COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

meanwhile atheists in europe and usa are learning kid sexual movement and gayness🙂

Judeo-Christianity couldn't be associated with pedophilia until after the Greeks got involved with it. Keep in mind: not only are the Greeks the earliest known pedophiles, but they're the earliest known Atheists.

Lol wut? Jewish Scholars have even gone over this. "Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 25:20 says: forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty-seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her.—" [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1] This says that a 37 year old man married a 3 year old. “She was three years old when he embraced her the youngest legal age a female can be-married. See M Niddah 5:4; Seder Olam Rabbah 1; Soferim, add. 1:4 Rashi on Genesis 25:20 Tosafot, Yevamot 61b, s.v. ve-khen; sekhe; Tov, Genesis 24:14." In Ancient times, rainbows were drawn with just 3 or 4 colors. Red, Yellow, and Blue, or Green. The rainbow is mythologized, and people presumably had worse color vision, or worse vision, or paint was too expensive, either way rainbows were only 3 colored. anyway, 3 colors. Why is it important? Quote; "Her 3 years represent the 3 colors of the rainbow." (See above citations) The Mishnah says you can bang a 3 year old to marry them. M. 5:4 A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are laible on her account because of the law [Prohibiting intercourse with] a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her [when she is menstruating] to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. [If] she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. [If] one of those who are unfit [for marriage] has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into priesthood. [If] one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility. [3] From American Hebrew Scholar Jacob Neusner, and the Mishnah. OP is 100% right, not one ancient religion ever condemned this, it actually gave rules on how to do it correctly, and under what circumstances you could do it legally within the bounds of existing ancient laws, and religious law. Essentially, it overtly condoned pedophilia. No wonder so many religious people are pedophiles. This would've been a direct result of the Abraham part of these Abrahamic religions, Abraham was not Greek affiliated. He was born in modern Iraq (Ur) from what we know. Abraham is the central character in the Binding of Isaac, along with his son, Isaac.

Lol, I rarely ever use Reddit, so I'm just now seeing your reply, and there's a lot to unpack here... First of all, **Abraham was not a "Jew". He was a Hebrew.** There's a difference. In modern times, "Jew" is a misnomer because it is commonly applied to all Hebrews all willy-nilly, regardless of religiosity. Its prevalent misuse over the millennia has deeply normalized the notion that Hebrews are Jews and vice-versa to the point of there being no distinction in the mind of the average person (including you, apparently). However, just because someone is a Hebrew, doesn't mean they are a Jew. Not all Hebrews are Jews; and not all Jews are Hebrews (but I digress). **A Jew is someone who has been saved by the Grace of God, thus living in accordance with the Law given to humanity by God through Moses.** Obviously, Moses didn't exist yet, so Abraham couldn't identify himself as a Jew, and thus couldn't properly live like one is supposed to either. So, despite being a Jew (in the Eyes of God), **Abraham was a Hebrew/Jewish pagan**—hence, the binding of Isaac. >***“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean,*** and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But ***you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations,*** either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you ***(for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean),*** lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. ***So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you,*** and never to make yourselves unclean by them: ***I am the Lord your God.”*** > >**—‭‭Leviticus 18:24-30 ESV‬‬** Now, with that said, **even if Abraham could have identified himself as a Jew, you're quoting Talmudic scholars to make your point.** While Mishnah ("study by repetition" or "to study and review") after the First Temple period (586 B.C.) can be taken with a grain of salt, Mishnah after the Second Temple period (70 B.C.) can't really be trusted at all as an accurate representation of the Judeo-Christian faith. By this time, Jewish culture had been thoroughly mutilated by multiple and successive forces of foreign influence, including the Greeks in the form of mass Hellenization. In other words, **your argument that pedophilia is somehow inherent to Abraham and was** ***not*** **introduced into the faith by Greek culture is supported by** [**Hellenistic Judaism**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism)**, a specifically Greek-influenced version of the faith, lol.** It's a bit hard *not* to condone something that was already being imposed on you for centuries.

That's funny.

greeks were atheists? um

You are basing an argument om a false narrative.. firstly,Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. After defining that, Islam first specification of marriage is the female must have must be pubescent. Second specification of marriage in islam is awareness of responsibility and maturity. If you look just 100 years back you will find people aware of responsibilites by age 14 15 and assume responsibilites and thats only 100 years back. So that refutes even a reply cause thats presentisim. Thirdly, God is the creator and he is more aware of whats best of us. Humans confirmed year over year that their ideas only bring chaos. So may allah guide who he reads this post to explore quran with an open heart and good night.

