"But what about the moderates?"

[simplemoss]

In 1895 deleware age of consent was 7 years old, it was mostly feminist movements in different states that raised it too 16 and 18 in the 20's

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform

And modern age of consent weren't generally recognized until 1962 when 55 UN nations signed universal age of consent laws. But even until 2004 Canada's age of consent was only 14.

---

Realize that you're slurring a bunch of guys with a very broad brush.

I think your confusing the fact that i said soldiers did it as if I'm saying "only" soldiers. I'm saying "even", respectable well trained educated us soldiers were doing it thats how COMMON it was. It was not just a bunch of hill people doing it the woods is what I'm saying

Too be fair it was probably occuring far less than the average person there was no "epidemic of soldiers marrying 13 year Olds"


Again too restate my point it was legal too marry a 7 years old in the USA as recently as 1895 is it really fair too call Mohammed a pedophile when he lived 1500 years ago. Also marriage didn't always mean sex it was common too marry a girl very young, years before.the couple would have sex especially amongst polygamist cultures

Also I'm pretty sure the virgin Mary wasn't over 18 should we now call god a pedophile??

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is what you said:

50 years ago it was common for ww2 soldiers in the USA TOO COME HOME AND TAKE 13 YEAR OLD BRIDES

I asked you to document that with data.

The only thing you've done is list Loretta Lynn's experience, and cite some laws permitting the marriage of young.

What you haven't done is support your claim. You haven't withdrawn it, either.

I don't care how fair or unfair anyone is being to Mohammed. I do care how unfair you're being to WWII veterans, and I'd like you to either support your claim, or disown it. I don't need references to laws 119 years old, or whatnot. To support your claim that it was common, you need to show some data.

My guess is that you don't have the data, you ran your mouth, and you don't want to admit it.

Prove me wrong.

[Vicki Q]

...
I probably need to make a similar resolution.

Evolution/death/Adam is an interesting issue. This really needs further thought for a proper answer. Clearly death has always been around. Off the top of my head, for Adam read humanity. Paul saw humanity being 'in Adam', hence dying, as one of the three problems mentioned, to which Jesus was the solution. Death clearly still goes on, but for the Xian, isn't more than a change of state. I, humanity, Adam, exist in a fallen world, in which death comes as standard. In the future, there will be no death, so I guess no evolution.

The NT order would more normally be considered- genuine Paul (50s), synoptic gospels (70+), then others coming somewhere in second part of C1. Revelation is end of C1.

The role of Israel is a vitally important point, and I'm going to try to focus only on this in the next post. We agree that in C1 Israel, there was very much an expectation that God would intervene to establish His kingdom.

However a bunch of Jews came to the conclusion that the covenant with Israel had been misread. That the problem went deeper than Israel getting free of the pagans. Israel's role had always been to free humanity, which would launch the creator's new world and new humanity in advance of 'the end'.

For example, although there had been that strange piece about the suffering servant, no-one had quite appreciated that this was the means that the Messiah was to accomplish Israel's task. When they reread the passages, it becomes obvious. The meaning of “In you shall all the nations of the world be blessed” promise to Abraham also became clear. This was read alongside passages about God becoming King, and the nations of the world subsequently rejoicing (Ps 96), and a whole set of other passages we can discuss if you like, and the penny dropped as to what had gone on.

God had done what He said he would do, and had sorted out the three problems. It had always been there in the OT, but what it meant when it happened hadn't been appreciated. There had always been a discussion about what it would look like when God returned to establish His kingdom. Now they knew.


I popped into the forum originally to engage with a Xmas issue, and was really surprised to find none. The Jewish meta-narrative above is far too interesting, so annoyingly I'm going to have to leave the Quirinius thing after:
a) Quirinius could have had two stints. Historians of the future may not believe Mourinho was at Real Madrid given his Chelsea employment times.
b) There's certainly plenty of room for alternative reconstructions. One of which may actually be true.
c) Given my line on historicity, 'whatever' is my thinking on this.
d) Most importantly- have another peek at my 'Missing Luke's point' thing.

And I know my resolution for 2015. Same as 2014.

---

Hey, Vicki, you might have forgotten this, but I haven't. I'd appreciate the courtesy of an answer to my point.

Apologies, but as I said in my reply to xpastor, experience has shown that engaging with one person properly is far better than trying to engage with several. I was already engaging with DeistPaladin.

[dyresand]

...
I probably need to make a similar resolution.

Evolution/death/Adam is an interesting issue. This really needs further thought for a proper answer. Clearly death has always been around. Off the top of my head, for Adam read humanity. Paul saw humanity being 'in Adam', hence dying, as one of the three problems mentioned, to which Jesus was the solution. Death clearly still goes on, but for the Xian, isn't more than a change of state. I, humanity, Adam, exist in a fallen world, in which death comes as standard. In the future, there will be no death, so I guess no evolution.

