pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What?!  Why would the prisoners assume the warden is a bad person?  What are you talking about?  Analogy FAIL.

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

As the resident "person who has been in prison", I can answer this one:

No, prisoners do not assume the Warden is immoral. Indeed, a good vs a bad Warden can make all the difference in the world in how the inmates are treated, and all they expect from the Warden is that (s)he do the job with equanimity and be fair when enforcing rules that A) make sense and B) are enforced equally.

It's not a question of whether no one will judge that Warden, but whether or not prisoners will assume the Warden to be immoral simply because he is in control of them. It's an easy assumption to make, if you don't know jack about the prison environment, but the only way prisoners give a crap about the Warden is if he is known for having vague rules that are arbitrarily and/or unfairly enforced. If the Warden is indeed immoral (and many are!), then the prisoners will judge on that basis, based upon the actions and stated policies of that individual.

In other words, your argument is moot. We're pointing out that per the Warden's own stated policies, per your analogy here, Warden God is a deeply immoral being who is unfit to hold the position, and certainly unfit to be respected.

As for your citation of the Judaism website, it's clear that the person who wrote that summary is glossing over what was actually stated in the verses. Being a Rabbi does not make one invulnerable to whitewashing via apologetics. The literal translation of the verse, despite the phrase "of a dog", is very clear in its reference to not allowing prostitutes (male or female), or the money earned by same, into the Temple. It has nothing to do with marriage contracts, and to claim it is would be dishonesty-- smoke-and-mirrors.

The point people are making with the "50 sheckels" isn't whether or not there's a penalty at all for rape, but that the money (we'll take your figure of a year's salary as accurate, for the sake of this argument) goes to the father of the victim. In other words, it's a civil penalty in a country that gives out the Death Penalty for free speech crimes (blasphemy, talking back to parents, etc.), making it obvious that the only value of a woman in that culture--which you claim is based on the Eternal Morality of Gawd--is her financial value to the man who "owns" her. We, using our modern (or "pop") moral system which actually values women as equal to men, find this morally abhorrent.

Your ability to justify a law which treats rape as a civil action rather than a criminal one is why we find YOU morally abhorrent.

[Athene]

Would it even bother you if it is in there? All morality is shit, isn't it? 
ATONEMENT is what matters...nothing else.

Why sweat it?

where did i say nothing else matters?

I said your morality is not an absolute, its a variable. God is an absolute not a variable. The problem being you can not judge an absolute against a changing variable.

Okay. But you didn't answer the question. 
Would it bother you? If you found that your God had indeed authorized or sanctioned such a thing, would you consider that act to be bad or wrong?

A straightforward answer would be appreciated, but I understand that providing one might take more than you're able to give; house of cards and all that jazz. Whatever it takes to hold it together.

Avoid the question if you must.

[Drich]

The above statement is a strawman and a complete evade of what i just said. do you want to address what I said or segway into this somehow? what about a concession.. Because your current response does not address what I've said here or have been saying in any way shape or form.

It is in no way a stawman. I have highlighted a stance you have expressed in many, many threads to underline how many people this supposedly transcendent morality eludes. Atheists and theists alike.
From your perspective you have the "perfect" morality at your finger tips. Your interpretation is the correct one and it eludes almost everyone else. 
How do you explain this morality not being so apparent to your fellow theists? Is that all self-righteousness too? Brave choice of words by the way.

I understand that line of reasoning might potentially lead to some unsettling questions and I apologize for any discomfort you may feel... but do not accuse me of evasion when I am directly addressing the issue and do not cry "strawman" when I cite views you have expressed in the past.
Its obvious, desperate and embarrassing for everyone. I have little patience for it.

Do you really need me to hold your hand through what I have said sport? I have been accused of making this to simple, of having too simple of an explanation or take on my world view or even my theology, i often do not point out that the reason I have to do this is for people like you. People who have been 'winning' atheist arguments so long they think they can breeze through all of hem with their typical off the shelf fair. Even as simple as my wording is this all seem either way too complex a topic for you to grasp or you aren't even bother reading the threads you so desperately want to be made a fool in.