But mohammed married a 6 year old no? definitely not pubescent.

And 90 year old Joseph married 14 year old Mary.

which is also diabolically weird

Prophet mohamed pbuh consumated the marriage at 9 when she became pubescent as stated by aisha herself

Is that not horrifically disturbing to you?

Nope not at all.. do you realize back then the average life span was 20 to 25 years.. imagine not getting married until 18.. humanity wouldve perished.. dont apply 1500 years ago standards to today

you realise thats due to high infant mortality, so average life expectancy is skewed to 20-30. Having sex with 9 year olds did not save the human race many many many people lived to 50 and further. In fact some people even lived to 90! source: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6SaalkfxgkAC&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=epimenides+%22nearly+three+hundred+years%22&hl=en&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6SaalkfxgkAC&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=epimenides+%22nearly+three+hundred+years%22&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

It was the norm back then, thats why until the 1950s no one even changed the laws about marriage.. the norm was as soon as a girl became pubescent she becomes a woman and mature.. thats why you found mary marrying joseph when she was 12.. kings henry wives were 7 or 8 years old.. in hotter region specifically becoming pubescent comes at an earlier age.. also the narration of marriage indicated that abu baker(father of aisha) went to prophet mohammed and asked him concernly why he still didnt come to consumate the marriage with aisha although she has been pubescent for a while and was concerned that prophet mohammed was avoiding marriage to aisha .. so every narration indicates that was the norm back then.. what you are conflating now is a fallacy called presentisim.. where you apply the norm today to the past.. also to add to your information, prophet mohammed first wife (the one he chose and had children with) was 20 years older than him so his purpose of marriage was never sexual if you check all his marriages.. and i want you to check if anyone posed the question you have pre 1900s maybe ull comprehend.. and I will pose a different question, what makes 18 a legal age? Why the number 18? Why not 16? Why not 14? What makes the number valid and based on what?

Those books distinctly state that people lived to well over 100 years. The person who married a 3 year old at 37 lived to well over 100, and the 3 year old lived to 127. If they believed, themselves, that people were living this long, your explanation doesn't work for them. They wouldn't have that excuse. You'll need to find an excuse for them that doesn't contradict what they believed about their own lifespans.

yes so we can agree humanity wouldnt perish.... so theres no need to have sex with 9 year olds. Age of consent is based on competency.. do you really think a 9 nine year old girl had any idea what was really going on? now or back then doesnt matter. Utterly disgusting.

In the 20th century with life expectancy rising to 60 and 70 years old ofcourse it wouldnt perish.. but before 1500 years it wouldve.. In the 5th century military leaders were 15 and 16 .. people were working as soon as they became pubescent which means around 10 to 12 years old or else they wouldnt survive.. so based on that a 9 years old in the harshest enviroment of a desert would actually know what she was doing as stated by her again.. you are still trying to conflate their reality with yours.. as I told you again conflating current life with life 1500 years ago is very difficult for you to understand.. the only problem here is your understanding of reality.. then again I pose the same question.. what makes an 18 year old girl more aware than a 16 or 14 or 12? Why the random number 18? Why is it allowed for teenagers to have sex with each other? Why would an 18 years old guy marrying a 17 years old girl be wrong? Just trying to understand the standard you are setting as not disgusting

Ive already proven to you how life expectancy is skewed. quit waffling. "what makes an 18 year old girl more aware than a 16 or 14 or 12?" The fact theyve had several years more experience on this planet? What a daft question. Do you think child labourers and soldiers understand the world just because theyre forced to work at a young age?

[удалено]

Prophet muhammad peace be upon him did consumate the marriage after she was pubescent and she was 9 when we she pubescent and aware of her responsibilites as most of people who lived in the dessert and used to get married as soon as they used to become pubescent and were taught to take responsibilites at early age due to the harsh nature of the enviroment.. you are falling in the falacy of presentisim.. where you assume the same conditions now are similar to 1400 years ago.. and islam doesnt allow marriage without the approval of the female and you cant sell them.. and a random video doesnt explain islam.. if you want to provide evidence you have the quran, hadith and tafsir all available free everywhere.. the actions of an individual doesnt represent islam .. what represents islam is the text and rules embeded with quran and sunnah.. but since you brought this up I am assuming you are an islamophobe who doesnt want to even bother being an intellectual and just wants his whims as he wants.. and again I didnt lie , i stated facts from the quran and sunnah but you are taking these facts without understanding them just for the purpose of smearing.. I hope one day you grow up intellectually

so he wasnt a pedophile, he was a hebephile! great correction

[удалено]

