Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[WinterHold]

You're confusing the ability of man to justify or denounce whatever it is we want to by reference to any magic book for some attribute of magic books.  As if one magic book could prevent that and another magic book could not.  

You, as a magic book worshipper...fully realize this and insist -every time- that so and so whom you disagree with is doing magic book wrong.  This is exactly what the other magic book worshippers say.   Ironically, it's yet another demonstration of that ability of man, up above.

A book is its language and vocabulary that is translated into meanings. A false vocabulary will produce false meanings.
The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

In other words; I would expect an awkward silence and a huge increase in the cases of bullying, pedophilia & women abuse if I used the current bible's vocabulary to bring my kids up.


Where is that in the Quran? where are the direct explicit vocabulary that tells Muslims, to butcher whole towns and keep "their little ones for themselves"?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're confusing the ability of man to justify or denounce whatever it is we want to by reference to any magic book for some attribute of magic books.  As if one magic book could prevent that and another magic book could not.  

You, as a magic book worshipper...fully realize this and insist -every time- that so and so whom you disagree with is doing magic book wrong.  This is exactly what the other magic book worshippers say.   Ironically, it's yet another demonstration of that ability of man, up above.

A book is its language and vocabulary that is translated into meanings. A false vocabulary will produce false meanings.

"They're doing magic book wrong"

The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

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.  

You imagine..I'm sure....as they obviously imagine (and we've seen it in thread) that none of them would have been children whenever they got railed, or that there were rules which regulated this sexual slavery....as though the regulation of slavery somehow redeemed sexual slavery or magic book(s). 

In other words; I would expect an awkward silence and a huge increase in the cases of bullying, pedophilia & women abuse if I used the current bible's vocabulary to bring my kids up.

A conveniently accurate description of the state of affairs where islam is in charge.

Where is that in the Quran? where are the direct explicit vocabulary that tells Muslims, to butcher whole towns and keep "their little ones for themselves"?

It was their virginity that was valued, not their age.  Virgin sex slaves are worth more.  That many..or frankly -all- of them would be children to us is incidental and no different from some army of moongod cultists rampaging all over the known world doing exactly the same thing.  If you're telling me that you're not aware of any verses in the quran extorting the moongod cultitists to decimate a town and it's people, or acknowledging humans as property, or that human [property could be used for sexual gratification...I'd say you're not so much "doing magic book wrong" as just not reading it, and being unwilling to engage in the central thrust of your own criticism.

-as usual.

[Brian37]

On the subject of taking captives for sexual slavery both magic books are equal.  God's cool with it.

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.

[Angrboda]

It told them to keep the children for themselves. Explicitly.

Yes, it explicitly says keep. The problem is that your mind reads "keep" as enslave and immediately fuck .

I don't need to go that far to draw the same conclusion. It's clear that they differentiated between women who had lain with a man and those who hadn't because the former were not considered suitable for marriage (if I'm not mistaken, taking them as wives would be adultery). So the distinction clearly indicates that they were taking them to be wives. Whether it's enslave and immediately fuck, or enslave and later fuck is irrelevant; they were being taken for the purpose of being fucked, plain and simple.

[WinterHold]

No. It is making the Bible a "contradictory book" that contains verses that allows"believers" to do whatever they like to children, in an obvious sexual context; and others that forbid them from even having sex to women in the first place.

Where are the Quranic verses, that advocate something similar? that in case we wanted to bash the Quran to defend the bible.
Otherwise; the op is not about a comparison between the two books; even.

Again with the OT ,the Quaran comes from the OT. That is what I'm trying to point out.

The OT was described below:

Sura 5, The Quran:
( 41 )   O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah. Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

The Bible & The Torah contain a mixture of true verses and distortions of words from their proper usage.
The Quran wasn't even translated like the bible; it is also not a group of scattered papers scattered across the land.

[The Grand Nudger]

The OT was described below:

-"My magic book says their magic book has cooties!"

The Quran wasn't even translated like the bible;

Yes it was...

it is also not a group of scattered papers scattered across the land.

......and yes........it was....

[LadyForCamus]

You're confusing the ability of man to justify or denounce whatever it is we want to by reference to any magic book for some attribute of magic books.  As if one magic book could prevent that and another magic book could not.  

You, as a magic book worshipper...fully realize this and insist -every time- that so and so whom you disagree with is doing magic book wrong.  This is exactly what the other magic book worshippers say.   Ironically, it's yet another demonstration of that ability of man, up above.

A book is its language and vocabulary that is translated into meanings. A false vocabulary will produce false meanings.
The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

In other words; I would expect an awkward silence and a huge increase in the cases of bullying, pedophilia & women abuse if I used the current bible's vocabulary to bring my kids up.


Where is that in the Quran? where are the direct explicit vocabulary that tells Muslims, to butcher whole towns and keep "their little ones for themselves"?

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’.

[John V]

Yes, it explicitly says keep. The problem is that your mind reads "keep" as enslave and immediately fuck .

I don't need to go that far to draw the same conclusion.  It's clear that they differentiated between women who had lain with a man and those who hadn't because the former were not considered suitable for marriage (if I'm not mistaken, taking them as wives would be adultery).  So the distinction clearly indicates that they were taking them to be wives.  Whether it's enslave and immediately fuck, or enslave and later fuck is irrelevant; they were being taken for the purpose of being fucked, plain and simple.

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

[Brian37]

A book is its language and vocabulary that is translated into meanings. A false vocabulary will produce false meanings.
The backfire is verses like the ones mentioned in the OP from the Christian Bible.

In other words; I would expect an awkward silence and a huge increase in the cases of bullying, pedophilia & women abuse if I used the current bible's vocabulary to bring my kids up.


Where is that in the Quran? where are the direct explicit vocabulary that tells Muslims, to butcher whole towns and keep "their little ones for themselves"?

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’.

Yep. When I hear someone argue their book is better, to me it would be like listening to a Star Wars fan and a Star Trek fan argue which franchise is better.

[The Grand Nudger]

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)