Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[Rev. Rye]

Sheep trying to justify the actions of wolves. Love it!

To be fair, Beta Boy does have a point, that this is less about fucking little girls and more about taking cities, and leaving none alive but the girls young enough to not already be married, usually enslaving them, with many becoming full-fledged wives. Of course, the girls who weren't married tended to be pretty damn young, but I don't think that age itself was the factor in why they were kept alive (which would be pedophilia), and I highly doubt they understood pedophilia in anywhere near the same way we understand it.

If this is any different from what many other such tribes were doing in the Bronze age, it's probably because some civilizations didn't even spare the girls. That said, this verse is still a case study in why the Bible is simply not something we can take at face value as a guide to life today, because while some tidbits still ring true after two or three millennia (most of which can be found in other religions anyway), there's still so much that simply cannot apply because the situations then and now have changed that goddam much.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, not an option for True Believers like Alpha or Atlas...they need to somehow make it right, because god either commands or condones it, explicitly, in their magic books. That's how we end up with the hilarious shit in this thread where one sticks his head in the sand and the other tries to pull our legs about it not being what it plainly was.

Captive taking is ubiquitous in human history. All the way across the ocean some native american tribes held captive talking to be the highest display of military prowess..far more difficult than killing. In some instances, captives were used to replenish numbers..with a captive assuming the name and property (and even family..wife and kids...or husband and kids - or their analogs) of a dead or missing member...or..you know, given the option to be boiled or sacrificed or ransomed or what have you.

Most probably chose to take on the new name and responsibilities, just like a little girl who watched some asshole brutally murder her entire family might decide that getting raped forever by her captor (or whomever she was sold as temp service too) was preferable to death.

[Brian37]

I don't need to go that far to draw the same conclusion.  It's clear that they differentiated between women who had lain with a man and those who hadn't because the former were not considered suitable for marriage (if I'm not mistaken, taking them as wives would be adultery).  So the distinction clearly indicates that they were taking them to be wives.  Whether it's enslave and immediately fuck, or enslave and later fuck is irrelevant; they were being taken for the purpose of being fucked, plain and simple.

I take it you haven't both been married and just been fucked, because there's a huge difference between the two. In my case a 30-year and 3-child difference.

The women taken, even if of marriageable age, couldn't be touched for 30 days. They lived in the prospective husband's house during this time. After 30 days, they could be taken as wives, with full rights as wives. And they wouldn't have to burn any of their babies alive, which was common in the culture they were taken out of. If it didn't work out they could be divorced, but upon divorce they were free and could not be treated as slaves. 

Deut 21
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Here's the Strong's entry on "woman" from verse 11. Click on the links to other uses in the OT (Mostly translated as wife or woman) and you'll see it doesn't refer to children.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H802&t=KJV

Holy crap. Really? 

Dude, a "woman" to the men of antiquity was considered upon their first period. Don't try to claim your book of mythology is better on the subject. That verse is condoning FORCED MARRIAGE in any case by virtue of the words "take them captive". And just like black slavery really doesn't make it that much better if you keep them for a while then let them go. Taking someone "captive" in the first place, today is called KIDNAPPING. 

This verse is justifying kidnapping and rape.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where in the Quran or the OT does it say not to have sex with children?

[John V]

Where in the Quran or the OT does it say not to have sex with children?

The OT doesn't say it directly. But, in Ezekiel, there's an analogy of Israel as a growing female:

Ezekiel 16
5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.

6 “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.

8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

So, the age for love is after puberty has arrived.

[Edwardo Piet]

When I read such passages, I assume that they waited until any girls below marriageable age reached such age.

So, basically, you added your own text in, in an attempt to make your favorite abominable book seem less abominable to you. Noted.

[Brian37]

Where in the Quran or the OT does it say not to have sex with children?

The OT doesn't say it directly. But, in Ezekiel, there's an analogy of Israel as a growing female:

Ezekiel 16
5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.

6 “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.

8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

So, the age for love is after puberty has arrived.

Bullshit. AGAIN, none of that meant over the age of 18. Females can get pubic hair as early as 10 and they can also show breasts in their early teens. You cannot retrofit our modern views of females in the west to the interpretations of the humans back then.