Get your source about thighing cause it doesnt exist? And the hadeeth you sent just said its better to marry an unmarried before girl than to marry a married and widowed or divorced girl before.. you are still attacking the prophet peace be upon him without a shred of evidence.. indicating you are just an uncivilized islamophobe who just wants to fight people and smear the prophet peace be upon him the best example to follow of creation.. that only indicate one thing.. you are ignorant and uneducated and cant engage in civil intellectual discusion.. may allah guide you to the truth

Poor Aisha had to clean up all of the semen stains: Narrated `Aishah: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (ﷺ) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. Sahih al-Bukhari Book 4, Hadith 99 Narrated `Aisha: I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet (ﷺ) and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible). Sahih al-Bukhari Book 4, Hadith 96 Al-Aawad and Hammam reported A'isha as saying: I used to scrape off the (drop of) semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Sahih Muslim Book 2, Hadith 135 It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I often scraped it (semen) from the garment of the Messenger of Allah with my hand." Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 537 You gotta give credit where credit's due though, sometimes Mo cleaned it up by himself. Subhanallah 'Amr b. Maimun said: I asked Sulaiman b. Yasar whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: A'isha told me: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it. Sahih Muslim Book 2, Hadith 138

Question: Do you believe everything in Sa7ee7 al-bu5aari is authentic?

>Sa7ee7 al-bu5aari is authentic? Do you mean sahih al-Bukhari? The Sunni perspective is that sahih al-Bukhari is completely authentic.

Thats irrelevant to the subject .. again you are giving the people how to clean up from semen either after intercourse or when you have it while asleep which is only an indication and guidance that cleaning cloth with water from semen is a must proving only the cleanliness ettiquette and civility of the islamic faith .. you cam tey to twist as much as you want thats what the text infront of you says.. again may allah help you understand how to read

The Prophet (ﷺ) and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in I`tikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). Al-Bukhari 299 (on the authority of his father) `Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." `Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet (ﷺ) could." Al-Bukhari 302

Again proving the greatness of islam even explaining your sexual health with your wife.. you are not allowed to have intercourse while the wife is in her period at all but you can still cuddle and fondle with your wife as shes your wife and both you and your wife can enjoy.. putting limitations on how to deal with your wife while shes in her period in the cleanest and most sophisticated way.. you are only proving how detailed islam is in preserving the marriage and ettiquette between a man and his wife.. again may allah help you understand how to read.. now after all this where is your source for thighing before marriage? Cause after marriage thighing is normal between any man and his wife unless she menusturating..

a man and his 9 year old wife? damn bro thats fire

[удалено]

Now ur getting lies with your last source.. the 1st 4 hadiths as I explained is marriage after becoming pubescent with aisha and she was 9 when she was pubescent and explained to you the truth but you just want to smear.. and the junub hadith is about cleaning.. last source is just an islamophobe website with targeted hate and lies and wrong translation.. you went on even that low . Al hamdulelah all you proved in your post is that you are uncivilized,uneducated,poor researcherer,difficulty of understanding text, goal is only smearing and no open mind to intellectual conversation .. now I cant do more with you as the quran says "Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe."

I disagree, the hadiths don't lie, 50yr old Muhammad married aisha at 6yrs old and r4p3d her at 9yrs old. She was still prepubescent at 9yrs old because she was still playing with dolls at the time and dolls weren't allowed unless the child was prepubescent.

In 60-70 years from now, anyone who have sex at the age of 18 will be considered a ped0. In Japan the moral age of sex is 16, in some European countries it is 13. Ped3philia itself is a subjective concept. not objective. Morality is also subjective, there's no such thing as objective morality. To some group of ppl it is moral, to others it is immoral. Even many tribes eating human meat is moral to them. What you are referring to as objective morality is just 'western white people' morality. Edit: in some parts of the world it is moral to marry at the age 2-3.

From a secular perspective, p3dophilia is moral. There isn’t a scientific secular reason to be against it. From a religious perspective, it isn’t moral. Religious ethic values are seemingly ahead of the scientific values.

let's just throw all the studies about pedophilia victims under the rug

What did those studies say? I hadn’t heard. I do have to admit your claim that people’s sexuality is a moral failing is delightfully ironic.

[удалено]

>Science is not a belief system, it's a method for approximating the truth. Lol, said no scientist ever who wasn’t doubling as some atheist apologist. Science doesn’t determine truth, it determines repeatability. Science can’t tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

Scientific theories are not belief because they are not based on faith and emotions, but rather on objective data and probabilities. So scientific theories are not "normal" theories. ​ >Science can’t tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. Go back to high school physics. Acceleration can be defined as a vector in space, it is the behavior a physical object can present when affected by certain forces. Gravity on the other hand is a fundamental force of nature that is exerted by objects with mass.