It's real simple, as per the study I did in the book of Romans and as i have pointed out several times in this thread already... Every single Jesus Christ centered Religion is 'right' and wrong in what it believes at the same time. How does my 'stance' incorporate conflicting views?

As I have pointed out several times now, that in Romans Paul teaches in this freedom we find in atonement, we have the freedom to bind ourselves in the law any way we like, or we have the freedom to live completely part from it.
Jesus Himself also supports this idea in this statement: "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will also be loosed in Heaven." Paul said "What ever you think a sin, (Even if it is not) for you it is a sin. Even though the Law may have freed us from it.

This means if you want to be a Methodist, and and yourselves with Methodist rule then by obtaining the atonement offered one is free to do so, and CAN be found righteous by Christ. Just like a Catholic or a Baptist, or any non denominational people... What will really blow your mind (if you can see all of this from where you will be standing) will be those who 'the church' would identify as 'non Christian' will also be counted among the saved! How can this be? Real simple. It's not what we do that makes us Christian. It what Christ did. Meaning Christ and Christ alone gets to decide who is and is not Christian. He has already told us many who think they are Christian are not, and we have 2/3's of our bible gives us examples of people who aren't that will indeed be there and ahead of anyone in the gentile church.

So tell me again about who should be embarrassed or who should be feeling 'discomfort' for his failure of basic comprehension, not only of the topic but of the term strawman and it's correct usage.

Just one more question ralphie.. Do you like apples?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hardly mind blowing, the god you describe is an immoral incompetent.... and so I don't expect there to be any consistency or sense to it's doling out of reward or condemnation...... or even who gets to sit in which seat on a bus, in the first place.

I bet it would really twist your panties if you woke up in heaven and found me sitting next to you.

[Drich]

But again, Morality is an act or deed we do or do not do... The atonement offered is what Christ/God did on the cross. We had nothing to do with this as we donot did not bring about our own atonement. How is atonement another form of morality?

Oh bullshit, Drich.  Your response to sin is to shuck off your responsibilities in this world for belief in a solution by magic.  That is what you suggest we do and it's immoral.  You can judge the morality of such a system.  And your god's standard is only absolute in the sense that it doesn't change.  That's dogma, not a code of morals, as evidenced by Christians moving away from it over time.  Exactly what is or is not moral is not defined by a biblical set of laws; nor is what requires a response defined by such a code.  That's just the primitive pop morality of a primitive people.  No god involved.

Who said I am shucking responsibilities?

The atonement is only 1/2 of what I said.

The other half does include behavior modification.

The modification is not the cause of our righteousness, it is the effect of putting on the righteousness/atonement of Christ. The bible/Gospel is not a call to work a certain way to obtain 'morality' (for the lack of a better term) It is how to obtain the Righteous of Christ for ourselves and once we are clothed or put on the righteousness of Christ we naturally change or at first start pushing in that direction.

Now where morality differs from this is if we want sin or cant stop sinning morality/self righteousness changes the status of God's sin and makes it ok. so that we can be 'good people' and not feel bad about anything. Homosexuality is a good example of that.

 The Gospel would have us identify the sin and let it remain a sin, and seek atonement. Now does this change who we are before God? No. we are still sinners who have always fallen short and always will fall short of His Righteousness, if we are judged BY OUR OWN ACTIONS. But the thing is, it's not our (christian) actions He Judges. It's whether or not we accepted Christ. If we have, the bonus is we will change and be more Christ like, not because we have to.. it's because when we are fill with the Spirit it pours out of us. Will we be sinless? no. Paul himself says he did not stand a chance no matter how much he prayed/tried. Does this mean we will not owe a debt to society if we break a law? No again paul was jailed many times doing what God wanted, but it violated man's law, he was even ultimately executed because of his work.

What this ultimately means is we are not all judged by the artificial standards you want to place on everything. a standard so corrupt you all have no idea how corrupt it really is till a society stronger than your society kicks your asses and tells you how wrong/evil you all were. That yes while some of us put on morality as the rules that bind us to soceity, we all do not have to live that way.