The NT order would more normally be considered- genuine Paul (50s), synoptic gospels (70+), then others coming somewhere in second part of C1. Revelation is end of C1.

The role of Israel is a vitally important point, and I'm going to try to focus only on this in the next post. We agree that in C1 Israel, there was very much an expectation that God would intervene to establish His kingdom.

However a bunch of Jews came to the conclusion that the covenant with Israel had been misread. That the problem went deeper than Israel getting free of the pagans. Israel's role had always been to free humanity, which would launch the creator's new world and new humanity in advance of 'the end'.

For example, although there had been that strange piece about the suffering servant, no-one had quite appreciated that this was the means that the Messiah was to accomplish Israel's task. When they reread the passages, it becomes obvious. The meaning of “In you shall all the nations of the world be blessed” promise to Abraham also became clear. This was read alongside passages about God becoming King, and the nations of the world subsequently rejoicing (Ps 96), and a whole set of other passages we can discuss if you like, and the penny dropped as to what had gone on.

God had done what He said he would do, and had sorted out the three problems. It had always been there in the OT, but what it meant when it happened hadn't been appreciated. There had always been a discussion about what it would look like when God returned to establish His kingdom. Now they knew.


I popped into the forum originally to engage with a Xmas issue, and was really surprised to find none. The Jewish meta-narrative above is far too interesting, so annoyingly I'm going to have to leave the Quirinius thing after:
a) Quirinius could have had two stints. Historians of the future may not believe Mourinho was at Real Madrid given his Chelsea employment times.
b) There's certainly plenty of room for alternative reconstructions. One of which may actually be true.
c) Given my line on historicity, 'whatever' is my thinking on this.
d) Most importantly- have another peek at my 'Missing Luke's point' thing.

And I know my resolution for 2015. Same as 2014.

if you think about it you need to sin otherwise jesus death would be for nothing. as the years go by peoples morality gets better making jesus death in first world countries for nothing. in third world countries if this is all true they need it more than first world countries. jesus death eventually would be for nothing as well the world is becoming more secular and a place of less crime.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, Vicki, you might have forgotten this, but I haven't. I'd appreciate the courtesy of an answer to my point.

Apologies, but as I said in my reply to xpastor, experience has shown that engaging with one person properly is far better than trying to engage with several. I was already engaging with DeistPaladin.

Very well. You'll understand, then, when I don't give your posts any consideration.

Communication is a two-way street.

[simplemoss]

This is what you said:

50 years ago it was common for ww2 soldiers in the USA TOO COME HOME AND TAKE 13 YEAR OLD BRIDES

I asked you to document that with data.

The only thing you've done is list Loretta Lynn's experience, and cite some laws permitting the marriage of young.

What you haven't done is support your claim. You haven't withdrawn it, either.

I don't care how fair or unfair anyone is being to Mohammed. I do care how unfair you're being to WWII veterans, and I'd like you to either support your claim, or disown it. I don't need references to laws 119 years old, or whatnot. To support your claim that it was common, you need to show some data.

My guess is that you don't have the data, you ran your mouth, and you don't want to admit it.

Prove me wrong.

I don't know what youd like me too prove asshole why dont u try finding an opposing argument my point is it was common too marry too children throughout all of human history and too denounce Mohammad as a pedophile just makes you look stupid because everyone married young girls back then, it makes you look petty and cheap and cowardly

is it funny too make jokes about the fictional character Mohammad yea, but its not a serious argument, its ajoke. So after listing 3 sources that apperently are not " good enough" for the great and powerful retard douchebag Parker's tans, why don't you start listing sources of your own that prove I'm wrong, why don't you try forming some kind of counter argument with sources???

The fact is you have no counter argument your just asking me too teach you a lesson whilst acting like a dickhead towards me for doing nothing wrong except being smarter than you

[Vicki Q]

OK, DeistPaladin hasn't replied, so I''l break for Xmas with a last post. But who to reply to?

Very well. You'll understand, then, when I don't give your posts any consideration.

Communication is a two-way street.

Oh, OK then. Sorry and all that.

...
And there are the mistaken scientific assumptions: Joshua commands the sun to stand still although it is the earth that moves. Far more chilling, it became obvious that the God of the Old Testament was a genocidal maniac. In dozens of passages God exhorts the Israelites to slay all of their enemies, men and women, children and infants.
...
A word about historiciyy. It is the view of modern critical scholars that few, if any, of the genocides narrated in the Bible actually happened. Rather they were patriotic lies concocted by the authors of the OT writing centuries after the supposed events. Of course that doesn't let Yahweh off the hook. He is represented as ordering genocides.
...

Bizarrely, I'm going to argue that the OT massacres maybe did happen to a limited extent. Total war has come and gone throughout history. In e.g. C19 and the beginning of the U.S. Civil war we had professional armies, but with e.g. WW2 Japan and the end of the U.S. Civil war attacking civilians was the thing. If you were a small tribe trying to take over land, you couldn't afford to leave too many of the defeated enemies alive because eventually they would attempt round 2. It made gruesome but logical sense to do ethnic cleansing.

