Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[Brian37]

Ahhh...slavery, rape, and infanticide apologetics.  Three cornerstones of Christianity!

Alpha is so deeply indoctrinated he cannot grasp the concept that the way people thought and lived back then is completely different than how modern society does things.

He is also stupidly thinking this is about only his religion. He cannot grasp that the attitude towards females and war was COMPLETELY different WORLDWIDE.

He cannot grasp that even in Asia and Africa and India you followed the local ruling family. The male of that family was the dictator of that family. In war, when you defeated someene you not only took their possessions, you killed the adult males, and whomever you didn't such as kids and females were forced to do what you wanted regardless.

There was no word wide age of consent for females ANYWHERE in the world. If you were old enough to have a period, you were old enough to have sex and get married.Most of the time back then, the ADULTS of the families chose the husband for the female, she had no consent. 

 The concept of the education of females and letting them reach 18 did not exist in the ancient world.

Worldwide it was an age of ignorance of any modern understanding of human biology or human psychiatry. 

I am not sure if Alpha will ever get that, but I damned sure wish he would.

[LadyForCamus]

Ahhh...slavery, rape, and infanticide apologetics.  Three cornerstones of Christianity!

Alpha is so deeply indoctrinated he cannot grasp the concept that the way people thought and lived back then is completely different than how modern society does things.

He is also stupidly thinking this is about only his religion. He cannot grasp that the attitude towards females and war was COMPLETELY different WORLDWIDE.

He cannot grasp that even in Asia and Africa and India you followed the local ruling family. The male of that family was the dictator of that family. In war, when you defeated someene you not only took their possessions, you killed the adult males, and whomever you didn't such as kids and females were forced to do what you wanted regardless.

There was no word wide age of consent for females ANYWHERE in the world. If you were old enough to have a period, you were old enough to have sex and get married.Most of the time back then, the ADULTS of the families chose the husband for the female, she had no consent. 

 The concept of the education of females and letting them reach 18 did not exist in the ancient world.

Worldwide it was an age of ignorance of any modern understanding of human biology or human psychiatry. 

I am not sure if Alpha will ever get that, but I damned sure wish he would.

Willful ignorance.  His only other alternative is to reconcile with himself that his book of ‘perfect morality’ is reprehensible.

[Brian37]

Alpha is so deeply indoctrinated he cannot grasp the concept that the way people thought and lived back then is completely different than how modern society does things.

He is also stupidly thinking this is about only his religion. He cannot grasp that the attitude towards females and war was COMPLETELY different WORLDWIDE.

He cannot grasp that even in Asia and Africa and India you followed the local ruling family. The male of that family was the dictator of that family. In war, when you defeated someene you not only took their possessions, you killed the adult males, and whomever you didn't such as kids and females were forced to do what you wanted regardless.

There was no word wide age of consent for females ANYWHERE in the world. If you were old enough to have a period, you were old enough to have sex and get married.Most of the time back then, the ADULTS of the families chose the husband for the female, she had no consent. 

 The concept of the education of females and letting them reach 18 did not exist in the ancient world.

Worldwide it was an age of ignorance of any modern understanding of human biology or human psychiatry. 

I am not sure if Alpha will ever get that, but I damned sure wish he would.

Willful ignorance.  His only other alternative is to reconcile with himself that his book of ‘perfect morality’ is reprehensible.

He doesn't want to see that if a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Jew, tried to argue that the females of antiquity were treated equally back then, I'd call bullshit on anyone who tried that.

Humans lived in a Patriarchal climate back then. 

Certainly today more and more females worldwide are bucking their second class status and that is fantastic, but even today, you see pockets of sexism that still exist in every nation and in every religion. That sexism still festers because those sects, and individual families are still basing their social norms on the claims of antiquity.

We are not singling him out or his religion out merely by saying "That was then, this is now."

If he would study the history of ALL the worlds major religions and the history of sexism of EVERY religion, he'd understand this.

Even today in places like India and China blaming a rape victim instead of the male perp is still a huge problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe he's just the kind of guy who would round up everybody in the village, burn them in the house alive, and traipse off with their daughters?  If he thinks that's righteous and good, he thinks that's righteous and good.  

Elephant in the room, and all.

[Brian37]

Or maybe he's just the kind of guy who would round up everybody in the village, burn them in the house alive, and traipse off with their daughters?  If he thinks that's righteous and good, he thinks that's righteous and good.  

Elephant in the room, and all.

There simply is absolutely NO good way to square the verses he quoted in this thread to our modern view of females. I have no desire to have believers of any religion arrested or oppressed for holding on to the claims of antiquity, but it damned sure needs to be questioned.

If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

[John V]

They were Bad People™ is an ironic justification for abject immorality.

You haven't demonstrated immorality. Baby killers - not cutesy Bad People™ as you'd have it - were judged. Their daughters ended up in marriages with men they only knew for a brief time - the same thing that likely would have happened to them anyway.

Now, you're just telling me that the heebs went in and slaughtered sex slaves.  Captain save a ho to the rescue!  Except, well...not.

Is an arranged marriage sex slavery to you? If not, why not? 

I'll ask again, if you're okay with this in every particular, why do you have any need of justifying it whatsoever?

LOL - bringing in needs for the conversation shows complete desperation.

---

Ahhh...slavery, rape, and infanticide apologetics.  Three cornerstones of Christianity!

Do you think infanticide is evil and should be judged?

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't demonstrated immorality. Baby killers - not cutesy Bad People™ as you'd have it - were judged. Their daughters ended up in marriages with men they only knew for a brief time - the same thing that likely would have happened to them anyway.

Right, so lets burn their village to the ground and kill everyone and make off with the pretty young girls!

Is an arranged marriage sex slavery to you? If not, why not? 

Exactly, let's save them from the arranged marriages by slaughtering everyone they know and love and taking them home with us to be our wives™.  

LOL - bringing in needs for the conversation shows complete desperation.

I did suggest for the longest time that you didn't need the story or to justify it, didn't I?  Whose desperation could we be referring to here? 

It's okay for you to be okay with it so long as that's okay to you.  You can stop...you don;t have to keep stepping on your dick.  That's been your call from the word go.

[John V]

Right, so lets burn their village to the ground and kill everyone and make off with the pretty young girls!

The adults were evil to the point of burning their own babies alive and were judged.

The children killed went to heaven.

The women taken ended up as wives, not slaves. They would have been put into arranged marriages anyway, and in a culture in which they would have been expected to toss some of their babies into a fire.

All you have is appeal to emotion, which is mostly based on the fact that most readers here don't come from societies which practice arranged marriage.

Exactly, let's save them from the arranged marriages by slaughtering everyone they know and love and taking them home with us to be our wives™.  

It's not wives™, it's wives. The law was clear that these women became wives with full rights, and if divorced went free.

I did suggest for the longest time that you didn't need the story or to justify it, didn't I? 

Yes, it's a typical part of your sophistry.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why can;t you take yes for an answer, lol?

[LastPoet]

And the lord hardened the pharaoh's heart. So much for that free will.