly, I think it is necessary to define the word lust:

lust

1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS


I believe that the definition referred to by Jesus is the second one (but tell me if you do not agree with me). I imagine that you would agree that seeing a woman on the street and admiring her beauty is not tantamount to lust. Lust is only if you see the woman exclusively as a sexual object, immediately undress her in your mind and perhaps even go as far as going up to her and trying to seduce her.

My love for little girls does not fall into this category. Yes, I do very much appreciate the beauty of girls from an aesthetic perspective, but my attraction goes much deeper than physical attraction. I definitely would not categorize my feelings towards them as being lustful. I do understand that there are people who might experience lustful feelings, but I know many pedophiles who are the same as I am.

Now let us take the verses you have provided in the greater context. The overall them of Matthew 5 is that one needs to be more mindful of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Jesus, who was careful to state that he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, is stressing that slavish adherence to a rigid legal code is not true obedience unless your thoughts are correct as well.

If you look at the overall message of Jesus' entire ministry, you see that he stresses compassion and love over anything else. This is borne out in the case of the adulteress who was about to be stoned when Jesus said 'he without sin among you, cast the first stone' (John 8:7). He then told the woman to go away and sin no more.

Jesus in his ministry gave only a single commandment: 'This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.' (John 15:12) Indeed, many find this single commandment more difficult to obey than all of the ancient Ten Commandments put together.

My love for little girls does not in any way violate this commandment. Many churches teach that the love God has for us is agape love, rather than phileo or eros. Agape is a complete and unconditional love, not tainted by duty or heredity as is oft the cases with phileo, or simple physical desire, as is the case with eros. My love for little girls is also complete, and is very much deeper than physical attraction.

Let us now continue to the second scripture you cite:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


In essence, I am not at odds with this passage at all. Many pedophiles, myself included, enjoy the company of children because they can see the world as it is, not as we are conditioned to see it. We leave our excess baggage at the door and enter into their world, to appreciate things as nature intended them to be. Isn't it fantastic how a child marvels at things we fail to notice? Is this not what Jesus was referring to? Did he not want us to unload our conditioning before approaching him? What better way to do this than to do so in the company of a child?

I do not see anything in my ethos of child love that would insult the child or cause the child to stumble. Indeed, I strive to affirm the child, to love and nurture the child, and to help the child grow in self-confidence and knowledge.

Of course, I agree that those who do harm children ought to be punished. Not only those who physically hurt children or rape them, but those who harm them emotionally or intellectually as well. People who neglect their children, demean them, cut them down or manipulate them (parents, beware!), and those who withold education or educate them improperly or inadequately, need to be punished just as severely as the one who kidnaps or kills a child. For emotional and intellectual maldevelopment is a stumbling block which can have ill effects upon a child for life.

Next you made an unsubstantiated statement:

HELL IS REAL!!!!


OK, I understand that you believe that sincerely. Now provide me with some proof that it is does indeed exist.

And now for your last scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [emphasis mine]


OK. Let us examine for a moment some of the 'doctrine' and 'instruction in righteousness' that we can glean from the Bible if we take a strictly fundamentalist approach:

GAINING POLITICAL POWER BY MEANS OF EXTORTION AND DECEIT

And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he [was] faint:

Gen 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red [pottage]; for I [am] faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

Gen 25:31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

Gen 25:32 And Esau said, Behold, I [am] at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

Gen 25:33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised [his] birthright.

-------------------------------------

And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck:

Gen 27:17 And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.

Gen 27:18 And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I; who [art] thou, my son?

Gen 27:19 And Jacob said unto his father, I [am] Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.

Gen 27:20 And Isaac said unto his son, How [is it] that thou hast found [it] so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought [it] to me.

Gen 27:21 And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou [be] my very son Esau or not.

Gen 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice [is] Jacob's voice, but the hands [are] the hands of Esau.

Gen 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.

Gen 27:24 And he said, [Art] thou my very son Esau? And he said, I [am].

Gen 27:25 And he said, Bring [it] near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought [it] near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank.

Gen 27:26 And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.

Gen 27:27 And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son [is] as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:

Gen 27:28 Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:

Gen 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed [be] every one that curseth thee, and blessed [be] he that blesseth thee.

Gen 27:30 And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.


Need I remind you that this scoundrel was the man God chose to father the Israelite nation? Compared to this, Bill Clinton's scandals are mere child's play...

CHILD PROSTITUTION

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.


Remember that Lot was the only man righteous enough to be saved by God from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Here is another example of the same sort of behavior:

So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.

Jdg 19:22 [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

Jdg 19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, [nay], I pray you, do not [so] wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

Jdg 19:24 Behold, [here is] my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

Jdg 19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Jdg 19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord [was], till it was light.

Jdg 19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down [at] the door of the house, and her hands [were] upon the threshold.


Are we to infer from this that child rape is less abominable than homosexuality?

INCEST, INTOXICATING SOMEONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOWERING THEIR INHIBITION, RAPE


Gen 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

Gen 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Gen 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Gen 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Gen 19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Gen 19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.


So we should understand from this that the end justifies the means?

GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING

1Sa 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. [emphasis mine]


If the Hague War Crimes Tribunal were to judge people on the basis of Biblical precedent, they would have to free Slobodan Milosevic! After all, he was simply providing retribution to the Croats, who put Serbs into concentration camps in World War II. Indeed, he was simply making up for 600 years of atrocities against the Serbs (ie, ever since the Battle of Kosovo Field in 1389) at the hands of the Turks, Austrians and others.

SLAVERY
Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;


I would also point out that Saint Paul counseled the escaped slave Onesimus to return to his master.

These have been just a few examples of the danger of taking the Bible too literally as a tool for dictating moral behavior. If you are truly a fundamentalist, you cannot pick and choose what passages you like and which you do not like, can you? What is the determiner of what remains valid today and what is invalid?

With kind regards,

Amator Puellularum

User avatar
webmaster
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5186
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Tobaccoville NC

Re: Oh, I see...

Postby webmaster » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:34 pm

Anonymous wrote:Firstly, allow me to iterate the first scripture you cited:

Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit fornication:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed fornication with her already in his heart.



ROFL you need to read your bible.

Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The word lust used here is Transliterated: epithumeo
Strong's Number: 1937
Phonetic: ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
Text: from 2372; to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise): --covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

Note the long for (rightfully or otherwise) part.
A wife can Lust after her husband. Rightfully.
A man can Lust after women who only has red hair. Wrongfully.
A man can Lust after a female who is only a certain age. Still Wrongfully.
A Man can Lust after a woman who only has red hair with the intent to marry her. Rightfully.

This is Lust and even the fulfillment of the desires wrongfully.
Instead, pedophiles advocate age-appropriate displays of physical affection. With younger children, you will find very few true pedophiles who desire more than hugging, kissing and cuddling.



Anonymous wrote:I believe that the definition referred to by Jesus is the second one (but tell me if you do not agree with me). I imagine that you would agree that seeing a woman on the street and admiring her beauty is not tantamount to lust. Lust is only if you see the woman exclusively as a sexual object, immediately undress her in your mind and perhaps even go as far as going up to her and trying to seduce her.

The word lust used here by Jesus is Transliterated: epithumeo
Strong's Number: 1937
Phonetic: ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
Text: from 2372; to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise): --covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
undress her in your mind and perhaps even go as far as going up to her and trying to seduce her

Wrong, you can desire someone without ever going that far.
You are admiring her beauty because you are sexuality attracted to her.
You are admiring her beauty because you sexuality desire her.
You are admiring her beauty because you are sexuality lusting after her.
That is what the terms heterosexuality and homosexuality means.
That is what Jesus meant when he spoke this to the Pharisee's in Matthew 5:27-28. One reason this was told to them was because the LAW said it was wrong so they couldn't commit the actual crime BUT they did find ways around the law. But they was still guilty of breaking the LAW because they broke it in their hearts. Same as what you are doing. You can't break the Laws in the country that you live in so you find ways around it BUT Jesus says you are still guilty of it!
Matthew 5
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It says looketh, not the act of actually going up to her to talk, doesn't it?

For Reference:
The word lust used here by Jesus is Transliterated: epithumeo
Strong's Number: 1937
Phonetic: ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
Text: from 2372; to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise): --covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
Transliterated: thumos
Strong's Number: 2372
Phonetic: thoo-mos'
Text: passion (as if breathing hard):
Instead, pedophiles advocate age-appropriate displays of physical affection. With younger children, you will find very few true pedophiles who desire more than hugging, kissing and cuddling.



Anonymous wrote:My love for little girls does not fall into this category.

That statement would simply make you a Liar.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I do very much appreciate the beauty of girls from an aesthetic perspective, but my attraction goes much deeper than physical attraction. I definitely would not categorize my feelings towards them as being lustful. I do understand that there are people who might experience lustful feelings, but I know many pedophiles who are the same as I am.


Amator Puellularum


A desire = lust

For such a well educated person like yourself who has spent a LOT of time trying to make your own desires morale right based upon anything you can find to support it surely needs to stop promoting your desires as OK because someone who has less self control then you do will use what you say to justify their own behavior which leads them to commit what?



Just for reference

The other word for Lust used in Romans and later is
Strong's Number: 3715
Transliterated: orexis
Phonetic: or'-ex-is
Text: from 3713; excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: --lust.

Strong's Number: 3713
Transliterated: oregomai
Phonetic: or-eg'-om-ahee
Text: middle voice of apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary [compare 3735]; to stretch oneself, i.e. reach out after (long for): --covet after, desire.

Strong's Number: 3735
Transliterated: oros
Phonetic: or'-os
Text: probably from an obsolete oro (to rise or "rear"; perhaps akin to 142; compare 3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain): -hill, mount(-ain).

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: Mystified

Postby Aineo » Fri Jun 13, 2003 01:47 pm

Amator Puellularum wrote:Hello Aineo,

Once again, I am bewildered by your steadfast refusal to provide any proof whatsoever for your statements. I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate your claims, yet you seem completely unable or unwilling to do so. Since you claim to have been a gay activist at one point in your life, I would have expected your debate skills to be more finely honed than they appear to be.
Since you are looking for an intelligent debate I will need some time to study the links you posted, verify the credentials of the authors, and study any rebuttals from experts and sources you have chosen to ignore.

Most of your arguments come from anthropology and societies that also practiced polygomy, killing female children since they were of less value tha males, etc. Anthropology and psychology are two-edged swords, which can be used by both sides of most issues.
Image

Teen Wolf

relations between adults and minors

Postby Teen Wolf » Mon Jul 21, 2003 07:52 pm

This is quite a forum. It took me a long time to read all these threads on "child molestation". What I've noticed is what I notice when most people discuss issues...a lack of direction.

Every statement should have a purpose. Granted, some statements are included to entertain, but most should be to inform or to persuade, since this is a forum.

Before I give my two cents, I will tell you a little about myself. I am not an expert on any of these topics(theology, psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history, sexuality). I am a 19 year old college student who works part time. I am formerly Catholic, but presently confused when it comes to spirituality.

Before I discuss the issue, I'd like to touch on something related.

Amator Puellularum seems to have a pretty good understanding of basic logic and reasoning. It is also very likely that he is more intelligent than I am. Furthermore, based on the arguments used by others at this forum, he is probably more intelligent than everyone else. Another possibility is that he has had to use these arguments so many times in his life that he just seems more intelligent. However, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt merely because his arguments were so involved, that I don't feel capable of refuting them.

The only point I can remind Amator is that just because his logic is flawless, does not mean he is right. All his arguments are based on premises(as are everybody elses). Many times people disagree even though they use the same logic. In these cases, it usually turns out that their premises are different. It is very possible that some of his premises are wrong, causing his subsequent conclusions to be false. I'm not saying that he is necessarily wrong, just that it's possible his reasoning could be sound but his conclusions false. When discussing an issue such as this, the goal should be to find the truth, not score points off each other. I would try to expose any unusual premises myself, but I feel I am unable to take on such a task. So I would only hope that Amator is using his intelligence to reach a just conclusion.

As for the issue itself, I have a few points to add. I don't feel that a god would discriminate against something he created based on that individual's feelings. The dominoe effect that ends with feelings starts with the creation of a human being. Every feeling that person ever has is based on the initial settings programmed into that body(ie. genetics) along with the circumstances that shape that person's life. It does not make sense to me that a benevolent god would condemn something of it's own creation.

So, although I personally find it strange for an adult to desire any type of sexual or romantic relationship with a child, I would not condemn him for merely having those feelings.

However, I do have some fairly strong feelings when it comes to adults acting on their desires for children.

