Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[The Grand Nudger]

I think this a bad way to approach interfaith dialogue. To go after edge-cases.

Oh?  Gonna give god a mulligan on this one, huh? 

[WinterHold]

If someone thinks that an order from god morally justifies slaughtering a whole town, then I assume such a person would have some sympathy for ISIS. At worst, they are just taking orders from the “wrong god”.

I would have thought that any real god would either make sure to clear up all this misunderstanding and tell everyone in the world that they would never order slaughter; or else they just enjoy seeing people kill each other.

It's very contradictory too for a decent God to tell you "not to kill" today; then tell you to "kill" tomorrow.
Killing civilians is forbidden in the first place. So; the likes of ISIS are outlaws; even by the standards of what they claim to be their faith.

---

Thought we were still on the other issue.

The male children were killed to completely wipe out the practices being judged. I subscribe to an age of accountability doctrine, so I'd say they're in heaven now.

. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

How can you possibly convince me that "kill" here isn't "kill"?
and the little ones does not refer to children?
and the enslaving of women and female kids does not involve "rape" ?

Are you gonna say that it is "a metaphor" too ?

---

And again, they weren't sex slaves. They were wives. Their lovely mommies and daddies, when not busy burning babies, would have put them into arranged marriages - i.e., making them sex slaves to you.

In fact, their mommies were sex slaves, and their daddies were slavers.

. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

[url=http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#1][/url]
"Keep alive for yourselves" does not refer to marriage. Neither from linguistic or from contextual aspects.

---

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.

No. He is the kind of guy who would "follow blindly" what his society tells him.
In other words; our Muslims world is full of alternative versions of him with a Shiite or Sunni labels.

---

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

That was Moses's demand. The pharaoh brought it against himself with his evil acts.
Why would God guides a criminal like him?

---

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

Aaaannndddd...every thread about Christianity eventually turns to free will. 


If you actually read the account, you'd see that pharaoh hardened his heart himself, more than once, before God did so.

Totally agreed.

He brought it upon himself. Just like Hitler and other dictators.

[John V]

How can you possibly convince me that "kill" here isn't "kill"?
and the little ones does not refer to children?

Why would I try to convince you of that, as I didn't make that argument?

and the enslaving of women and female kids does not involve "rape" ?

As shown, the women became wives. They were not slaves. They were not raped, unless you take the position that arranged marriage is rape.

"Keep alive for yourselves" does not refer to marriage. Neither from linguistic or from contextual aspects.

I agree. The detailed rules specifying marriage are found in Deut. 21:10-14, as previously provided.

No. He is the kind of guy who would "follow blindly" what his society tells him.
In other words; our Muslims world is full of alternative versions of him with a Shiite or Sunni labels.

Just the opposite. Unlike you guys, I'm not the kind of guy who's quick to judge other cultures.

Yes, the idea of arranged marriage is foreign to me, as I didn't grow up in such a culture, but it's still the predominant custom in the world and was moreso in ancient times. I'm not so arrogant as to call all of that rape.

[WinterHold]

If he'd already hardened his heart himself, why did god have to even interfere?

It was a prayer for Moses:

Sura 10, The Quran:
( 88 )   And Moses said, "Our Lord, indeed You have given Pharaoh and his establishment splendor and wealth in the worldly life, our Lord, that they may lead [men] astray from Your way. Our Lord, obliterate their wealth and harden their hearts so that they will not believe until they see the painful punishment."

( 89 )   [Allah] said, "Your supplication has been answered." So remain on a right course and follow not the way of those who do not know."

( 90 )   And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity until, when drowning overtook him, he said, "I believe that there is no deity except that in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims."

( 91 )   Now? And you had disobeyed [Him] before and were of the corrupters?

Just like alpha said: the pharaoh brought it upon himself.

---

Actually, it's worse. Pharoah was all set to concede and set Moses et al free unconditionally. It took the perverse "god" to prevent that.

Yeah, I checked and I could find no evidence of him freely hardening his heart. God decided beforehand that he would.

When you do this:

Sura 28, The Quran:
( 4 )   Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.

( 5 )   And We wanted to confer favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors

then you are hardening your heart.

---

How can you possibly convince me that "kill" here isn't "kill"?
and the little ones does not refer to children?

Why would I try to convince you of that, as I didn't make that argument?

You just said:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53995-p...pid1722501
?
So you literally said that "and the little ones does not refer to children"; but refers to "wives at the age of puberty". Correct me if I am wrong.

and the enslaving of women and female kids does not involve "rape" ?

As shown, the women became wives. They were not slaves. They were not raped, unless you take the position that arranged marriage is rape.

Nothing was shown; TBH.
What shown is the biblical verse saying:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

In the best case scenario; this verse allows child marriage for Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

You must've meant to say "pharoah brought it on the firstborn of egypt."  You know, the little children.

[vulcanlogician]

Atheists used to get that ultimately morality is subjective.

Like, back in the day, atheists used to get that. Not any more! These kids and their new-fangled secular moral realism. Get off my damn lawn!  

What I wanna know is: what kind of Christian thinks morals are subjective? Aren't you supposed to be finding fault with that idea?

IDK, I'm confused by this whole discussion.

[John V]

[quote='alpha male' pid='1725946' dateline='1522321396']
You just said:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53995-p...pid1722501
?
So you literally said that "and the little ones does not refer to children"; but refers to "wives at the age of puberty". Correct me if I am wrong.

I didn't literally say either of those in the post you linked to. Please quote or link to the post you're referring to and I'll respond. It's a little difficult when I've been carrying on for pages with multiple other people and you come in and make a casual reference.

Nothing was shown; TBH.

TBH, the Deut 10 passage was shown.

In the best case scenario; this verse allows child marriage for Christians.

While to my knowledge there's no passage specifying a minimum age for marriage, I did provide a passage in which God makes an analogy of Israel to a growing female, and specifies that the age for love was after puberty had come.

---

What I wanna know is: what kind of Christian thinks morals are subjective? Aren't you supposed to be finding fault with that idea?

God's moral instructions are objective from a human POV, but in the end they're God's subjective rules. True objective morality would mean a set of rules apart from and above God Himself, which generally isn't what Christians mean when they're claiming objective morality. In the end, you come down to might makes right. God can enforce his views. People/angels can't.

[robvalue]

It can be both subjective and objective in different senses. It can be subjective in that I set up a moral framework, and then objective in that I give you a way of "measuring" morality using my framework that doesn't rely on making any judgements. For example, as a dead easy one, "everything is totally immoral".

[John V]

It can be both subjective and objective in different senses. It can be subjective in that I set up a moral framework, and then objective in that I give you a way of "measuring" morality using my framework that doesn't rely on making any judgements. 

Yes, I think vulcan is missing the bolded point. Various frameworks that are more or less objective can be devised, but it's subjective to choose one of those to live by.

[The Grand Nudger]

I love how magic book has the ability to turn the religious into moral subjectivists, even if they don't actually know what that means.

So what's next on the docket, alpha, denying christ thrice before the cock crows, perhaps?