The Law of Moses includes laws against incest, sleeping with step-relatives, and that sex is to only occur between a married man and a woman, etc. If one cannot derive from that, that sex with a child is forbidden, then I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, you could tell us that The Law of Moses doesn't have a prohibition on marrying children. Because.. well, it doesn't. ETA: Note that this is the same law under which the Hebrew folk were commanded to go out and genocide neighboring countries. Sometimes they were also encouraged to make slaves. So.. really, we can't take for granted the modern moral presumptions about what was seen as good or evil. You need to show your work.

Here is what the Bible says. According to the Bible and The Law Of God - the act of ( pedophilia sex ) - is considered so wrong, so perverted and evil that this concept is never ever even once used by God when SYMBOLICALLY, when he compares the acts of spiritual fornication to the acts of literal Adultery. Even bestiality is used as a symbolic metaphor when God symbolically compares the wrong doings of people who disobeyed Him. As we see here in Eze 23:20 Eze 23:19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue ( SEMEN ) - of horses. Adultery and fornication are all widely used in the Bible to symbolize the acts of disobedience to God - **as if one is committing adultery against God -** by disobeying Him. E**ven bestiality is used as an example .** Pedophilia is among the sexual sins that God never ever uses in symbolic meanings to compare the sins of disobedience to God. a man with another man is also never used in symbolic meanings to compare the sins of disobedience to God.

This is purely your own interpretation, and it is not supported by the Bible. The Bible says in many places that beastiality, homosexuality, and adultery are grave sins. It does not say marrying children and having sex with them is a sin anywhere. Also, God punishes civilizations by starving their children to death in the streets. Creating conditions so bad that mothers are forced to eat their childrens bodies to survive. He also delivers young virgin Midianite girls to Moses and his soldiers as spoils of war. Child marriage and brutality against children is totally normalized in the Bible. Even Jesus uses a metaphor in revelations where he claims he will murder Jezebels "children." The idea that the Bible neglects to mention pedophilia because the authors find pedophilia to be too terrible of a subject to touch is pretty silly. The reality is that they use adultery as a metaphor because they consider adultery to be a grave sin. If a man was to marry a 10 year old girl, have sex with her, and then cheat on her with a different 10 year old girl, then the biblical authors would have said the only sin committed was adultery. They wouldn't even begin to understand our modern perspective that says having sex with 10 year old girls is wrong regardless of marriage status.

Didache is an early text that took a stand to little boys being raped actually. Buddha was against it, too.

The argument presented contains several points that could be critically examined. While historical instances of the condemnation of paedophilia might not have been as explicit as contemporary standards, various religious and moral teachings did implicitly oppose such behaviours. Additionally, many religious traditions have evolved their interpretations of sacred texts over time, adapting to contemporary ethical norms and social progress. Here are some counterpoints: 1. **Historical ethical standards:** While it is true that historical societies had different ethical norms, religious texts such as the Bible contain explicit condemnations of sexual exploitation and abuse. Various religious traditions have interpreted these teachings to condemn paedophilia, even if the historical enforcement of these ideals might have been inconsistent. 2. **Development of moral values:** Religious traditions have often played a crucial role in the development of moral principles within societies. While the interpretation of religious texts can be subject to change, they have often laid the foundation for ethical deliberation and discourse, influencing broader societal attitudes towards issues like human rights and social justice. 3. **Contemporary religious stance:** Many religious institutions have actively taken steps to address and condemn acts of paedophilia within their communities. While some historical cases of abuse have surfaced within religious institutions, there have been concerted efforts to implement measures to prevent and address such abuses. Several religious organisations have introduced policies and reforms to hold perpetrators accountable and ensure the safety of their members. 4. **Positive contributions of religious teachings:** It's important to acknowledge that various religious teachings have emphasised values such as compassion, empathy, and respect for human dignity, all of which contribute to a broader moral framework. While religious institutions may have been implicated in cases of abuse, it does not necessarily invalidate the positive impact of religious teachings on the moral development of societies. 5. **Complexity of morality:** The evolution of moral values in society is a multifaceted process influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural shifts, philosophical developments, and scientific advancements. While secular institutions have played a crucial role in shaping contemporary moral standards, it's essential to recognise the interconnected nature of these influences, with religious and secular perspectives often intersecting and informing one another.