One of the primary reasons for having a statutory rape law is because the goverment feels that a person is not fully able to understand the consequences of his or her actions until he or she becomes 18. The way the United States is set up, children are not required to become adults until the age of 18. In fact, most children cannot take care of themselves until that age or older because of restrictions placed upon them by this society. So it turns out that this number works precisely because it's the number that's been chosen. It is possible that if society forced children to become adults at 16, that they would be more capable of making life decisions. Of course, other factors are involved such as human biology, so this number could only be lowered so much before it became unreasonable. In fact, because of lack of knowledge when it comes to human biology, the age of 16 may still be too young.

Many people make decisions during their teenage years that affect them for the rest of their lives, such as decisions involving sex and drugs. Often times, these people look back later in their lives and wish they had decided differently. Teenagers often make decisions based on hormones, and pay dearly for it later in life.

A 30 year old man is in a better position to decide what he wants out of life than a 12 year old girl or even a 16 year old girl. Even the times that the girl is consenting, other factors come into play. Furthermore, what if the girl is only consenting because she is afraid of even worse consequences? This leads to a huge gray area, because now the possible desires of the child need to be weighed against what's best for the child.

This is where the parents come into play. It is my belief that it is a parents duty to care for a child until the child is able to care of itself. It is at this point that the child becomes an adult. Fortunately for the sake of this discussion, I do not know any parents who would allow their child to have any kind of sexual or romantic relation with a fully grown adult.

So although I do not wish to condemn a man for his desires, there are certain practices that I feel are inappropriate(romantic relations with a child).

I hope that everybody feels comfortable responding to this thread, assuming there is still somebody out there listening.

Teen Wolf

Porsha

Child Molestation

Postby Porsha » Wed Jul 23, 2003 04:49 am

I say to all that complain because their wicked ways have made them report to the police for molesting an innocent baby. I was molested as a child and I know the affects of a wicked human being. I say HOW DARE YOU TAKE AN UNTOUCHED BODY OF GOD AND DEGRADE IT. I believe in harder laws for perverts like molesters. You will be asked to bring you crown to God's fett, but you will not have crowns for God, you will bring your wicked dues and God will send you to HELL.

User avatar
Alpha
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:15 am

Postby Alpha » Wed Jul 23, 2003 10:11 am

Hey, Hey, let's watch it. They can repent and God can forgive them too. No matter what sin you do, God can forgive you if you repent.

Just me

People

Postby Just me » Mon Aug 18, 2003 02:19 pm

....and yet,the single largest perpetrator of sodomy,molestation etc. of young boys and girls are the people who we should trust MOST...the clergy...the priest...the CHURCH.

How dare ANY of you deem to JUDGE anyone....who of you here is without sin????

me

Just me

people

Postby Just me » Mon Aug 18, 2003 02:46 pm

A man sat in the park,under a tree. Children played in the area while their parents sat on park benches waiting,knitting,eating,watching.

One child noticed the man under the tree and wandered over to see what he was doing. She climbed up on his knee and began to speak to him.The man's eyes were kind and gentle-his voice soft and filled with love.
Another child saw the little girl and went to investigate.

Soon all the children were around the man,some on his lap and others around him. He told them stories and laughed and smiled with them.
Most of the parents had been distracted by what they were doing but one noticed the children with this man and called to the other parents who immediately came running. They all approached the man,running shouting angrily,some shaking their fists. The children saw this and thinking they were in trouble,ran away fearing punishment for straying away from the area.

The man remained under the tree as the parents stood around him shouting and screaming abuse."WHAT were you doing with our children!??" How DARE you touch my child!" ---WHAT?? He touched your child? "
Hey! He touched her kid!....One Father saw red and grabbed the man by the beard,pulling him up from the ground...... Seeing this,the children all screamed..... NO NO Leave him alone!

Fearing the worst ,and not giving the man a chance to speak,the angry father,with the support of the other parents,called the police and waited until they arrived. They explained that this man had touched their children in the park and was loitering in the area. He was taken away in a paddy wagon and not heard of again.

The little girl who went to the man first said...."Daddy,why did those men take Jesus away?"

Just me again

people

Postby Just me again » Mon Aug 18, 2003 02:57 pm

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray:and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:50 am

I'd like to call attention to a couple of things in regards to this thread. The first is an article from Focus on the Family which may be of interest here as it talks about the "pedophilia legitimization movement" and in particular discusses the so-called "Rind study" published by the APA which was specifically mentioned by the poster Amator Puellularum in support of his view on pedophilia.

Molesters Inc.
By Karla Dial

It’s easy to imagine what pedophilia advocates were thinking in 1998 when they published a study suggesting that the sexual abuse of children wasn’t all that harmful. After all, they’d seen the vast cultural and legal gains the pro-gay movement had won since 1973, when homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the psychiatric profession’s blue book of mental disorders. Why not try to normalize molestation the same way?

So Bruce Rind of Temple University, along with co-authors Robert Bauserman and Phillip Tromovitch, made a case in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin for doing away with the term “child sexual abuse” in favor of “value-neutral” phrases like “adult-child sex” or “age-discrepant sexual relationships.” They even went so far as to say some boys benefit from having sex with men. But the strategy didn’t work as well for them as it did for the gay lobby.

The resulting national hue and cry, led by radio’s Dr. Laura Schlessinger, prompted the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999 to condemn a scientific paper for the first time — by a vote of 355-0. The APA later sent an apology to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, promising to tighten editorial security and prevent convicted pedophiles from using research like Rind’s to reduce their prison sentences.

You’d think that would have been a lesson scientists would take to heart. You’d think it would send a message to pedophiles that the public isn’t going to let them have their way with boys. You’d think, at the very least, it would make child molesters reconsider their tactics.

You’d think.

Late last year, though, the pedophilia propaganda machine was steaming along as aggressively as ever. Rind and his colleagues published another pro-pedophilia study, this time in the Archives of Sexual Behavior — the official publication of the International Academy for Sex Research — saying boys molested between 12 and 17 had as much self-esteem and positive sexual identity as boys who were not molested.