AND again the DEUT verse you posted PRIOR has condoned taking females "captive". 

Deut 21

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand AND YOU TAKE THEM CAPTIVE". <------KIDNAPPING, wrongful imprisonment. 

"And she shall take off the clothes IN WHICH SHE WAS CAPTURED". <----- No consent, in the word "CAPTURED".

"After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife."


So after she is CAPTURED the male can force her to marry her. There is no way you can take that out of context.

Now you want to claim that this is metaphor for an entire nation? BULLSHIT, neither of those verses where talking about a nation, but rules on how to treat females as prizes of war. 



Now go up read what I quoted, then read your full quote below.

"Deut 21

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where in the Quran or the OT does it say not to have sex with children?

The OT doesn't say it directly. But, in Ezekiel, there's an analogy of Israel as a growing female:

Ezekiel 16
5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.

6 “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.

8 “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine.

So, the age for love is after puberty has arrived.

True, if you're going to fuck an entire country. 

---

When I read such passages, I assume that they waited until any girls below marriageable age reached such age.

So, basically, you added your own text in, in an attempt to make your favorite abominable book seem less abominable to you. Noted.

All religious people have to either add or subtract from the holy texts. They're vile when taken en toto.

[robvalue]

"What God really means is this..."

I'm always amazed by the arrogance of this, as well as the implication that God needs help to communicate properly.

[WinterHold]

Islam for forbade Muslims from having sex without marriage.
For any contract to be legally justified in Islam -and marriage is one of the contracts-, the person must be at or above puberty.

This concept was alien to non-Muslims before the modern era, but it was a religious sentence in every Muslims society, enforced by the Quran.

---

Verses that prove that from the Quran as I asked.

Atlass, that is YOUR modern interpretation. 

Puberty does not mean over 18. Puberty means for females their first period. Girls have their periods long before the age of 18. 

BACK THEN in most of antiquity WORLDWIDE girls were bartered between families 

Child brides were very common in antiquity. Your ignoring that doesn't change that fact.

I never said 18 or 19. The sources -the ancient ones- said so; see this article from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on the more detailed information available about her sister Asma estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen at the time of her marriage.[28]

In American and western middle/high-schools, teens have sex as early as they hit "puberty". It is not pedophilia as it seems when a teen boy gets a 14 years old girl pregnant. Still; ancient sources said that she was perhaps 19 or 17; so why cherry picking the other opinion that says she was a child?

---

People who worship glass paedophile prophets shouldn't throw stones.

The Bible is an absolutely vile book, you'll get no argument here. But I'm wondering if you've ever read the Quran. By my estimation, it's even worse. I don't know how anyone can defend either.

From what I hear...

Oh; so you didn't read it by yourself??
Who did you listen to then, to criticize what you never analyzed by yourself? Sam Harris ? :p

---

On the subject of taking captives for sexual slavery both magic books are equal.  God's cool with it.

Prove with a verse from the Quran; Khem.

I want explicit direct command like the ones in the OP.

---

The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

Where magic book condones taking captives for sexual slavery.  On this count, their magic book and your magic book are in agreement.  Conquered peoples may be taken as captives into slavery, and slaves may be used for the purpose of sex.  

I demand verses from the Quran; explicit and direct that orders early Muslims to take sex slaves.

---

On the subject of taking captives for sexual slavery both magic books are equal.  God's cool with it.

Yep, but to be fair, taking children as slaves or wives was common throughout the world in antiquity, even in Asia and India. Even with the Ancient Egyptians and ancient Romans and Greeks.

This stems from the idea of "divine right" of the local ruler. Children and especially females were considered to be ruled over by men, not to be considered equal in the modern western context. 

Even Buddhism is Patriarchal, there has never been a female Dali Lama, just like there has never been a female Pope.

Our modern view of children and females is relatively new to our species history.

Islam ended that. That's why early heathens thought following it will make them lose land and wars.

