Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[chimp3]

Atlas: What would Allah do without you? How would he get his message clearly stated?

[Brian37]

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 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.

Prove the Hindu Vedas aren't true.
Prove Buddha's writings were not true.
Prove Thor does not make lightening.

We DON'T CARE what your personal interpretation is now. IN ALL OF ANTIQUITY  children were seen as PROPERTY, especially females. Your Koran is nothing but a spin off, the 3rd version of the God/s of Abraham in any case. 

Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, polytheists in general, EVERYONE back then treated children and females as PROPERTY. 

Our modern view of children and females is relatively recent and nothing like what the ignorant humans thought back then.

But and unfortunately even today, there are right wing conservatives in EVERY RELIGION that will use their holy writings and leaders based on old mythology, REGARDLESS of what you think or wish to justify treating children and females as property.

[Banned]

No; it is when the context is about taking "wives".

Do you want it to condone pedophilia?

[John V]

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.

Incorrect. The text isn't abominable as it stands. People in this thread are adding to the text to make it so.

---

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

you know what an analogy is, right? Oh, no, apparently you don't.

[vulcanlogician]

Incorrect. The text isn't abominable as it stands. People in this thread are adding to the text to make it so.

IDK, man. Keeping young women and girls for yourself as the spoils of war is pretty fucked up. Now, I understand that all primitive cultures behaved this way. (In one sense, it's not as deplorable as it seems. And child marriage is in no way particular to Judeo-Christian society.) But you have to admit: doing something like that in modern times would be inexcusable.

We, as a society, have become more morally developed. We would never do such a thing.

But at the same time, it says something about "getting your morals from the Bible."

We can do better than the the Bible.

Some Christians claim that "modern society is permeated by sin"... bullshit. We've stamped out slavery, we no longer practice child marriage, and made a number of other moral progresses as a people. If someone said that they got their morality from the Bible and only from the Bible... quite frankly, they'd scare me. And I bet (if they really and truly only got their morality from the Bible) they'd scare you too...

[Brian37]

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

Incorrect. The text isn't abominable as it stands. People in this thread are adding to the text to make it so.

---

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

you know what an analogy is, right? Oh, no, apparently you don't.

BULLSHIT....

"captive" 

When the allies defeated Germany and Japan, we didn't keep their females as forced brides. 

You are STILL not getting it. THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW.

In the war of antiquity, it was very common to defeat your enemy and take their children and females as either slaves or brides. 

I could give a shit less if you want to stupidly try to water it down after the fact, but even as an "analogy" what kind of morality is that? Can I beat you up and say force your mother or sister to marry me? 

What if Batman or Superman had that motif as part of a plot of a Hollywood movie?

I am sorry dude, but there is no good way to put lipstick on a pig.

That was the literal reality in antiquity WORLDWIDE. Because humans didn't know any better and men stupidly thought brawn was right and they were the king of their household.

That was common even with the Ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians.

Jews and Muslims and Christians didn't change that.

Our modern western views of females are BECAUSE of technology and education allowing children to have the space to grow up. It was because of human empathy not old mythology that we have moved away from treating other human beings like property.

When you get caught selling a bad idea, it suddenly goes from literal to "analogy" or "metaphor". Nope sorry, the further back in time you go, the more literal humans take their holy writings.

[Banned]

We can do better than the the Bible.

The French revolution tried that and it back fired after a few years.

"The Bible and the French Revolution" Chapter 15
"The Great Controversy."

The French revolution was the birthplace of modern atheism.

[vulcanlogician]

Did you not read the rest of my post, Banned? What about slavery? Isn't it good that we got rid of it? And we didn't do it because the Bible commanded it. We did it because we realized it was wrong to own other human beings. There are some good moral principles in the Bible, I'll grant you that. But there are also good moral principles OUTSIDE the Bible too. That's all I'm saying.

[Brian37]

We can do better than the the Bible.

The French revolution tried that and it back fired after a few years.

"The Bible and the French Revolution" Chapter 15
"The Great Controversy."

The French revolution was the birthplace of modern atheism.

 I agree our modern enlightenment did stem from many French figures, but that didn't make Napoleon a nice guy, nor did it make Stalin a nice guy. 


There were many European and American colonists during that time that helped set the stage for our modern views yes. But that didn't make everything they said or did as leaders good.

One figure from France of that time I learned about was this guy. Atheist historians often point to him as being a very important figure in the history of skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

The church of France at the time was so scared of him, that when he died they hid his body, nobody knows where but allegedly under a church.

---

Did you not read the rest of my post, Banned? What about slavery? Isn't it good that we got rid of it? And we didn't do it because the Bible commanded it. We did it because we realized it was wrong to own other human beings. There are some good moral principles in the Bible, I'll grant you that. But there are also good moral principle OUTSIDE the Bible too. That's all I'm saying.

Everyone of every religion can point to motifs of empathy and compassion. That says to me our species behaviors are not in old mythology, but have always been in our genes.

Just like I think it is stupid for a sports star to chalk up a home run or touchdown to "lucky socks".

Of course the bible depicts ideas of compassion but so does the Koran and Vedas and Jewish OT and Buddhism. 

But that does not mean that is really where our species morality is coming from. It just means humans falsely attribute that to the religion they buy into.

Humans are certainly capable of compassion, I simply doubt where most humans think that is coming from.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whatever happened to the young girl slaves I'm willing to bet it wasn't the stuff of their dreams. /euphemism

It's easy to picture a priest telling the warriors that their war booty was theirs to do with as they wished.