Pedophilia in the Bible: this is a porn book

[vulcanlogician]

What's the current tally of atrocities defended in this thread?

The only atrocity I can think of is letting a five year old boy live after his parents burned a baby. And God clearly did not permit that.

[The Grand Nudger]

True, you didn't technically defend them...you just denied the charges. Makes arguing easy, if not convincing.

Because it's silly propaganda and wouldn't excuse the my lai theory of military intervention anyway.  Not to me or any warcrimes tribunal..that is. 

I understand that you consider it to be the righteous and just judgement of a good god, rather than a whole raft of bullshit a tribe of murderers wrote to justify their imagined atrocities. It seems unfair, to me, to implicate god in those crimes as the commanding officer...but you do you.

The truth of that narratives nature is even more depressing..but I doubt it would interest you in the slightest since t has nothing to do with a god commanding anything and everything to do with a then-current reality and not the fairy tale past. You're shitting on your own god for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

[GrandizerII]

1. No one is arguing that the Christian Bible makes people into monsters, at least not in this thread.

2. If the premise was true that the Christian Bible makes people into monsters, then whoever wrote the Quran was an idiot for allowing marriage to monsters.

The point I am making, the Quran argues Bible is over all good, otherwise, it would not allow marriages to people of the book.

Atlas, is making it as if, Bible is some horrible book that makes people into pedophiles and other things.

So you were responding to Atlas then. Nevertheless, both the Bible books and the Qur'an contain horrendous verses (the Old Testament being more horrific, I'll give you that) and so I don't see it as a shock that the Qur'an allows marriage to "people of the book".

This does not mean, however, that these books necessarily turn people into monsters. What I see instead is otherwise decent Christians and Muslims either reinterpreting horrendous verses to make them seem way less horrific than intended or they play dumb apologetic games even when they agree the acts would be considered horrific if it wasn't their preferred god behind these acts.

[Mystic]

If they can be interpreted in a less horrific way, maybe God being good, the horrific way was never intended?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you can imagine a god who's less of a cunt than magic book says he is.  You can manufacture any god you like, and call magic book bullshit all day long. I doubt that anyone here would stop you. He needs a modern rewrite, a new new testament.

[Mystic]

Well the Quran talks about the story of man of deep knowledge meeting with Moses, and does some things Moses finds morally wrong, like even kill a boy.

But if anyone takes that as permission they can act for wise reasons for sake of God and kill an innocent boy, they are crazy. That man in the Quran, referred to as Khidr (the Green One), was acting beyond the realms of good and evil known to humans, he was acting on another level.

But we humans cannot act according to his paradigm, because he was directly being commanded by God, just as the Angel of death takes life by God's command and organizes with his helpers the time of a person's leaving this world, this man was similarly an Agent that was above the law.

I think going to a holy book with narrow paradigms, is not helpful to understand a very complex issue of what it means to be human.

[The Grand Nudger]

It may find that wrong, but explicitly suggests that a man should aqcuire and fuck a sex slave, this is supposed to keep him from doing something wrong....lol....seems like a wash to me.

[GrandizerII]

If they can be interpreted in a less horrific way, maybe God being good, the horrific way was never intended?

The way I generally interpret what I read is to take the words and intended meaning literally by default, allowing the overall context to determine whether I should adjust my initial interpretation in order to be in line with the context. What I don't do by default is romanticize the overall meaning of the text just so I can feel better about it.

[Mystic]

If they can be interpreted in a less horrific way, maybe God being good, the horrific way was never intended?

The way I generally interpret what I read is to take the words and intended meaning literally by default, allowing the overall context to determine whether I should adjust my initial interpretation in order to be in line with the context. What I don't do by default is romanticize the overall meaning of the text just so I can feel better about it.

I understand, but trying to seeing reasons that justify, aren't necessarily romanticizing it.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so..  Maybe you could present a demonstration specific to the point of contention in thread?  Explain the justification for acquiring a sex slave and fucking the dogshit out of her? Sure, sure, one magic book says to do it by means of warfare, the other a legal purchase...the end result is the same.

Ready set go!