And the APA’s penitence proved short-lived. Its president, Norine Johnson, defended the right of researchers like Rind to have “controversial and unpopular” work published (though the organization has routinely turned away research on changing homosexual orientation).

continued at: http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0019820.html


The other point I want to bring up is one that was made at least a couple of times already in this thread: that persuasive arguments aren't necessarily correct and/or truthful ones. In fact, they very often aren't. Sophistry, spin doctoring, playing with semantics, rhetoric, and statistics, etc., are means of confounding public debate in order to "win" it at all costs and regardless of the truth, and since we as a society have accepted the legitimacy of persuasive tactics, there's all the more reason to constantly remind ourselves and those we are "debating" that persuasion is actually more akin to advertising/marketing than it is to an honest investigation into the state of things. The material below, excerpted from a textbook on persuasion written in the seventies, is an interesting summation of the perils of persuasive tactics, IMO, although it is perhaps too biased in favor of persuasion, and it may also suggest how the science of persuasion has evolved since then:

(Items in bold are those most relevant to the specific point I'm addressing in this thread. Items not in bold are included for the sake of completeness and the reader's possible interest.)

Some Problems and Limitations of Persuasion

1. Because persuasion allows free trade in ideas, not all suggestions for behavioral change can be expected to meet with approval. As a result of some ethically questionable practices in persuasion, some naive moralists are beginning to condemn all persuasion as of dubious value, forgetting that a free society cannot survive by condemning the free exchange of ideas, however distasteful some of those ideas may be. Our methods frequently need refinement, and our ethical codes need to be sharpened; but let us not discard the system.

2. Attitudes and behavioral patterns change slowly, and thus persuasion may not provide as rapid a change as might be desired. People may become impatient with the sometimes slow, even tedious, processes of a free society and be inclined to revert to violence or to authoritative procedures. We now see many sobering evidences of this attitude.

3. Within a freedom-of-speech framework, competing persuasions are seldom championed by persuaders of equal competence. It can thus be argued that truth may be lost as a result of unequal persuasive skills.

4. In the great density and intensity of contemporary persuasion, people may learn not to listen, or to listen and disbelieve.

5. Attitude and behavioral change are not final, not eternally fixed. Persuasion as a method of influence has to be continuous. Studies of attitude change demonstrate that definite retrogression toward original position tends to take place.

6. There is the danger that the spurious, the insincere, and the insignificant may crowd out the meaningful, the sincere, and the significant.

7. The channels of mass communication, which carry much of today's persuasion, may, because of the costs involved, become available only to the few.

8. What happens to our so-called grass-roots democracy when candidates and government become merchandized much like toothpaste, a bar of soap, or a 24-hour deodorant? This question gives pause not only to the political scientist, the communication teacher, and governmental philosophers, but to every thoughtful citizen.

9. Finally, some fear that, in a day when craftsmen in persuasion are becoming increasingly effective, the consumer of persuasive messages may become a helpless victim, and that the gap between the skills of the persuader and the level of critical evaluation of the consumer may be becoming dangerously great. This is, indeed, a matter for our concern, but the available evidence is neither clear nor adequate. Certainly we know that the pace of the race has quickened, but who has gained on whom is not established.

From Persuasion: A Means of Social Influence, 2nd ed., 1976, 1952, by Winston L. Brembreck and William S. Howell, pp. 19-20.

Sheepwalk

Postby Sheepwalk » Sat Sep 27, 2003 06:10 am

Sorry, the previous post is mine and in the last paragraph I misspelled a name. It's William Brembeck, not Brembreck.

Julie
Assitant Deacon
Assitant Deacon
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 06:15 pm
Location: New England

man-boy relations

Postby Julie » Thu Oct 02, 2003 09:19 pm

Webmaster:

Thanks so much for mentioning the article that appeared in the July 1998 APA bulletin justifying man-boy relationships. It is very sick. I read the piece at my college library. If I remember correctly, one of the authors of the article has connections (probably a member of Nambla) to that sort of thing.

Jesus Bless.

mrwright

oh my!

Postby mrwright » Wed Oct 29, 2003 06:48 pm

GASP!!

SkankySkeezer

You NAMBLA Freaks Need Your Testicles Hacked Off!

Postby SkankySkeezer » Tue Nov 04, 2003 07:48 pm

As they said on South Park after a long weepy speech about how they like buggering young boys one of South Park boys says, "Dude! You [explicit] children!" and walks off in disgust.

You pedophile freaks can put whatever euphemism or [explicit] justifications behind your sickness, but I and other sane decent people of reasonable intelligence don't buy your [explicit] and never will. So continue to live in fear perverts. One day you'll get what you deserve. In case you are unaware the best of what you deserve involves life incarceration with other sick freaks like yourselves. Then you can all [explicit] each other to your "hearts" content until you die. Personally I'd rather *&#$@@@& and be done with you, but that's illegal (not that you scumbags have any respect for law or anything).

User avatar
LindaBee2
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 05:51 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: You NAMBLA Freaks Need Your Testicles Hacked Off!

Postby LindaBee2 » Thu Nov 06, 2003 06:55 am

You can make your point without swearing, S.S.
http://www.freewebs.com/christian_grrl
A website dedicated to things involving Christianity.

http://chocobear.proboards105.com
Have some prayer requests? Join this group.

~*~*~*~

"The joy of intimacy is the reward of commitment."
(Joshua Harris - "I Kissed Dating Goodbye")

"One life to live, twill soon be past; Only what's done for Christ will last."

~*~*~*~

In loving memory of Gary D. Falke
August 6, 1944 - April 4, 2004

Bible_Believer
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:53 pm
Location: Colorado

The moderators on here should be ashamed of themselves!

Postby Bible_Believer » Thu Nov 06, 2003 03:56 pm

Dear Moderators,


What are you people thinking allowing that creep to advertise his filthy disgusting book on this forumn? This book advocates hurting children? Are you people nuts? Are you insane? Get a clue and report the guy who put that advertisement on here, he is a lowlife peice of trash who if he doesn't repent of what he has done will burn in hell!. I am shocked and appalled that you would allow such scum to even exist on this forumn!.
Ignatious Donelley

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

Re: The moderators on here should be ashamed of themselves!

Postby blerforever » Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:35 am

Bible_Believer wrote:Dear Moderators,


What are you people thinking allowing that creep to advertise his filthy disgusting book on this forumn? This book advocates hurting children? Are you people nuts? Are you insane? Get a clue and report the guy who put that advertisement on here, he is a lowlife peice of trash who if he doesn't repent of what he has done will burn in hell!. I am shocked and appalled that you would allow such scum to even exist on this forumn!.