[Drich]

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

As the resident "person who has been in prison", I can answer this one:

No, prisoners do not assume the Warden is immoral. Indeed, a good vs a bad Warden can make all the difference in the world in how the inmates are treated, and all they expect from the Warden is that (s)he do the job with equanimity and be fair when enforcing rules that A) make sense and B) are enforced equally.

It's not a question of whether no one will judge that Warden, but whether or not prisoners will assume the Warden to be immoral simply because he is in control of them. It's an easy assumption to make, if you don't know jack about the prison environment, but the only way prisoners give a crap about the Warden is if he is known for having vague rules that are arbitrarily and/or unfairly enforced. If the Warden is indeed immoral (and many are!), then the prisoners will judge on that basis, based upon the actions and stated policies of that individual.

In other words, your argument is moot. We're pointing out that per the Warden's own stated policies, per your analogy here, Warden God is a deeply immoral being who is unfit to hold the position, and certainly unfit to be respected.

As for your citation of the Judaism website, it's clear that the person who wrote that summary is glossing over what was actually stated in the verses. Being a Rabbi does not make one invulnerable to whitewashing via apologetics. The literal translation of the verse, despite the phrase "of a dog", is very clear in its reference to not allowing prostitutes (male or female), or the money earned by same, into the Temple. It has nothing to do with marriage contracts, and to claim it is would be dishonesty-- smoke-and-mirrors.

The point people are making with the "50 sheckels" isn't whether or not there's a penalty at all for rape, but that the money (we'll take your figure of a year's salary as accurate, for the sake of this argument) goes to the father of the victim. In other words, it's a civil penalty in a country that gives out the Death Penalty for free speech crimes (blasphemy, talking back to parents, etc.), making it obvious that the only value of a woman in that culture--which you claim is based on the Eternal Morality of Gawd--is her financial value to the man who "owns" her. We, using our modern (or "pop") moral system which actually values women as equal to men, find this morally abhorrent.

Your ability to justify a law which treats rape as a civil action rather than a criminal one is why we find YOU morally abhorrent.

You know I use prison analogies just for the opportunity to push your buttons right? and like a Swiss watch you keep near perfect time.

While I'm sure your an expert on what goes one behind closed cell room doors.. at night.. But, unless you spent time in a 23 hour lock down for 20 years I'm going to have to ask you to put your prison card back in your... where ever they make you keep it. the analogy I used was place on a shelf above your pay grade.

I got to hear the other side of things. My dad spent 15 years? maybe 20 as a teacher/guard/program director, and while he was in a min security area most of the time, they did have 'lock down' and he even had the power to send inmates there. those he sent to lock down (especially those he sent away for weeks at a time for stupid stuff) defiantly thought him 'immoral.'

The deal was though he knew certain people did not play well with others, and while "I maybe sitting on to of a keg of dynamite if I pull the fuse out, and get rid of it, me and everyone else is safe." (Till it all blows up in your face.)
so he looked hard at certain people to violate them, and send them away in an effort to pull the fuse. I can promise you those people who had their freedoms all taken away and put in a hole 23 hours aday for weeks on end (As per my original senerio, and not your wonderful life experience) did not see him as a moral person. Despite the reasons and relative safety he bought with his actions to personnel and inmate alike.

[Drich]

where did i say nothing else matters?

I said your morality is not an absolute, its a variable. God is an absolute not a variable. The problem being you can not judge an absolute against a changing variable.

Okay. But you didn't answer the question. 
Would it bother you? If you found that your God had indeed authorized or sanctioned such a thing, would you consider that act to be bad or wrong?

A straightforward answer would be appreciated, but I understand that providing one might take more than you're able to give; house of cards and all that jazz. Whatever it takes to hold it together.

Avoid the question if you must.

nupe.

Why you ask?

Glad you asked, whew we could have a mess if you chose to just blindly respond.