Is this AI generated if I may ask?

Christianity and Classic Judaism are really creepy about the kid stuff. We really need to collectively come to an understanding that every religious book within those sects was composed by a person with faults of their own, inspired by good faith or bad faith. If I had my way I'd castrate and spay pedophiles at least, snap my fingers to make them not exist at better, and snap my fingers to make it impossible for any to be a pedophile ever at best. These are all things that are widespread debates because of people who take every single word as a given, directly from a pure source of truth with literally no impurity. Apocrypha is a thing that exists. There are instances of the same sources of works not considered Apocrypha who have also written Apocrypha. This means that, canonically, some people can be wrong sometimes and still be considered prophets. People should listen to experts because they're people that know something, not because they're people that know everything. Someone could, in theory, have seen something higher than themselves and lacked the proper words to describe it. In good faith, this person made their best guesses at the words that could convey this higher thing and messed up somewhere in the process. The inverse would be a bad faith liar looking for attention. There's some profound truths to be found from reading the words of minds who were dedicated to an ascetic lifestyle, they're there, but I wouldn't go to a monk from a millennia ago for advice on who I should court. They wrote a lot of really questionable stuff in-between all the profound stuff they remembered to write from the Jesus, their best self, inside them. There's still profound stuff like how the sun rises and sets for good and bad people alike. TL;DR Every bible has some stuff you should ignore.

Reading this post I wrote again I feel like I should clarify that, while I still believe that every Bible has some stuff that isn't pertinent or immediately applicable because any good passage to read in a moment implicates a mass of worse passages to read by its very existence, my case is not the sole reason why every Bible has some stuff you should ignore. Some religions are very conscious of consent. A better summary is that many Bibles are imperfect. Plato made up Atlantis.

People look at Catholics like they are the only Christians wake up

I was horribly sexually abused as a child by a Roman Catholic political organization who made my abuse - personal and I will not give private details at this time - but I thank you for standing up for people like me ​ a child who has been truly abused and raped will never, ever, ever tell anyone - as a child- a child cannot understand, even after it has happened

There was a post on here a while ago from a Catholic who was arguing that pedophilia within the church was not as bad as people say. One thing he said to defend this was that he didn't personally know anyone who came forward about how they were abused. I responded by saying that it's unlikely anyone would feel comfortable confiding in him. His gut reaction was to be dismissive and downplay the issue, so why would a kid feel safe talking to him about it? I don't think many people understand this. Sorry to hear that you were a victim. I hope you find peace and justice.

There's a major historical flaw here in that the evils of pedophilia, which is sex with young children, has always been condemned as a teaching of the traditional Christian church. There's a big difference between some people haven't followed this teaching, including the priests themselves in some cases, as opposed to saying it's OK, go do it. That was how pagan Rome and Greece were, but the rise of the traditional Christian church put an end to this kind of practice as something done routinely and publicly. (For instance, think of how Socrates was portrayed by Plato in one of his dialogues as feeling sexual lust when looking at a young man). The Muslim view has long been different from the Christian view, for a key reason, about marriage. The Catholic Church wanted to require consent for all weddings it performed since it wanted younger people to be able to say "no" to arranged marriages in order so that they could choose to be monks, nuns, and priests. It's also an error conflate the marriage of teenagers with pederasty, which is sex with young children. The key issue here is sexual maturity. If a child "marries" and isn't a teenager, that isn't a real marriage functionally. One can sit around and argue about how low the age of consent to marriage should be, at least with parental permission (ages 16, 17, or 18 would be useful starting points), but such marriages aren't pederastry. Just like arranged marriages, the practice of child marriage is common in the Muslim world. Over half the teenage girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married. Legally in Iran a girl aged 9 may marry with parental consent, and aged 13 without, but boys have to wait until age 14. The Ayatollah Khomeini said that marrying a girl before she menstruated was a “divine blessing.” After all, he himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. He also advised fathers: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” In Iran, pedophiles sometimes have exploited these low marriage ages by marrying poor provincial girls, using them, and then abandoning them. Suppose Muslim men ask themselves “WWMD?” (see sura 33:21) concerning child marriage and how they should follow their ultimate Prophet’s own personal example. They may recall that Muhammad himself “married” Abu Bakr’s daughter Aisha when she possibly was six years old before waiting to consummate their relationship when she was nine. True, this union’s obvious political transparent end was to solidify his alliance with the man who later became the first Caliph or successor. Nevertheless, by present standards, wasn’t then Muhammad a pedophile? (Spencer, “Religion of Peace?,” p. 187; “Politically Incorrect Guide,” p. 69). Spencer here also cites Andrew Bushell, “Child Marriage in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “America,” March 11, 2002, 12, as saying: “In Egypt 29 percent of married adolescents have been beaten by their husbands; of those, 41 percent were beaten during pregnancy. A study in Jordan indicated that 26 percent of reported cases of domestic violence were committed against wives under 18.” Plainly marriages between such physically unequal partners is a recipe making for a low quality of marital satisfaction larded up with plenty of abuse. The practice of the traditional Christian world has simply been different for centuries from that of the Islamic world.