Aww. look how mad the christians get when the pedo is actually smarter then them :lol: besides bible believer, this is a good debate. Im enjoying watching the GL over there come up with a crapload of proof for our cause and then seeing u guys with ur thumbs up your errr.... rears. NE way, carry on.

P.S. just to let everyone know, (because i know your automatic assumptions) the only law ive ever broken is the speed limit. ;) so record my IP, send it to whoever, its all good. Im not hiding NE thing :roll:

BOYLOVER FOREVER.

User avatar
LindaBee2
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 05:51 pm
Location: Oregon

Bible_Believer and the molestor

Postby LindaBee2 » Sat Feb 07, 2004 06:48 am

Bible_Believer, from now on, please contact the moderators personally, and try asking them why they're allowing child molestors to post on this board. Don't attack them, because they are your fellow Christians. Also, I believe God will determine who goes to Hell and who doesn't. Last I checked, you're not God.

To the child molestor: You're sick, and you need help. No one has the right to prey upon children. And yes, by having sexual relations with a child, you are breaking the law. I sincerely hope you are arrested, and that you spend a very long time in jail. Find someone your own age, and leave children alone.
http://www.freewebs.com/christian_grrl

A website dedicated to things involving Christianity.



http://chocobear.proboards105.com

Have some prayer requests? Join this group.



~*~*~*~



"The joy of intimacy is the reward of commitment."

(Joshua Harris - "I Kissed Dating Goodbye")



"One life to live, twill soon be past; Only what's done for Christ will last."



~*~*~*~



In loving memory of Gary D. Falke

August 6, 1944 - April 4, 2004

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

Re: Bible_Believer and the molestor

Postby blerforever » Sat Feb 07, 2004 06:17 pm

LindaBee2 wrote:Bible_Believer, from now on, please contact the moderators personally, and try asking them why they're allowing child molestors to post on this board. Don't attack them, because they are your fellow Christians. Also, I believe God will determine who goes to Hell and who doesn't. Last I checked, you're not God.

To the child molestor: You're sick, and you need help. No one has the right to prey upon children. And yes, by having sexual relations with a child, you are breaking the law. I sincerely hope you are arrested, and that you spend a very long time in jail. Find someone your own age, and leave children alone.


Who is the molester your referring to?

User avatar
LindaBee2
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 05:51 pm
Location: Oregon

Sorry!

Postby LindaBee2 » Sun Feb 08, 2004 06:08 am

Sorry. I meant the potential child molestor, blerforever.
http://www.freewebs.com/christian_grrl

A website dedicated to things involving Christianity.



http://chocobear.proboards105.com

Have some prayer requests? Join this group.



~*~*~*~



"The joy of intimacy is the reward of commitment."

(Joshua Harris - "I Kissed Dating Goodbye")



"One life to live, twill soon be past; Only what's done for Christ will last."



~*~*~*~



In loving memory of Gary D. Falke

August 6, 1944 - April 4, 2004

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

ok

Postby blerforever » Sun Feb 08, 2004 08:04 pm

ok. thats fair. you sound exactly like my youth pastor when i came to him for help about it. so, im getting used to these kind of replies from "christians". Now tell me if this observation is correct or not, arent u guys supposed to be showing love and trying to spread the love of christ? not judging people and condemning them without even knowing them?

User avatar
LindaBee2
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 05:51 pm
Location: Oregon

blerforever

Postby LindaBee2 » Mon Feb 09, 2004 07:59 am

I, for one, am not condemning or judging you. I'm merely telling you the truth. Jesus Christ Himself stated that no one is to harm children, in any way, shape or form. Child molestation is incredibly harmful to children. You said that you haven't molested a child. Good for you. :) However, you've made it clear that you'd like to have a sexual relationship with a child, which leads me to believe that you would seize that opportunity in a heartbeat.

Do you have any idea what molestation does to a child? Ever hear of Brandon Nessler, who was molested by a so-called Christian? Do you know what happened to that so-called Christian? He was murdered by Brandon's mother, Ellie, because she saw how damaged her little boy was.

No one has the right to take away the innocence of a child, blerforever.

By the way, according to the notes in my NIV Bible, Christians have been prohibited from judging others hypocritically and self-righteously. I'm not being a hypocrite in this instance, since I've never had sexual feelings for a child, and therefore have never harmed a child. And I'm not being self-righteous. I'm merely telling you the truth. And I'm not condemning you, because that's not my place. I just happen to be very concerned about children, because they are the most vulnerable. It's very easy for someone like Joseph Smith to prey upon an eleven-year-old like Carlie Brucia. Think about it. He was a big man, compared to Carlie. And although reports state that Carlie fought valiantly for her life, in the end, Mr. Smith overpowered her. Would you want your child (If you don't have children, this can be used hypothetically) to be victimized in this way? In any way, for that matter?

And the reason I stated that I hoped you would be arrested is mostly because of my desire to protect children from those who would prey upon them. Childhood is supposed to be filled with love, laughter, happiness and contentment. Not terror, victimization, sadness and anger.
http://www.freewebs.com/christian_grrl

A website dedicated to things involving Christianity.



http://chocobear.proboards105.com

Have some prayer requests? Join this group.



~*~*~*~



"The joy of intimacy is the reward of commitment."

(Joshua Harris - "I Kissed Dating Goodbye")



"One life to live, twill soon be past; Only what's done for Christ will last."



~*~*~*~



In loving memory of Gary D. Falke

August 6, 1944 - April 4, 2004

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: ok

Postby Aineo » Mon Feb 09, 2004 02:08 pm

blerforever wrote:ok. thats fair. you sound exactly like my youth pastor when i came to him for help about it. so, im getting used to these kind of replies from "christians". Now tell me if this observation is correct or not, arent u guys supposed to be showing love and trying to spread the love of christ? not judging people and condemning them without even knowing them?
As Christian's we are called to use discernment in approving human behavior and love all people; however we are not called to love all human behavior. If you are a Christian, which seems apparent by your reference to your youth pastor, then 1 Cor 5 comes into play.
1 Cor 5:9-12

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? NAS
As to your youth pastor's response to your request for help, pastors are people who do not always stop to consider the results of their initial reactions to the issues their flocks deal with.