Any the why is simple really, i do not assign 'moral value' on any action. As my thread points out we can justify absolutely anything if enough of the people in a given society want it. so to say this is moral or that is not is simply to parrot back what people want your responsibility to society to be. Which is cool, fine whatever.If you live in a society we must have rules. now if the proclivities of society is to exploit a section of society that need protection then yes I'm all for that. However, that does not mean their is an inherent evil that needs to be associated to a given soceitial law or even immorality.

Again slavery is a good example. Now without a doubt in society it is illegal to own a slave and also immoral to even endorse it. Yet this society can not exist without them and a lot of them. Our whole economy still works of slave labor/cheap goods. So in society rather than admit this principle found in every single human society that is or has ever existed. 'we' pretend to be better. But we have a problem, we still have slaves. so what do we do? we relabel and re market them. we exaggerate one or two attributes of slavery and pretend that ALL slavery is really really bad, so we can then say this (what we are doing now) is not slavery. The problem? it is. If we simply look up the defination of the word and go with the definition provided of general slavery, we will learn that all of those who provide our cheep good albeit not "Chattle slaves" they are still slaves even though we call them by different titles.

Now why isn't all modern slavery all immoral like society says? because without it billions and billions of people would literally starve to death. and/or be with out shelter, that the world economies would fail, and billions more would die. without cheap goods the money you have quickly becomes worthless.

Point? while you assign moral value to words like slavery, you turn a blind eye to it actually happening all around you.

Similarly you want me to judge God for potentially allowing a minor to get married, yet society blesses two teens with condom give aways at school, and birth control for girls they don't have to tell their parents about.
How foolish is a society to judge God for making or deeming a young couple like that married and make them be responsible for their action, while it lets the same age kids pass each other around like candy.

So again no, no problem at all.

Now ask what I think about the hypocrisy of a society that allows kids to have sex, and judges God for the same act when responsibility for their actions is added.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's not what we do that makes us Christian. It['s] what Christ did. Meaning Christ and Christ alone gets to decide who is and is not Christian.

That's an awesome line, Drich.

I think what gets lost is that the object, in 'objective' morality, is not some set of commandments or universal principles; but rather a person, the Divine Logos who is the Lord Jesus Christ and who serves as the standard by which Mankind is judged. It is only by His Mercy responding to our repentance that we are allowed to be in His presence.

[Nihilist Virus]

You keep saying "their" instead of "there"... kinda getting annoying.

You like me will get use to it.

Anyways, you say that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says the rapist becomes the family's slave.  OK... where in the hell are you getting that?

In the fact that the bible says the family of the rape victim is to be paid 50 Shekels of silver. As I pointed out, this is about a years worth of work. Now pointing back to Hebrew law if you have a debt that can not be paid, then the who owes the debt is sold into slavery/the one owed The can take the slave (or if he is too poor to meet the care requirements) can sell him to someone who can.

 And you say I should ask how much a shekel is... LOL... I don't care how much it is because IT'S NOT GOING TO THE VICTIM.

Hey stupid, (I say that because you are PROUD of you ignorance and are literally flaunting how dumb you are right now)
The Money, its going to the closest blood relative that is charged with her care. Why? (I know you don't like to ask why, you'd rather make some self righteous reason up just so you can live in bigoted hate.) But the answer here speaks to what the girls age most likely would be. Now I will leave it to you to ask or look that fact up.
Or bottom line simply understand she would have been too you to be charged with responsibly dealing with that money.

Not to mention this was an impossible amount of money for anyone to have to begin with. which almost certainly meant slavery.

Now I know you want to remain as dumb as possible so you can blindly hold on to your fool's argument, but I will ask you to stretch your little mind just a little more, by asking you to put all of these penalties in series and place them in that time in that community... Now given all of the work/beating/cost not to mention the 'label' you'd be stuck with in the community, along with a wife who will never let hear the end of it... I ask you to consider that For most men this 'price' is far too high to pay for any perceived 'reward.' therefore the law acts as a deterrent.

 Well... in their view it was going to the victim, because the victim was considered to be the father.

