Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[John V]

As I've said before, I have no problem with God judging people who were tossing their babies into fire as sacrifices. 

Regarding sex slaves, I've already noted that they were wives, not sex slaves.

I haven't pointed out that they were most likely going to end up in arranged marriages. If you're being consistent, you would label that as sex slavery also. So, from your POV they were going to be sex slaves one way or the other, but at least with Israel they didn't have to burn their babies.

[The Grand Nudger]

I hear they pissed and shat in the river, upstream, too, to where the heebs washed their clothes.  Bastards!

The answer appears to be no/.  You'll find a way to be cool with this regardless, and even if it was exactly what it was..you're cool with it, and god's cool with it.

Again...I find that remarkable.

[Brian37]

As I've said before, I have no problem with God judging people who were tossing their babies into fire as sacrifices. 

Regarding sex slaves, I've already noted that they were wives, not sex slaves.

I haven't pointed out that they were most likely going to end up in arranged marriages. If you're being consistent, you would label that as sex slavery also. So, from your POV they were going to be sex slaves one way or the other, but at least with Israel they didn't have to burn their babies.

You are being dishonest about the meaning of DUET because you don't like what it actually says.

THERE IS NO CONSENT in the word "captured". 

That means catching and detaining. If you do that to another human being it becomes force. Forcing someone to become your wife is sex slavery, not marriage. Letting them go later does not change that there was no consent from the start. You are condoning rape and forced marriage.

If I see your daughter on the side of the road, pull her into a van, and rape her, would you call that "marriage", even if I let her go after I rape her? An act of war would not make the winner moral in doing that.

And again, don't bring up the age crap, because that is NOT how the humans of antiquity viewed girls back then. Men back then saw them as PROPERTY and prizes of war. Men had sex with girls at a very young age back then. Only time and technology and education has moved us away from that. You will not find the number "18" in that book when talking about age and sex.

I am sorry you don't like what we are saying attacking your horrible logic and dodging. You do not get to blame us for what we were not alive to write back then.

"That was then, this is now". 

That book was written by the people of the time, for the people of that time. It has no barring on what modern science tells us about psychiatry and what consent means.

[John V]

I hear they pissed and shat in the river, upstream, too, to where the heebs washed their clothes.  Bastards!

The answer appears to be no/.  You'll find a way to be cool with this regardless, and even if it was exactly what it was..you're cool with it, and god's cool with it.

Again...I find that remarkable.

Sure, if you let yourself disregard the part where these people killed their babies, that changes things.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't change anything for me, even if it were true..even though it's certainly not.  They killed their babies just like there were nukes in iraq, and I don't subscribe to the sex trafficking theory of military intervention by ethnic cleansing regardless.

[vulcanlogician]

I have to ask again if you're aware of any provisions in the Bible that would go against slavery as it was practiced in America.

Not aware based on lack of Biblical and/or historical knowledge. Nor do I see how it is relevant to how slavery is generally immoral.

Slavery is objectively immoral.

Oh do tell.

Sure, you can show slavery to be immoral under certain moral systems, but the selection of any particular system as the system is subjective. Atheists used to be good at this.

Wrong. There are two metaethical approaches to objective morality--neither requires a subjective sense. The first is moral naturalism, the idea that moral facts are empirically discernible. Khem seems to like this route. I do not. I am an intuitionist. To me moral facts are self-evident. No subjectivity involved in either view.

As to subjectivity in discerning a proper theory, wrong again. Dude there are logical arguments for/against say hedonism or virtue ethics. Nobody is a virtue ethicist because it "feels right."

But, for me, I tend toward pluralism--ie more than one ethical theory. Kantian deontological ethics, which I see as compelling, emphasizes human dignity and autonomy, so inasmuch as deontological ethics are sound, slavery is objectively wrong.

What do you mean, "Atheists used to be good at this?" It helps if you don't ignore half the post of someone you are arguing with.

[John V]

Not aware based on lack of Biblical and/or historical knowledge. Nor do I see how it is relevant to how slavery is generally immoral.

It's clearly relevant to your claim that slavery was abolished without any direction from the Bible.

Wrong. There are two metaethical approaches to objective morality--neither requires a subjective sense.

You lose right there. If morality is objective, then there's one morality. You have two already.

The first is moral naturalism, the idea that moral facts are empirically discernible. Khem seems to like this route. I do not. I am an intuitionist. To me moral facts are self-evident. No subjectivity involved in either view.

LMAO. OK, slavery is objectively moral, because some slave owners found that to be self-evident.

As to subjectivity in discerning a proper theory, wrong again. Dude there are logical arguments for/against say hedonism or virtue ethics. Nobody is a virtue ethicist because it "feels right."

Cool, tell us which theory is objectively correct.

What do you mean, "Atheists used to be good at this?" It helps if you don't ignore half the post of someone you are arguing with.

Atheists used to get that ultimately morality is subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think you have the necessary subject knowledge to discuss the relative merits of various systems of moral realism..which are not in some sort of competition for each other as to which one is the right one - they are all the "right one" within the context of moral realism..nor would it matter in the slightest.

You tell me that morality is subjective, fine...then it is your opinion and gods opinion that if someone kills babies then it;s good and just to invade their country, kill everyones mom and dad and all their brothers, and carry their pretty young daughters back with you as chattel..for purposes of sex.

That..is your opinion, or your gods opinion....which you agree with, and which you consider to be good.  There's no need to make it out to be anything other than what it is..in that case.  You can just say.."Yep, I'm with the lord on that one, fuck those evildooers and pass around their daughters!"

[John V]

I have to disagree that a wife is chattel. Why do you keep repeating the slavery angle after it's been debunked?

[vulcanlogician]

There were two words used for female slaves, which were “amah” and “shifhah”.[38] Based upon the uses in different texts, the words appear to have the same connotations and are used synonymously, namely that of being a sexual object, though the words themselves appear to be from different ethnic origins. Men assigned their female slaves the same level of dependence as they would a wife. Close levels of relationships could occur given the amount of dependence placed upon these women.[38] These slaves had two specific roles: a sexual use and companionship.[38] Their reproductive capacities were valued within their roles within the family. Marriage with these slaves was not unheard of or prohibited. In fact, it was a man’s concubine that was seen as the “other” and shunned from the family structure. These female slaves were treated more like women than slaves which may have resulted, according to some scholars, due to their sexual role, which was particularly to “breed” more slaves.[38] A father could sell his daughter into this life and she could be released within six years if she was not claimed by or assigned to another man.

Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. Throughout the Old Testament, the taking of multiple wives is recorded many times.[39][40] An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her (as in Exodus 21:7-11.) It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who "is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty."[41]

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

— Exodus 21:7-11

(my emphasis)


What about these verses?