Your enjoyment of what Amator Puellularum posted and our reactions is a symptom of your own dysfunction. As I stated in one of my reply's on this thread some posts are beneath contempt and don't deserve a response. Boy lovers are like gay's they love to appeal to ancient history and Greek and Roman traditions, but only to the extent it proves their position. For instance Sparta artificially separated the sexes at age 7. All boys were sent to military training schools and were not allowed access to female companionship. At age 14 they were assigned an older mentor usually under the age of 24 who continued their combat training. At age 30 these men were assigned a wife and were required to father children. However, they were required to sneak out of their barracks to consummate the marriage and sneak back into the barracks. If they were caught they were severely disciplined. The only outlet Spartan males had for intimacy was with other males so homosexual relationships that did develop were the result of an expression of human emotional needs. In Athens a man could have his citizenship revoked for engaging in pedophilia. As to the APA’s these organization view as “normal” any human behavior that cannot be “cured” or “managed” by drugs, counseling, or are viewed as anti-social behavior even they don’t accept as “normal” like murder. Counseling is never effective unless the counselee is actively seeking help in overcoming adherent behavior. No counselor is going to be effective when those in counseling are not totally honest with themselves and their counselor and totally committed to overcoming.

Bible_Believer, the links found in Amator Puellularum’s posts were left as is since this is a debate, not a lecture forum. People who oppose pedophilia can gain insights into this condition and be better equipped to fight it when they are educated about the twisted and perverse thinking that is at its foundation. If we deleted all links that supported any position that opposes ours how do we benefit or reach those dealing with life dominating sins and Godless beliefs?
Image

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

lindabee

Postby blerforever » Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:42 pm

Well at least that response was a little less hateful. And linda the scary thing is, i agree with a lot of your statements. Child molestation is wrong. period. I do know the harm that can come of it. My roomate was molested as a child, and i see struggles that he goes through everyday because of it. I do not advocate child molestation, or even ANY kind of sexual interaction with children. Because the chance of damage is just way too high in this day and age. What i find offensive is that people (especially christians) tend to automatically judge Pedophiles as child molesters. When they are not.

Aieno, no i am not a christian. I was raised one. 2 years ago when i was 17 my youth pastor told, my parents, and 2 of my friends families, that i was a potential child molester. When all i asked him for was some help. That has turned me against christianity all together. And honestly, when i see some of the judging attitudes on this board, it only increases my disliking. Im not asking for people to accept my attractions, but i am asking to be treated like a human being.

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: lindabee

Postby Aineo » Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:01 pm

blerforever wrote:Well at least that response was a little less hateful. And linda the scary thing is, i agree with a lot of your statements. Child molestation is wrong. period. I do know the harm that can come of it. My roomate was molested as a child, and i see struggles that he goes through everyday because of it. I do not advocate child molestation, or even ANY kind of sexual interaction with children. Because the chance of damage is just way too high in this day and age. What i find offensive is that people (especially christians) tend to automatically judge Pedophiles as child molesters. When they are not.

Aieno, no i am not a christian. I was raised one. 2 years ago when i was 17 my youth pastor told, my parents, and 2 of my friends families, that i was a potential child molester. When all i asked him for was some help. That has turned me against christianity all together. And honestly, when i see some of the judging attitudes on this board, it only increases my disliking. Im not asking for people to accept my attractions, but i am asking to be treated like a human being.
Ah, so you are 19 and have been abused by the church, which is not all that uncommon. I can empathize with your feelings since as an ex-gay man I have seen what the church does when homosexuals ask for help. It is not always pretty and prejudice outweighs Christ's teachings and model.

What many people refuse to accept is that an orientation or an attraction does not always equate to behavior. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex but they don't always commit fornication and adultery even in thought let alone deed. You can alter an attraction in time and with a lot of effort, however, you have to want to change.

Why not give Jesus a chance. Pastors and Christians are not always Christ's best ambassadors.
Image

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

re:

Postby blerforever » Tue Feb 10, 2004 03:07 am

i have given jesus a chance. i begged for him to change me, i went to a psychologists weekly to help. And i was miserable. u say u are ex-gay. That just doesnt compute with me. I don't understand how someone can change an attraction. It's like saying im going to change what foods i like, what activites i enjoy, what music i love. It just doesnt work. And i dont think i could ever be attracted to breasts. they just dont do it for me :lol:

User avatar
LindaBee2
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 05:51 pm
Location: Oregon

Reply

Postby LindaBee2 » Tue Feb 10, 2004 06:48 am

i have given jesus a chance. i begged for him to change me, i went to a psychologists weekly to help. And i was miserable.


It sounds to me like you thought your change would be easy. Believe me, no change is easy. It takes a lot of time, effort, and praying. Visit Aineo's website, and you'll see for yourself that he didn't change over night. It took time for him to completely abandon his lifestyle and devote his life to spreading the Word of God.

And you say that you were miserable. Do you think Bob (Aineo) wasn't miserable? Do you think I wasn't miserable? I'm sure some of the people Bob looked to as friends abandoned him the moment they learned that he was serious about his lifestyle change. I know some of my "friends" ditched me, the instant I decided to change my life for the better.

u say u are ex-gay. That just doesnt compute with me. I don't understand how someone can change an attraction. It's like saying im going to change what foods i like, what activites i enjoy, what music i love.


It's called discipline. ;)
http://www.freewebs.com/christian_grrl

A website dedicated to things involving Christianity.



http://chocobear.proboards105.com

Have some prayer requests? Join this group.



~*~*~*~



"The joy of intimacy is the reward of commitment."

(Joshua Harris - "I Kissed Dating Goodbye")



"One life to live, twill soon be past; Only what's done for Christ will last."



~*~*~*~



In loving memory of Gary D. Falke

August 6, 1944 - April 4, 2004

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: re:

Postby Aineo » Tue Feb 10, 2004 05:05 pm

blerforever wrote:i have given jesus a chance. i begged for him to change me, i went to a psychologists weekly to help. And i was miserable. u say u are ex-gay. That just doesnt compute with me. I don't understand how someone can change an attraction. It's like saying im going to change what foods i like, what activites i enjoy, what music i love. It just doesnt work. And i dont think i could ever be attracted to breasts. they just dont do it for me :lol:
One of my Bible heroes is a man named Caleb. Caleb was the rep from the tribe of Judah that was sent to spy on the Promised Land after Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Caleb and Joshua were the only scouts who wanted to go for it and follow God. You should already know the other 10's lack of trust in God caused the 40-year wilderness journey. Well, Caleb received a promise because of his faithfulness. So why is Caleb my hero? He was 40 years old when he received the promise, spent 40 years in the wilderness, and then 5 years helping to conquer Canaan and then he got his promised reward at the age of 85. However, in order to possess his reward he had to conquer the city of Hebron. Do you know what Hebron means? It means community, alliance, and by extension fellowship.