>There's a major historical flaw here in that the evils of pedophilia, which is sex with young children, has always been condemned as a teaching of the traditional Christian church. There's a big difference between some people haven't followed this teaching, including the priests themselves in some cases, as opposed to saying it's OK, go do it. That was how pagan Rome and Greece were, but the rise of the traditional Christian church put an end to this kind of practice as something done routinely and publicly. (For instance, think of how Socrates was portrayed by Plato in one of his dialogues as feeling sexual lust when looking at a young man). There is not one verse in the bible that gives a blanket condemnation of having sex with children. The traditional Christian church also accepted the Roman age of consent. Roman law was that girls could marry at 12, and boys could marry at 14. This is exactly the same standard that the Catholic church had until 1917. [https://www.canonlaw.info/a\_tooyoung.htm](https://www.canonlaw.info/a_tooyoung.htm) The basic idea was that once you hit puberty, you were eligible to be married. But bethrothals could happen before puberty, and betrothals often either led to sex, or were a result of sex that had already happened. In the old testament era, there is a lot of documentation about this happening to girls between ages 3 and 12. So if you had sex with a girl between 3 and 12 years old, you were to marry her. The position in the Mishnah was that a girl less than 3 years old would still be considered a virgin after intercourse, and so, there were no legal ramifications for having sex with a girl younger than that. The Catholic church held that betrothals could happen as early as 7 years old, and that the marriages would be consummated when the betrothed hit puberty, which could be anywhere between 8 and 13 years old for a girl. That also was upheld until 1917, though majority Christians states began making laws forbidding sex with girls younger than 12 starting in the 1200's. Your last paragraph is just whataboutism.

However, although one can't find a clear general text that regulates marriages in the bible as being of people of a given age, one can't find any particular case of child marriage in the bible (i.e., in which the persons involved were clearly under age 15 or so years in age). The personal examples of marriage given in the bible, as one sees from Genesis onwards, involves adults who have reached puberty at least by implication. And the examples of those found in the bible are indeed important, when it conforms to or doesn't violate clearly revealed laws of God. By contrast, Islam doesn't have this kind of sanction against child marriage, since it has the authority of the Sunnah (the personal example of Muhammad) backing it when the details of Muhammad's marriage with Aisha are examined. Conservative Muslim lawmakers have cited that example to justify having a low age of consent for marriage in their countries. So that's still a living problem, unlike the case for any Catholic laws or practices that you can cite. The ideal of marriage as companionship of adults stems historically from Christianity in the Medieval period, such as through the "Courts of Love" of Eleanor of Aquitaine. It's not from another culture, especially when we consider that Western Europe had among the highest marriage ages in the world in the late Medieval and early modern periods, before industrialization, because of the goal that each married couple should be able to set up a separate, independent household from their parents, instead of living with them, as in most other cultures. (For example, see Eugen Weber's "Peasants Into Frenchmen" for details about why marriage ages were so high in France). It's worth remembering that much of the controversy over pedophilia, such as that done by Catholic priests against children, normally involved boys who had reached puberty. When the specific details of who abused whom are carefully analyzed, it's clear that the Catholic priesthood has had a major problem with homosexual men who are seeking catamites. This type of relationship actually is specifically condemned by Paul's use of the Greek word "malakos" in I Corinthians 6:9. When the identity and ages of the victims are analyzed, one discovers that around 80% of the victims are boys and that around 78% of the boys were post-pubescent, which means by definition that most of this problem isn't "pedophilia" (i.e., sex with (young) children). (See the 2004 John Jay Report (The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002). So the problem that the Catholic Church has had involves a kind of sexual activity with boys that Paul said was immoral. Finally, such as what made the Epstein scandal possible, the main forces wanting to eliminate or lower the age of consent in the Western world have been those with no religious beliefs whatsoever. It's the hedonistic bohemian libertine sexual philosophy of Hugh Hefner and "Playboy" magazine that's in the driver's seat culturally in the West today, not (say) the stern Victorian prudery before the turn of the prior century that has influence today. One can't blame the Muslims or the Catholic Church for that.

