I say it is meaningless or "it would be better for a man not to be born than to be brought into the world", but Im just curious and somewhat sick of debates at the moment so you can criticize my view I just may not answer and Id like to hear yours
Also another question I have for Atheists is why should I (or anyone else) be moral if there is no God? I wont accept it if it is subjective because subjective morals makes Nazism moral.
It would be clsoer to 15 but at a minimum of 13 anything younger than that and it is rape. Pedophilia is a form of rape. Rape is against biblical teaching so therefore pedophilia is wrong according to the Bible. There ya go
Pedophilia is not just a form of rape; you cannot just bend definitions to suit your purpose. Rape is forced sexual intercourse, whether vaginal or anal. Pedophilia refers specifically to an adult's sexual attraction to children and possible instigation of sexual activity with a child; it does not necessarily involve penetration. The Biblical prohibition against rape does not cover molestation or the fondling of a child, but I'm sure that you still find these acts to be equally immoral.
My point in this is not to argue the revolting details of child abuse; I'm only trying to clearly establish that the Bible does not condemn pedophilia. Your moral condemnation of pedophilia is therefore not a result of Biblical morality; you have established this moral conclusion independent of the Bible.
Why are you so opposed to the idea that your morals might be the result of something other than the Bible? Why is the thought of establishing your morals based upon reason, logic, and consensus with others such an offensive suggestion?
Now he's cornered. He can't use a hard number if puberty is the standard. He said anything below 13 is rape, by this does not mesh with his bible based rule of "If there's grass on the field, play ball." Many girls have periords way under the age of 13.
I think that most of modern society would not agree with having a little 11 year old girl get married off to the 70 year old village elder so that he may do what he pleases with her. The bible only ever address the issue of marriage, so as long as it's within the confines of marriage then anything goes. How do you justify this?
HA! I also nearly responded yesterday with "So if there's grass on the field, play ball? If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed?"
I'd like to add, any Christian who thinks child molestation is only wrong because "rape is against biblical teaching" has clearly never read the bible. A quick search on the topic will turn up numerous passages commanding the capture of young virgins and plundering of that booty. Even raping an unbetrothed virgin is fine as long as you pay her father like 10 bucks and marry her afterward.
An absolute age of consent is difficult to establish, but any person of logic and reason knows a 10 or 12 year old girl (prepubescent or pubescent) isn't ready for marriage. Even murderers in modern society look down upon child molesters. Why are there no biblical laws forbidding this horrific crime? Only because the goat herders of yesteryear loved them some young virgins and considered females nothing more than property, sex slaves, and baby making machines. This is why so many societies of blind faith instead of logic still allow child brides in the 21st century.
To repeat what Shine so eloquently stated earlier, "If you can establish how you arrive at the conclusion that paedophilia is wrong, then you will see how it is that atheists are moral."
Exactly. The books of the bible are products of their time. In those days women were treated as property and virginity was "proof" that the product was in brand new condition. In this case the bible is basically saying "You break it, you buy it." This was actually trying to be fair at the time it was written. The fact that women are human beings with all the thought capacity and feelings that men have was never even considered. This is why it's espeically funny to see a "Women's Bible" in a book store. The editor must have had a hell of a time with that.
Sorry for adding this here, but there was no reply button on the post I wanted to reply to...
Me: Lets also remember that the Bible only has a problem with women having pre-marital sex. Men had no such prohibition...
David: James this isnt true it was just way easier to catch women.
Me: But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21
However a man can rape an unwed woman and his only penalty is paying the father some silver pieces and the wife is forced to marry him.
On several occasions, the 'chosen people' are told to keep the women that 'haven't known a man' for themselves. Advocating rape!
Concubines were allowed.
Lot, had sex with both his daughters (yes, they got him drunk) and they both bore children. Yet in this example and all the others, they did not receive the equal punishment of death, that a woman would receive.
James... I admit... I wasn't able to make it through Genesis on my Bible Reading Project without laughing. Given how much incest was done. I'm surprised that they survived at all.
And another thing... David would you please answer this question that still hasn't been answered since Clarence Darrow asked it of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey Trial? [Skycomet is not expecting O'Connel to know about that trial].
WHERE THE HELL DID CAINS WIFE COME FROM?!! The book of Genesis specifically mentions Cain's marriage, AND he had no sisters [by the record] at the time. So where did she come from?
//However a man can rape an unwed woman and his only penalty is paying the father some silver pieces and the wife is forced to marry him.//
It does not say that, it refers more to seduction. The passage you quoted from Deuteronomy is stating that she must be stoned for adultery. I have recently learned that my western church tradition about marriage is wrong. There is no such thing as premarital sex, sex is marriage. This sheds some light on some certain issues like that passage in Deut 22:20-21. The woman should be stoned because she has had sex with two men however if she were to have sex with one man she would have to marry him because sex is marriage. This idea makes verse like Exodus 22:16 make more sense "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.". The payment is for the loss of a worker at home so that the families can compensate.
From the same passage 25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.
26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.
27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
28"(O)If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
You can see the difference in forcing a girl and seizing a girl which more closely refers to seduction.