I was 40 years old when I started my journey out of gay life and although this was not a 45 year long journey by studying the lives of Bible figures I understood that conquering a life dominating attraction is not instantaneous and that to achieve our ultimate goals it takes trust in God’s promises and perseverance. Two years into my journey I was ready to give up and truthfully was suicidal. However, I gave Jesus the chance to prove He is a promise keeper, not a promise breaker. The whole process took the better part of 10 years of persevering through many trials. You use changing likes in music, food, etc. as an example of why you can’t change. At 17 I was a classical music nut who thought rock was a bunch of noise, Elvis was king the Beatles invaded America and I was on the outside looking in. Today I still like classical music but my appreciation of other forms of musical expression have broadened. At 17 I was a beef and potatoes man, today I avoid beef; my food preferences have changed.

You say you saw a psychologist to get help, well unless the psychologist was specifically trained in counseling your particular attraction you wasted your money. So when I say give Jesus a chance I mean give Jesus a long-term opportunity to work in you to achieve a goal that will take years not days to overcome. Anything worth having is worth working for, which is one reason why God does not instantaneously release us from life dominating attractions.

Try this, study (don’t just read) the Gospel of John keeping this in mind:
Philippians 4:6-8
6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. NAS
Image

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

Blah

Postby blerforever » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:07 pm

Im sorry. i just cant base my life on something with no proof. U read the GL's arguments in this topic. He posted so many biblical contradictions it was just nuts. Also, how am i sopposed to follow a religion that is full of nothing but hypocrites? Christ's representation is his believers. and so far, they are doing a very poor job. And heres a kicker. Why would god have created me as a BL? whats the reason?

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: Blah

Postby Aineo » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:40 pm

blerforever wrote:Im sorry. i just cant base my life on something with no proof. U read the GL's arguments in this topic. He posted so many biblical contradictions it was just nuts. Also, how am i sopposed to follow a religion that is full of nothing but hypocrites? Christ's representation is his believers. and so far, they are doing a very poor job. And heres a kicker. Why would god have created me as a BL? whats the reason?
In the beginning God created Adam and Eve, since then we have all been born, so that old reason, which gay theology appeals to is false. You were born not created. As to contradictions you are taking one posters word for there being contradiction in Scripture? Have you checked to see if these are actually contradictions or just someones opinion?
Contradiction in the Bible
Image

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

proof

Postby blerforever » Wed Feb 11, 2004 01:12 am

There is no proof that adam and eve existed. And even if they did. Obviously adam wouldnt know if he was gay, because there wasnt another man around.

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: proof

Postby Aineo » Wed Feb 11, 2004 01:27 am

blerforever wrote:There is no proof that adam and eve existed. And even if they did. Obviously adam wouldnt know if he was gay, because there wasnt another man around.
Are you being purposely obtuse? This comment only indicates you know absolutely nothing about being gay. As to the existance of some early Adam and Eve, do a Google search using the term "mitochondrial mother" or replace "father" for "mother".
Image

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

Re: proof

Postby blerforever » Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:41 pm

Aineo wrote:
blerforever wrote:There is no proof that adam and eve existed. And even if they did. Obviously adam wouldnt know if he was gay, because there wasnt another man around.
Are you being purposely obtuse? This comment only indicates you know absolutely nothing about being gay. As to the existance of some early Adam and Eve, do a Google search using the term "mitochondrial mother" or replace "father" for "mother".


Err. i dont exactly know what u mean by obtuse. But if u mean, was i purposely just posting something stupid and pointless, then yes. ;) I just ran out of things to say. :roll:

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Re: proof

Postby Aineo » Thu Feb 12, 2004 01:30 am

blerforever wrote:Err. i dont exactly know what u mean by obtuse. But if u mean, was i purposely just posting something stupid and pointless, then yes. ;) I just ran out of things to say. :roll:
:wink: You got the essence of what obtuse can mean.
Image

snappy
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 06:10 am
Location: Georgia

Postby snappy » Sat Mar 27, 2004 06:24 am

I am reminded of the scripture that says something to the effect, suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of God. It would be best for a milstone to be tied around your neck then to harm on of my precious children. Being a Christian and a YP it bothers me that this topic needs to be discussed but sadly even in the christian community we have such deviants that would use power and influence to win over a young person from their church only for the sole purpose of taking their innocents and it shames me that it happens in the local church as my calling is to protect our young people and to give them the tools they need to protect themselves such as the 3 R's of protection which are to Recongnize and Resist and Report that actions of others who make them feel ashamed or unconfrontable and that is what God has lead me to do. For the Sexy Sammy young person who writes such harsh commentary I want to encourage you to find a Bible Based local church and seek help from the pastor. I know church is not in your vocab because of the words you have used here but God will and wants to help you and he wants to meet you and show you his divine healing and help. God will send people your way to help you deal with whatever it is that is bothering you and I know that for sure. My friend I know your pain, I am a survivor of Child Sexual Abuse and I can tell you it's scary and does not make you feel like trusting other adults but you can. God is able to turn your scars into stars. Trust in God and not in man. I want to say it's wrong and a sin for a grown man to touch a young male under the age of 18 in any manner other then a fatherly and Godly manner. Sex with underage people is not only a sin but it's against the law.
I have been a born again christian since the mid 80\'s and believe that Christ died for my sins and he rose again and he lives in heaven with his father and watchs over us and I know someday I will be seated at the Heavenly Table feasting and being loved as God loved me when he gave his life for my sins.