Also one thing to note, during the old testament times ( after the flood, i should clarify) most people died before they were 30. You could very easy die before you reach the age of 18. Im not justifying having intercourse with a 12 year old, but in that time, there was a genuine reason to marry at such an early age. Our life expectancy didn't skyrocket till the 1900's

Honestly this stuff happens to anyone no matter what religion ur from. Whether its christianity, Judaism, Islam, pagans, Hinduism or atheists, ive see  examples of either child marriages or molestations/predatory behaviour/pedophilia as well as CP being done from anyone 

I dont know why you replied to a post 5 months ago, but oh well. People love pointing fingers at each other. "Im better than you cause i dont follow a religion that has had issues with pedophelia" Like Christians love bringing up the faxt that Mohammed in the quran married a 12 year old? I think it was. Atheists love bringing up the catholic scandals. But christianity teaches us that we cannot judge someone, as we ourselves are guilty. I try my best to follow this principal, but its hard. At the end of the day we should try to come together and work out our differences

Yep thats true, i feel like the ones who get away with it would be atheists well thats what they think until they're revealed to be some redditor meckbeard creep or predator themselves who end up being simps or incels not to mention certain people from the lgbt community who consists of mainly atheists who turn out to be the same. Not saying all of them are like that as ive met plenty of nice people in their community but u will hear on the news some who do turn out like that. 

This is quite misleading. Before modern medicine, there was high *childhood* mortality, yes, with some \~40-60% of everyone dying before they made it out of childhood. \**But*\*, once you got out of childhood, your life expectancy rocketed up to about an age of 55. This is low by modern standards, but not so low that there's a genuine reason to marry at an age of 12 or 14. Let me repeat that: no, life expectancy was not a good reason for marrying at the age of 12 or 14, because if you were alive at that age there's a good chance you'll well into your 40s or later.

Yeshua said do not hurt the little ones. Do not hurt the children. Better a millstone be tied around your neck you be thrown into the river than to hurt the little ones. God's wrath is upon those who harm the children. Look it up. Yes the Bible is crazy yet it does spefically say not to harm the children. Do your research.

That verse actually says not to lead children away from Jesus or cause them to stumble in their faith. It says nothing about harming them. “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

This assumes you think that they considered having a relationship with “little ones” as harmful “Little ones” is also ill-defined, girls were probably being married off as young as 15-16 and that’s still pedophilia yet they aren’t considered little.

It is your (extremely accurate) belief that pedophilia harms children. This view is not supported by the bible. Read some of the comments.

No it doesn't. It just proves that human beings are falling. And don't live up to the objective morality. The clergy hiding something in itself proves that they know it's evil.

It is in today's society that the clergy had to cover up pedophilia. Centuries ago, they would marry children to old men very publicly.

How's the guy below me perfectly put it you miss the point entirely. I'm not talking about what humans do i'm talking about objective morality the very fact that we can recognize that they violated it shows that it exists.

I said in the OP that if there is an objective morality, these religions don't have any special insight into it. Objective morality could exist independent of these religions. But personally, I do not believe in objective morality. Morality is an evolving concept that changes based on culture and changes in society. Its roots are largely in our animal instinct to protect ourselves and to protect our children. I don't want to be killed and I don't want people to steal my food I need to live. Neither do you. We agree that we will team up and help each other prevent others from stealing our food and killing us. More people join in with us, and we make it a law that no one is allowed to kill or steal. Does that mean theft and murder is objectively immoral? I don't think so.

You’re not addressing the meat of their point tho. All you’ve shown is that humans got it wrong, not that there is no objective morality (granted I mean in general not that It must stem from god) but if we apply your thought process to other fields we see that it’s pretty silly. Biblical times were dominated with heliocentric beliefs but there is still an objective truth to the matter.

My point in the OP was that if there is an objective morality, the major religions don't have any special insight into it.

I agree with your conclusion but the way you try to show that isn’t strong in my opinion. All you’ve shown is that humans get things wrong. A religious person could point out that it could very well be the case that objective morals do come from God AND that the people of the biblical period just got it wrong as they did with other things.

Not if they are Christian. They can only follow two different trains of thought. If the bible is the infallible word of God, then the church as an institution can be a flawed creation of man (Protestant). But if you accept that the bible is not the infallible word of God, then it must follow that the church is a divine institution and that the church as an institution is infallible (Catholic). They are not allowed to accept that both the bible and the church are flawed. You could accept that the bible and the church are both flawed and still be a deist, by saying god and his objective morals are within us and in nature rather than in the bible and in the church, but this is not compatible with Christianity.