Why?
Because he was completely responsible for his daughters till they all got married off.
So the Father would be looking at the long game/invest so she could be taken care of. This is what father's did for all of their daughters, they made sure they their was something/one there to fill that role in that society.

The woman being raped was not considered a victim.

Book Chapter and verse please. Or more than likely please take the time to explain your bigoted self righteous hate so I can take it apart and make you look like some emotion lead primate who is trying to make sense of his 'feelings' against a law he does not want to understand.

 Also you completely fail to address the fact that the rapist will continue to rape his bride.  COMPLETE SILENCE on your end.  I wonder why...?

Because anyone who has ever been married and knows their is no possibility for divorce knows the answer here. (even if you did ask the question which you did not.)
Happy wife, Happy life.. There are many proverbs and OT examples of how miserable life was for men who did not have happy wives in that culture. Why? Because women controlled the house hold, they had final say on how the home worked.


What are you talking about? their is only one pretext in which sex is permitted.

That's in a sanctified marriage. "That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) "

You completely reworded Deuteronomy 23:18.  You're now a CONFIRMED LIAR.

Actually sport I cut and pasted the law from: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
Straight from the horses mouth...

Again "thou shall not rape" is not needed when "thou shal not have sex unless your married has been established."

Again... where does it say you may not rape your wife?  And why wouldn't a man rape his wife if he raped her before they were married and then he was forced to marry her because of it?  Insert Jackie Chan frustrated meme here.

Because under the marriage covenant sexual relations was the right of the woman and not the man.. Again ask a question get an answer. Make a dumb ass assumption from bigotted ignorance, get called and proved stupid.
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Relationship
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
(#73)

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

This says nothing about pedophilia or marrying a child.  Get the verse that says you can't have sex with minors.

Hey, stupid. The verse says No one is to Have sex unless one is married. So this means one can not have sex with a child because they are not permitted to be married/have sex till they reach a certain age.

Now are you asking for the verse that says children can not be married/have sex??

This is how the Jewish culture and law worked.. It is different from your own. Only a complete moron would assume that because you don't currently see or understand how this culture worked, doesn't mean you are in a place to rightfully judge it. This is the American attitude that the rest of the world hates. You assume that you and the way you do things is the only right way. Look at how you expect Law to be read, and wrongfully assume, rather than looking at the culture. you need a 'thou shalt not' otherwise it is permissible.

The Jews/God pulled the problem out by the root. The law may include specific instances but if the Law reads Sex is only permitted in a sanctified marriage then all other forms of sex are forbidden. This means that sex can only happen between what the bible defines as a Married Man and woman. Now granted for the Jews a 'Bar/Bot mitzvah' the introduction into adulthood. which is alot younger than what this society identifies as an adult.

again, Silence is not permission. 
Yes it is... LOL.  No law on the American books about adultery.  You know why?  BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.

Beside I'm sure far more raped women in OT times got a far stronger sense of justice than some sterile prison sentence.

PERFECT EXAMPLE Of the Ugly American syndrome!!! You don't even know what you are doing is WRONG! You judge everything and everyone by your broken standard! That is the reason for this very thread... To point out that IF your 'American Standard is broken, you would have no way of knowing. The only thing you could do is point to how other cultures are different and ASSume they were in the wrong.

The Law Reads:
That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)
Again: rule 69
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

So No SEX with out a formal marriage= No sex outside of marriage period. Now if you weren't stupid and sought to remain in ignorance so you could keep your broken arguement, you'd ask so what constitutes a marriage? Who could and could not get married what are the ages...

If you were so inclined, I could point you to the part of the law that applies. Or you can make another assumption from ignorance and I can tear that apart as well.

Again this is how this system for these people worked. You did not have pin point laws for everything because stuff like this was not a problem. you had to some times break a situation down to it's parts and see what laws applied.

Yes... if by justice you mean being raped every day for the rest of their lives.