Omega

Postby Omega » Sat Mar 27, 2004 07:31 am

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6

gerani1248

Postby gerani1248 » Sun May 23, 2004 12:21 pm

i have given jesus a chance. i begged for him to change me, i went to a psychologists weekly to help. And i was miserable. u say u are ex-gay. That just doesnt compute with me. I don't understand how someone can change an attraction. It's like saying im going to change what foods i like, what activites i enjoy, what music i love. It just doesnt work. And i dont think i could ever be attracted to breasts. they just dont do it for me



people can change, i mean, if they are absolutly dedicated like anieo.

but its like with cigarrett addictiontion. somepeople recover easily and yet for others, it takes a wicked long time, perhaps never to recover from the addiction.
it kinda works that way. cept being gay is not an addiction nor like smoking. its perfectly fine with the big guy up there ^^^ at least for me...

blerforever
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 05:32 am

re:

Postby blerforever » Mon May 24, 2004 10:08 pm

gerani1248 wrote:
i have given jesus a chance. i begged for him to change me, i went to a psychologists weekly to help. And i was miserable. u say u are ex-gay. That just doesnt compute with me. I don't understand how someone can change an attraction. It's like saying im going to change what foods i like, what activites i enjoy, what music i love. It just doesnt work. And i dont think i could ever be attracted to breasts. they just dont do it for me



people can change, i mean, if they are absolutly dedicated like anieo.

but its like with cigarrett addictiontion. somepeople recover easily and yet for others, it takes a wicked long time, perhaps never to recover from the addiction.
it kinda works that way. cept being gay is not an addiction nor like smoking. its perfectly fine with the big guy up there ^^^ at least for me...


Well if being gay is fine then whats wrong with being a BL as long as i dont act on my feelings? Thats how i look at it NE way. I accept the way i am, and i live my life by the law. God shouldnt have a problem with it if he made me this way ;)

gerani1248

Postby gerani1248 » Mon May 24, 2004 11:57 pm

Well if being gay is fine then whats wrong with being a BL as long as i dont act on my feelings? Thats how i look at it NE way. I accept the way i am, and i live my life by the law. God shouldnt have a problem with it if he made me this way


i said these words as a gay hindu. lol. I agree God shouldnt have a problem. but i still think anyone has a right to fall in love.

i always say, two souls can be married. why do genitals matter so much?

User avatar
Alpha
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:15 am

Re: re:

Postby Alpha » Wed May 26, 2004 04:25 pm

blerforever wrote:Well if being gay is fine then whats wrong with being a BL as long as i dont act on my feelings? Thats how i look at it NE way. I accept the way i am, and i live my life by the law. God shouldnt have a problem with it if he made me this way ;)


Don't compare lustful desires which are formed by the sinfulness of man to things which are truly natural. That's like me saying, "If I commit adultery it is not a sin, because God made me attracted to females." There are many former homosexuals who are now married to females because they have refrained from their wicked and lustful desires.

Genesis 6:5>And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Proverbs 16:2>All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.

Proverbs 21:2>Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

gerani1248

Postby gerani1248 » Wed May 26, 2004 06:26 pm

he is not talking about lust, nor adultry.


if he is single and has a relationship with a single man who are deeply in love with each other and are of appropriate age, i dont think God has a problem with that.

when you bring up lust and adultry, it should go under the issues of, lust and adultry, not homosexuality.

blerforever: Im soo happy that u are able to do what you did. for my other firends, it took them such a while, contemplating suicide and such. i dont believe that is healthy. i accept that im gay. whats thier not to accept? i was born this way, and i dont want to change because i know im satistfied this way, and it wouldnt matter if i was straight. I know I can achieve salvation to see my God. This body's desires doesnt matter that much. its impermanance. thats all.

homosexuality doesnt stick witht he soul. its only with the body.

i believe that.

Barbben
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 02:32 am

Postby Barbben » Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:38 am

For those who say child rape is okay. God help them if they ever touch my child.
I am a born again Christian,

His Word is Truth
New Convert
New Convert
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 03:35 pm

Child Molestation

Postby His Word is Truth » Sun Jul 09, 2006 03:43 pm

So much talk about what the experts say. God is the only expert Im listening to and What he said is quite clear in His word.
Pick that apart all you like (pearls before swine Whats the use)

OriginOfSin
Assitant Deacon
Assitant Deacon
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:44 pm

Postby OriginOfSin » Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:05 pm

None of you have even conisdered the likely possibility that it was a decision which has been well thought out. There is a girl a my school who is 15 and goes out with a 22 year old boy. She's also planning to get married to hum after they leave in year 11.
Image
Call me razor Shultz! ^^

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Mon Apr 16, 2007 09:42 pm

How many 15 year-olds are emotionally mature enough to make this decision? What you have decided to ignore is the age of consent in England is 16, which makes the 22 year-old a criminal.
Image

User avatar
Geshtinnanna
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 04:01 am
Location: Here, with you

Postby Geshtinnanna » Wed Apr 18, 2007 06:01 am

OriginOfSin wrote:None of you have even conisdered the likely possibility that it was a decision which has been well thought out. There is a girl a my school who is 15 and goes out with a 22 year old boy. She's also planning to get married to hum after they leave in year 11.

From the beginning of time it's been known that 15 year olds are pretty much incapable of making a well thought out decision. Spandex and piercing ears with a safety pin are proof enough :wink:
<center>I smell poop. Stop typing crap!</center>

User avatar
Alpha
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:15 am

Postby Alpha » Wed Apr 18, 2007 05:53 pm

Geshtinnanna wrote:From the beginning of time it's been known that 15 year olds are pretty much incapable of making a well thought out decision. Spandex and piercing ears with a safety pin are proof enough :wink:


Spandex?

User avatar
Geshtinnanna
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 04:01 am
Location: Here, with you

Postby Geshtinnanna » Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:08 pm

Alpha wrote:
Geshtinnanna wrote:From the beginning of time it's been known that 15 year olds are pretty much incapable of making a well thought out decision. Spandex and piercing ears with a safety pin are proof enough :wink:


Spandex?

I was a teenager in the 80s. Yeah Spandex.
:oops:
<center>I smell poop. Stop typing crap!</center>

Aineo
Admin
Admin
Posts: 8980
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 05:43 pm
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado

Postby Aineo » Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:26 pm

Spandex is still used in swim and sports action wear.
Image

User avatar
On My Way
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 05:03 am
Location: Seattle Washington

Postby On My Way » Thu Apr 19, 2007 05:10 am

Geshtinnanna wrote:
OriginOfSin wrote:None of you have even conisdered the likely possibility that it was a decision which has been well thought out. There is a girl a my school who is 15 and goes out with a 22 year old boy. She's also planning to get married to hum after they leave in year 11.

From the beginning of time it's been known that 15 year olds are pretty much incapable of making a well thought out decision. Spandex and piercing ears with a safety pin are proof enough :wink:

Yeah look at leg warmers! :D
The Professionals built the Titanic and the amateur built the Ark. Go figure


Return to “Child Molestation is a Sin!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests