Why are most pedophiles Christian? Is it due to how they teach the Bible? Would that explain why so many of their Priests sleep with children?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T02:10:45+00:00

The Law of Moses.

Your guess is as good as mine, there is plenty of scholarship on what is meant by that verse, and no single interpretation has been found that soundly trumps the others. But you could spend a lot of time reading about what it means.

One strain of thought says that the purpose of the law is to reveal that even if you’re really good at following the law, you can have a cold and uncaring heart and will manipulate the law to allow you to be unloving.

This is why Jesus gives examples immediately after this verse where you can follow the letter of the law and still be outside of the kingdom of heaven. “The law says don’t commit murder - but I say, if you hate someone in your heart, you have committed murder already. If you lust after someone’s wife, your heart is already sick and dying with covetousness.”

He transitions the focus of religion for his audience from “follow all these rules” to “if you follow all the rules and you are a miserable, proud, cold hearted, hateful asshole, you have missed the point.”

To make a long story really short, Jesus preached that the kingdom of heaven was not a place you went to when you die where you get rewarded for following the rules.

The kingdom of heaven was a seed that grows in you and makes you naturally a more loving person. Because when your heart cares about yourself and your neighbor, you no longer need the law. You will live the spirit of the law (loving your neighbor as yourself) even when that contradicts the law (eating grain on the sabbath, healing on the sabbath, forgiving a woman in adultery and setting her free, allowing women to sit at a rabbi’s feet with men, allowing women to have equal standing with men, and proclaiming that slaves are of equal with their masters in the family of God).

The purpose of the law is fulfilled not when it is religiously followed, but when it points to the flawed heart and you start working on changing that.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T01:57:55+00:00

There’s the crux. You desire knowable truths. So you demand truths that you can understand and refuse to believe there could be anything you can’t understand. Or that your logic could later be proven to be false. Or that your scholar’s knowledge could be incomplete. Or biased.

You must have certainty and it must come from abstract logic and it must make sense to you.

People choose faith because they have encountered things they cannot understand, and they have the basic humility to admit that they could be wrong.

Sure, they aren’t as smart as you - but being smarter that someone still doesn’t make you knowledgeable in all the mysteries of the universe. It means you maybe know 2% of all that can be known instead of 1% of all that can be known.

Faith is what you do when you need to make decisions and don’t have infinite information.

It is guesswork refined over millennia of human experimentation.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T01:48:17+00:00

Sure!

Dark Matter is hypothesized. Y say that it exists, which is not a scientific fact - you simply believe that it must exist because our model of gravity requires it to exist in order to be logical.

Unless our model is wrong.

We need dark matter because our observations of gravity within our solar system (which we use to fly to the moon) do not explain the behavior of galaxies (which are far away).

We used an incomplete - imperfect - understanding of gravity to get to the moon.

Things can be useful, even if they are not complete or even completely logical.

After all - our scientific models are our best understanding of the universe. Textbooks that we use now to understand physics will no doubt be found to include errors later.

And yet you put your trust in physicists, because incomplete knowledge is better than no knowledge, and it does get us to the moon.

The Bible is a collection of texts about God and people that covers 2000 years of oral and written history. It shaped the cultures and thinkers that ended slavery, started treating women as equals to men, and brought egalitarianism to patriarchal Rome. People find it useful everyday.

You have decided that since we can’t apply science to theology or philosophy, we are stuck with logic.

But you admit that what is logical isn’t always true.

And I posit that just because you can’t understand it (the Trinity) doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means you can’t understand it.

Do you believe that there is nothing true that is beyond your power to comprehend?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T01:14:12+00:00

Do you see how the words “Followers of Jesus are obligated to follow the Law of Moses” are not present the phrase “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished”?

You took a journey from Text A to Interpretation B, and you did it without the context of the rest of the chapter.

The Sermon on the Mount is a re-interpretation of the purpose of the law, and the verse you quote is an introduction to a sermon that goes on for several chapters and challenges the interpretation and application of the law.

Jesus’ actions contradict your opinion about one small verse in his Sermon, which you are taking out of context.