(Captian Picard Face Palm Meme Caption "Idiot...")
Who decides when sex is to happen in a sanctified marriage? Just because the Hebrews were labeled misogynist, does it mean they had to follow your sterotype? Would not an honest person look at what they actually did or did not do and make a judgement off of that? or is your self righteousness so corrupted you that histroy and truth does not matter when dealing with God, and it is ok to just make crap up out of the blue?

Because under the marriage covenant sexual relations was the right of the woman and not the man.. Again ask a question get an answer. Make a dumb ass assumption from bigotted ignorance, get called and proved stupid.
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Relationship
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
(#73)

1.That is not what #73 says.
2. This is extrabiblical

Hey, stupid. The verse says No one is to Have sex unless one is married. So this means one can not have sex with a child because they are not permitted to be married/have sex till they reach a certain age.

Hey, fuckface. The verse says not to bring pimp money into the temple. Nothing about marriage or pedophilia. Here's the verse:

You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

The law may include specific instances but if the Law reads Sex is only permitted in a sanctified marriage then all other forms of sex are forbidden.

The Law Reads:
That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)
Again: rule 69
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

That isn't what Deuteronomy 23:18 says you lying sack of shit. Look it up. I don't care what the website is because you're quoting a Bible verse. Look it up, fucking retard.

[Athene]

---

Okay. But you didn't answer the question. 
Would it bother you? If you found that your God had indeed authorized or sanctioned such a thing, would you consider that act to be bad or wrong?

A straightforward answer would be appreciated, but I understand that providing one might take more than you're able to give; house of cards and all that jazz. Whatever it takes to hold it together.

Avoid the question if you must.

---

---

nupe.

Why you ask?

Glad you asked, whew we could have a mess if you chose to just blindly respond.

Any the why is simple really, i do not assign 'moral value' on any action. As my thread points out we can justify absolutely anything if enough of the people in a given society want it. so to say this is moral or that is not is simply to parrot back what people want your responsibility to society to be. Which is cool, fine whatever.If you live in a society we must have rules. now if the proclivities of society is to exploit a section of society that need protection then yes I'm all for that. However, that does not mean their is an inherent evil that needs to be associated to a given soceitial law or even immorality.

Again slavery is a good example. Now without a doubt in society it is illegal to own a slave and also immoral to even endorse it. Yet this society can not exist without them and a lot of them. Our whole economy still works of slave labor/cheap goods. So in society rather than admit this principle found in every single human society that is or has ever existed. 'we' pretend to be better. But we have a problem, we still have slaves. so what do we do? we relabel and re market them. we exaggerate one or two attributes of slavery and pretend that ALL slavery is really really bad, so we can then say this (what we are doing now) is not slavery. The problem? it is. If we simply look up the defination of the word and go with the definition provided of general slavery, we will learn that all of those who provide our cheep good albeit not "Chattle slaves" they are still slaves even though we call them by different titles.

Now why isn't all modern slavery all immoral like society says? because without it billions and billions of people would literally starve to death. and/or be with out shelter, that the world economies would fail, and billions more would die. without cheap goods the money you have quickly becomes worthless.

Point? while you assign moral value to words like slavery, you turn a blind eye to it actually happening all around you.

Similarly you want me to judge God for potentially allowing a minor to get married, yet society blesses two teens with condom give aways at school, and birth control for girls they don't have to tell their parents about.
How foolish is a society to judge God for making or deeming a young couple like that married and make them be responsible for their action, while it lets the same age kids pass each other around like candy.

So again no, no problem at all.

Now ask what I think about the hypocrisy of a society that allows kids to have sex, and judges God for the same act when responsibility for their actions is added.

---

Oh, my. You know full well that I posed my question in response to you demanding that another poster provide evidence of God condoning baby rape don't you? Not marrying a minor.

It doesn't matter, though. Evidently, your answer would be the same..."nupe" I believe, right? Nice.
I wouldn't want to make it simple for anyone to tie me to those responses, either. 

EDIT: Not that I'm equating your "nupe" with you condoning such practices yourself...I'm not. I just find that your commitment to this line of thinking makes you a very scary dude.