In that respect, the OT reflects the reality of ancient warfare, in which too much 'morality' lead to national extinction. There is certainly a different feel between the God who ordered a massacre and the God who went to the cross as a suffering servant. However this perhaps reflects the development of the story, and the group of Jews who began Christianity had a clear picture of the continuity between the two, as the occasional 'history of Judaism' bits of the NT show.

I have heard it said that we learn more from the challenging bits of the Bible than the easy.

Thanks for sharing your story. I can see how the contradictions with science might create problems. I'm not sure they need to. For instance:

If sin entered the world with "humanity", for which Adam and Eve are symbolic representations, how did even the early stages of humanity evolve. Remember we have to go back to single cell organisms here. Evolution doesn't work without death and death didn't enter the world until sin but sin requires choice and choice requires a brain capable of understanding and making choice and that doesn't exist with single cell organisms which operate according to stimulus-response.

This was very perceptive, and gave me more thought than I've had for a while. Once again, we should not equate factuality with truth.

Paul obviously was unaware of modern science. One would like to take him to one side, update him, and ask him to express the teaching he was trying to get over within an evolutionary framework. I hesitate long to guess the outcome, but at a pure guess...

We exist in a flawed creation. Man is part of that creation, and death is part of our makeup. However Jesus was able to do what we flawed humans could not, and has inaugurated a new creation.

Or something snappier. But the 'contradiction' isn't a problem as such. I wonder if a relaxed view to biblical authority would have worked in your case?

Anyway, I wish you all a happy Winterfest..

[Whateverist]

Hey Vicki, yours is a perspective that interests me. Talk to whoever you like about whatever you like whenever you can.

But it would be interesting to get more back story to your point of view and how you came to it. You seem to trust your own evaluation more than most of the theists we get around here. Are you clergy or in training to be? Maybe you've already made an intro page?

[xpastor]

I wonder if a relaxed view to biblical authority would have worked in your case?

Anyway, I wish you all a happy Winterfest..

I don't think so. As I explained, I started off with a relaxed view—no problems with evolution for instance.

The problem is that there are critiques which are offered by the opposing parties in Christianity (fundamentalists and liberals). IMO each critique is valid on its own terms, and the result is mutual destruction. For the moment I will just look at the issue of morality and I will state the positions in the opposite order to which I experienced them in my own life.

Historically, the liberal critique started off by doubting the historicity of many parts of the Bible and then moved on to problems of incompatibility with scientific knowledge. However, in our time he liberal critique of conservative Christianity is that parts of the Bible are too repugnant to our modern moral outlook to be acceptable (e.g. Bishop Spong). I think this last point is undeniable whether we look at the barbaric laws of the OT like stoning a young woman if she cannot produce a bloody sheet after her marriage night or the innumerable calls to genocide. Undoubtedly indiscriminate slaughter was common in warfare among primitive peoples, but it matters not a bit whether the genocides actually happened or not.* The point is that God himself is represented as commanding them. Not just killing all of the enemy fighting men but for instance killing "all the Amalekites, men and women, children and nursing infants" plus sheep, oxen, donkeys and camels. (1 Sam 15). Or killing all the men women and male children but keeping for yourselves all the virginal girls (as sex-slaves)—Num 31. Or bashing out the brains of a Babylonian baby—Ps. 119.

The conservative critique of the liberal position is very simple. You liberals say that you believe in Jesus as your savior. Where did you learn that? Was it not from the Bible? How then do you distinguish the true parts of the Bible from the false? If you are honest, you will admit that it's really just a feeling in your gut. If the Bible teaches morality, then surely it is all in force, for instance, God must attach more importance to pre-marital chastity than you liberals seem to do. Of course the fundies ignore much of the truly objectionable material in the OT and find ways (covenant theology) to weasel out of the harsher proscriptions, substituting disapprobation of pre-marital sex for stoning. Except of course for the dominionist sect, who want to make America a theocracy with the entire corpus of OT moral law in effect—stoning for apostasy or for Sabbath-breaking, etc. etc.

* On the issue of historicity I take the conclusions of Finkelstein and Silberman in The Bible Unearthed to be fairly authoritative. According to them archaeology shows that there never was a sojourn in Egypt and consequently no wandering in the desert and no conquest of the land of Israel. The early Israelites were pastoralists on the fringes of the land, and they drifted in when the earlier inhabitants abandoned their farms and towns. If there were any genocides, they were a good deal less extensive than the Bible records. The OT represents David as a mighty king with over a million fighting men. Not so, say F & A. He was a hill-top chieftain (like a medieval Scottish clan chief) centered on Jerusalem and having at best 10,000 subjects.

[Minimalist]

Once again, we should not equate factuality with truth.

That is quite probably the silliest thing I've ever seen any theist write and we have had some doozies around here.