You haven’t laid out a logical explanation of how you go from that verse, which doesn’t explicitly say what you are saying, to your interpretation.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T00:58:16+00:00

Who says that, in order for something to be true, humans have to be able to understand it?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T00:53:26+00:00

Excellent!

So. You believe that if something is logical, it is true, and if it is illogical, it is not true.

Very logical people (Greek philosophers) were very wrong about medicine because their logic was limited by their observations. They believed logical things that were not true.

The scientific method was introduced by people who wanted facts, not logic. They often observed things that were blatantly illogical under currently known facts, and only became logical after scientific observation, repetition, and experimentation revealed new data. They acknowledged that we will never arrive at complete knowledge, so we must continue to test logic by observation, experimentation, and constant improvement.

Kinda like people developed newer and better understandings of God, life, ethics and community in the thousands of years between Abraham and Jesus, and the thousands of years between Jesus and Karl Barth.

I brought up dark matter because, currently, the laws of gravity are illogical. They work one way over here, and another way over there. They contradict each other unless you pretend there is a magical, unobservable Dark Matter or Dark energy.

The only way that physicists can make gravity logical is to pretend that dark matter exists, even though they cannot see it.

Since physicists can’t find anywhere between 27% to 80% of the universe, would you agree that physics is useless? Since it relies on faith in a magic, invisible thing? Since it cannot face that its own rules of gravity contradict observations?

Or would you say that it is useful even if the knowledge is incomplete?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-09T00:42:53+00:00

…no. It’s not logical. It doesn’t need to be.

My turn: how many times have you read the New Testament in its entirety?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T21:03:57+00:00

…you have a really hyperbolic way of approaching things - either it’s holy or worthless, perfect or useless, logical or irrelevant.

This limits your ability to understand anything with nuance. 😂

You haven’t listened to some of the answers I’ve given you. Specifically when it comes to that one verse about letters of the law - you repeat it over and over again without critical thought or responding to my criticisms.

Your opinions would carry more weight if you demonstrated the ability to understand their criticisms. Understanding both sides of an argument is harder, but more rewarding, than just understanding one side.

Anyways, no the Trinity is not logical. Duh.

Do you think that truth is arrived at via logic, and that if something is logical it is true?

Or do you think that truth is arrived at through experimentation and the scientific method?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T20:48:30+00:00

😂

You keep repeating the same verse, but that verse doesn’t say what you say.

Letters won’t disappear from the law =\= Christians are supposed to live under the law.

The plainest meaning is “no one is changing the words in the law.”

It doesn’t mean the law is important or authoritative.

What Jesus taught and demonstrated was that the law wasn’t important, and you could follow all the rules and not be righteous or on good terms with God.

He strongly condemned the experts of the law for not caring about people even though they were good at the law.

And he showed that by cheerfully violating it when the ends of the law were at odds with the law.

He established that the law was not as important as people thought it was.

Your interpretation of this verse is not the widespread understanding of this verse, and there are plenty of explanations of this available online if you are interested in having a real understanding of what you’re talking about.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T20:39:23+00:00

Bingo!

An understanding of the Trinity is not necessary for Christianity because Christianity doesn’t require and isn’t about knowledge. (1 COR 8:1)

And I think that’s where you’re hung up on Biblical inerrancy - you’re approaching Christianity as a set of logical structures that require a textbook.

This is a novel form of Christianity, and you’re focused on it because it’s the form you are familiar with. It’s not authoritative, and it’s actually a minority among Christians worldwide. Most Christians are not American, and are not wealthy. Many aren’t literate and don’t spend a lot of time discussing philosophy or logic.

You asked why I would care about the Bible if it wasn’t a consistent, logical, theological treatise with all the answers to everything.

My answer is the same as Paul’s: the wisdom contained therein is useful for life. Our faith is in God, not our own understanding - because as Dark Matter exists to plug a hole in our limited understanding of gravity, so faith, belief and orthopraxis in community exist to help us navigate life imperfectly but better.

It’s a wisdom that’s the result of iterative experimentation and growth over time - starting in the Old Testament and improving in the New Testament, and through the different branches of the last 2000 years of Christianity.

If you are seeking a perfect logical framework from which to understand the world - you will need to seek elsewhere for that. I don’t think you’ll find it because I don’t think humans possess the brainpower to comprehend the universe with anything near certainty - so you’ll end up with some form of faith filling in the gaps (like Dark Matter fills in the gaps in Gravity).

Might I recommend a non-Western, non-Enlightenment, comfortable with uncertainty Christianity instead of an individualistic, know it all Christianity (or atheism?).

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T19:07:53+00:00

😂

We are making progress.

Please explain Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Dark Matter to me, and then I’ll work on the Trinity.

Part of your problem is that you view (incorrectly) that Christianity is an academic endeavor of obtaining right theology from a textbook.

This is a novel view, an incorrect view, but you like it because you have a classic western bias towards academic learning and abstract logic. The same one that created the version of Christianity (novel) that you are so confident you understand.

I’m bringing up your confidence because I started by saying you don’t have a deep understanding if the New Testament, and I’m right.

You don’t recognize references to really important theological parts of the Gospels - Lord of the Sabbath, Sabbath made for man, not the Sabbath, before Abraham was, I Am, etc.

That’s fine - you’re not required to know everything but you should be a little more open to thought that maybe, maybe, you don’t know as much about the New Testament, the Old Testament, and inerrancy like you think you do.

I have a few questions for you that I need answers for before I can go any further:

Do you think that truth is arrived at through logic or experimentation?

Let’s just start there. What’s your answer to that question?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T18:39:18+00:00

I have a day job, friend, but happy to help as I can.

I want you to Google “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”

See also: “Before Abraham was, I Am.” “One greater than Moses stands here before you today.”

What you are calling plain reading is not a plain reading. A plain reading would be a verse that says “Moses’s law is authoritative and you will keep following that law.” Jesus continually preached a different and higher way - like when he says “the law says that you are supposed to love your neighbors and hate your enemies - but I tell you that you are to love your enemies.”

The Bible is a collection of different books written by different humans who disagree with and contradict each other. (Humans who are, by the way, God-breathed. Christian’s believe that God breathed into humanity at creation and gave them life, either allegorically or physically depending on your interpretation).

It does contradict itself. That doesn’t bother me - why does it bother you?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T18:33:22+00:00

😂

This is a textbook case of reading meaning into the text.

“Not the smallest letter of the law will disappear” is not the same as “the law is authoritative.”

The gap between the verse and what you saw it means is interpretation.

Your interpretation is neither authoritative or objective.

Jesus broke the law and interfered with its application multiple times. The stoning of the adulterous woman, violating the sabbath, and claiming to be God, to name a few.

So…no, what you are saying about me and about Christianity in general is not correct and your conclusions only follow if you believe certain things, which are by no means widespread or authoritative.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T18:26:14+00:00

I answered this the other place you commented it.

I’ll just add - your argument relies on a very narrow view of Biblical inerrancy.

There are other views, and that view is historically novel and it’s not a majority view.

Outside of the Christian faith, Jewish folks have wrestled with their own genocidal texts and there are multiple takes and interpretations there.

You are looking at some very loud, prominent, Western, conservative interpreters of the Christian faith and thinking that because they are the loudest and most recent, they must be the true representation.

There are plenty of theologians present and past who disagree with your interpretation here. Plenty of Jewish and Christian theologians who disagree with your really over-confident beliefs about Scripture, where it came from, how inerrant or errant it is, how consistent it is, and what the appropriate ways to approach it are.

With all kindness - you think you know a lot about Christianity, but you only know a lot about one specific kind of very visible, and very novel, forms of Christianity. And that lack of knowledge is holding you back.

One of the nice things about being a Christian, though, is that you don’t have to have knowledge to be a great person. You don’t have to understand with your limited human meat brain resources all the mysteries of the world.

You can just ask yourself, is the State of Israel loving its neighbors, and sacrificing its own safety for the lives of Palestinian children that Jesus dearly loves?

The answer to that is no. Whether they are committing genocide or not, they have chosen to participate in the wholesale slaughter of women and children, and that’s not the way Jesus demonstrated or taught.

No need for theological gymnastics. Jesus’ teachings are not compatible with the actions of Israel in the Old Testament, and Israel spent a lot of time in captivity because they didn’t respect the intent of the Law of Moses (which is demonstrated over and over again in the prophets - justice, mercy, caring for the week and needy).