Sura 28, The Quran:
( 56 )   Indeed, [O Muhammad], you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided.
( 57 )   And they say, "If we were to follow the guidance with you, we would be swept from our land." Have we not established for them a safe sanctuary to which are brought the fruits of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know.

---

A book is its language and vocabulary that is translated into meanings. A false vocabulary will produce false meanings.
The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

In other words; I would expect an awkward silence and a huge increase in the cases of bullying, pedophilia & women abuse if I used the current bible's vocabulary to bring my kids up.


Where is that in the Quran? where are the direct explicit vocabulary that tells Muslims, to butcher whole towns and keep "their little ones for themselves"?

What does it matter?  What’s your point?  That your book is slightly less gross than the Bible on one particular subject?  Good for you, I guess...?  I wouldn’t exactly call that a ‘win’.

No. That the Bible was once a pure book, just like the Quran.
Jesus -peace be upon him- was a real prophet. I bow to him in respect, love and loyalty. Just like I do to Mohammed and Moses.

But the early Church, and early treason corrupted the faith, both the Jewish and the Christian, and produced to us a porn book mutated from the original holy book.

The same is happening with Muslims and "Hadith".

Christians who follow the Bible only, are not following God's word. They are following the word of "Luke" and his guys. Just like the Sunni/Shiite Muslims who follow the Hadith.

The last pure holy book is the Quran. The Bible and the Torah are damaged beyond repair now; Jesus is dead, Mohammed is dead, Moses is dead.
Nobody remained.

---

I don't need to go that far to draw the same conclusion.  It's clear that they differentiated between women who had lain with a man and those who hadn't because the former were not considered suitable for marriage (if I'm not mistaken, taking them as wives would be adultery).  So the distinction clearly indicates that they were taking them to be wives.  Whether it's enslave and immediately fuck, or enslave and later fuck is irrelevant; they were being taken for the purpose of being fucked, plain and simple.

I take it you haven't both been married and just been fucked, because there's a huge difference between the two. In my case a 30-year and 3-child difference.

The women taken, even if of marriageable age, couldn't be touched for 30 days. They lived in the prospective husband's house during this time. After 30 days, they could be taken as wives, with full rights as wives. And they wouldn't have to burn any of their babies alive, which was common in the culture they were taken out of. If it didn't work out they could be divorced, but upon divorce they were free and could not be treated as slaves. 

Deut 21
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Here's the Strong's entry on "woman" from verse 11. Click on the links to other uses in the OT (Mostly translated as wife or woman) and you'll see it doesn't refer to children.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H802&t=KJV

This chapter was given to the Jews before entering the holy land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy

Chapters 1–30 of the book consist of three sermons or speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, shortly before they enter the Promised Land

But the verses you bring are from the Book of Numbers; which is also about the Israelites taking the land:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Numbers

The task before them is to take possession of the Promised Land.

? Don't you see the contradiction here?
A book orders the followers to rape children; while the other orders them to "treat slaves good".

And you have cherry-picked what you like from them. What is the use of a book so contradicted?

I think the Quran foretells the real scenario here:

Sura 2, The Quran:
( 58 )   And [recall] when We said, "Enter this city and eat from it wherever you will in [ease and] abundance, and enter the gate bowing humbly and say, 'Relieve us of our burdens.' We will [then] forgive your sins for you, and We will increase the doers of good [in goodness and reward]."
( 59 )   But those who wronged changed [those words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them, so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying.

You see my point?
Where is God's command in this mess?

---

There's also a waiting period in islam, laid out in the quran...and a man who took a slave as a wife was expected to secure her release from her owners if and when he could make the payment.  All of the children (if there were children between them) would be free by virtue of the father's status as a free man.  Or, at least...that;s what the quran said they should do.  That wasn;t the reality of sexual slavery in the caliphate...and sex was the main driver -for- slavery within islamic society...rather than labor..the more common reason to take a slave in the west.  Right behind that was military service.  Slave armies capturing female slaves for purposes of prostitution....lol.

(they got more than a month, btw...and this was largely to answer any paternity questions..or suspicions on virgin status - the whole reason that aisha was said to be so young was probably just to establish that she was a virgin, lol)

? at least prove it with a verse.