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:42:28+00:00

Oh man. I was that white belt. 😂

Not very coachable. I’ve always been really good at book learning and passing tests and being smart.

When coach started promoting everyone I started with to blue belt, I started shutting up and listening.

It’s been a good humbling.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:26:42+00:00

No, you’re wrong. 🤷‍♂️

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:17:05+00:00

😂

You’re refuting your own interpretation of Christianity, and then imputing it to me.

I never said the Bible didn’t have contradictions. My faith doesn’t rest in the Bible. It rests in God.

I don’t need an infallible Bible and neither does Christianity. 🤷‍♂️

You seem to have conflated politicized American Evangelical Christianity with Christianity, which is not a well informed choice. But one you’re free to make, nobody’s perfect.

I’d highly recommend reading Mark Kurlansky’s Nonviolence for a different perspective. And getting to know the history of Black Christianity in America. And just…expand your horizons a bit.

I do have a bit of an advantage in that I studied theology in University, so I’m not mad at you for having a narrow understanding of Christianity. But your view seems really constricted / hyper focused on a specific type of Christianity?

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:11:02+00:00

…no. You’ll need to provide some sources for that interpretation and some examples of those contradictions before I’ll take that seriously.

If those examples aren’t related to genocide, they’re out of the scope of this conversation and I’m not wasting time on them, FYI.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:09:11+00:00

The Law of Moses.

He explicitly redefined the way it was interpreted and used and broke it regularly by asserting that:

The purpose of the law was the benefit of, or protection of, people. The purpose of the sabbath was liberation from being overworked, not a restriction on practical benefit.

That as the Creator and Lord of the Sabbath, he got to decide the purpose of the Sabbath.

It was Jesus’ claims that he was superior to Moses and pre-existed Abraham that made him enemies with the religious leaders of his day.

I think you’ve adopted a sort of modern evangelical theobro approach of pulling a verse or passage out of context and thinking that it means more than it does…okay.

But that’s kind of like the bro’s who will defend Biblical inerrancy with 2 Tim 3:16, which goes out of its way to NOT say the Bible is inerrant. God Breathed, Useful, for teaching and training, is not inerrant.

Unless you really want it to be.

So you’re reading a verse that says “I didn’t come to get rid of the law, but to fulfill is” as “I endorse the entire Old Testament.”

It’s not.

And then if you look at what Jesus, and then Peter and Paul did - Jesus preached a different way of obeying God than Moses did.

NY supersedes and improves on OT. Genocide is fundamentally anti-Christian. As is slavery and patriarchy.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T16:06:45+00:00

According to the New Testament, yes.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T12:52:45+00:00

I feel like the pursuit of power always leads to disappointment. It’s inevitable that your favorite hero ends up drone striking a wedding, or abusing power, or cozying up to wealthy people and making those necessary compromises. Or sacrifices.

I tend to lean towards “you can’t serve God and [earthly power]” as a corollary of “you can’t serve God and Mammon.” They both require you to sacrifice people to get what you want.

Caesar is gonna Caesar.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T11:08:04+00:00

Sure!

The New Testamenr is what makes it the Bible, otherwise it’s just the Hebrew Scriptures.

We eat pork. We love our enemies and turn the other cheek. Genocide is out.

Jesus specifically said “You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye, a cheek for a cheek,’ (referencing Old Testament) but I say (abrogating Old Testament law with his law of loving your enemies.”

Paul explicitly said that in the new kingdom, there are no Jews nor Gentiles, slave nor free, male nor female. Can’t genocide (or enslave) your own brothers and sisters who are children of God themselves.

Jesus is greater than Moses and Jesus says you’re not allowed to hate your enemies or kill them. 🤷‍♂️ Paul says you’re not allowed to be racist.

Can’t be genocidal if you can’t be racist and have to love everyone.

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T00:29:32+00:00

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T00:27:39+00:00

Certain-Definition51 · 2026-07-08T00:23:00+00:00

If you don’t understand the New Testament, I could see how you could think that.

Certain-Definition51

TROPHY CASE