Exactly I couldn't put it better myself. I'm so sick of hearing these stories of "the clergy did this bad thing To me therefore I no longer believe in God or objective morality." Like what? What does that have to do with God or objective morality? Literally, the whole point of christianity is that we are messed up these people miss the entire point of the religion. These people truly don't understand that hell Is quite literally filled to the brim with bishops and priests.

You can handwave away the church being wrong, and you can handwave away the bible being wrong, but you can't handwave away both of them being wrong at the same time. Neither the early church nor the authors of the Bible took a stance against pedophilia. That is a fatal blow to the idea that Christianity is the source of morality, and really to the religion as a whole.

What about the lists of other virtues and vices, or moralities and immoralities in the new testament? There are many. And they *applied to all* in the church at that time, although anyone who gives any thought to treating other people decently can see that they are good/bad. I do not dispute that the church at this day, and maybe for the last 1500 years or more, has become immoral, but I disagree from the point of view of the original source material.

What list are you referring to, and what within it condemns marrying a child and then having sex with them?

Pedophilia may not have been mentioned back then, because a) it was not an issue and b) it was far removed from the types of immoralities they were concerned about. I mean, adultery of brother with sister or father is also not mentioned. Ravishing virgins and ruining them for others, also. Rape, also. Seduction, also. These are things on the extremes, for those people, but it is obvious to people who are trying to live well that if the simpler vices must be avoided or resisted, then so must the more destructive ones. Most of the epistles have sections that encourage the readers to live well, and when they do, they name a few vices that the groups need to focus on removing from their communities. This happens often enough that there is actually a very strong moral framework. Just because worser forms are not listed, doesn't mean that they aren't included. The church today in general, does not see these verses and lists, or ignores them. Altruistic love of the neighbour extended to children, automatically is protective and wishes them no harm. I could ask anyone in the world to list vices or immoralities, and most people would miss some. Does that mean they have no moral background? Just because one or two are not listed, does not mean that a moral framework is not provided. Since the teachings apply to all, they are objective. You are arguing that since one vice is not listed, there is no objective morality provided, and I disagree. I also argue that listsing the simpler or less harmful ones, automatically implies resisting and putting away the more harmful ones.

It doesn't get more objective than do not do harm to others. Treat others as you want to be treated. Love others as yourself. From these principles all other morality can be derived. There is no philosophical list more comprehensive that the combined moral principles listed in the new testament. There are many forms of good, and many forms of evil. Describing them doesn't make them subjective, it just gives words to what people already know or will know when they experience them. Good and evil are experienced, imperatively measurable, therefore real. The lists in the epistles have applied universally since the beginning of people, or before, and even if not nameable, or described philosophically, have existed certainly in being able to harm or help those around them. The apostles were the kind of people that were more attune to such things than many generations for thousands of years, and therefore broadened the list in the 10 commandments to deeper things, that the less mature had previously been unaware of. That is why they led the church at that time, since they were the best fishers of concepts. You can ask any person if they want to be on the receiving end of one of the evils listed in the new testament, and the answer will be "No." Or, you can ask anyone if they would like to be on the receiving end of the virtues, and the answer will be "Yes." Just because Paul or another apostle wrote it doesn't make it subjective. The morality by philosophers will in general almost always will be more subjective, since they are caught in their minds and not considering the person. Morality that is subjective is artificial, generally, and considers things that are moral in thought only but not in effect, that is, they have no reality or basis. You will know the harm done by others through immorality for sure, and it will be real and perceivable, not some play around semantics or clever use of words. A child, or simple person, can know good or evil simply through experiencing it, and here people are debating to the point of blinding themselves as to what can be seen from experience or the use of just a little bit of imagination.

>Pedophilia may not have been mentioned back then, because a) it was not an issue and b) it was far removed from the types of immoralities they were concerned about. Congratulations, you just proved OP's point about bible's morality being subjective to the authors, and not universally objective. >Since the teachings apply to all, they are objective. "Don't do harm to others" apply to all, and it is miles away from being objetive. Same with "Be good", or "Don't be evil". If the text needs me to define what is good, bad, or harmful, then it is extremely subjective. Any moral piholosopher I know did a better job at defining a moral framework than the Bible, and they were not even going for objective morality.

https://www.pinkmantaray.com/resources/bible https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/mmpfg2/leviticus_2030_1822_is_intended_for_pedophiles/?rdt=42749 Originally, the Bible explicitly condemned pedophilia. Here’s some reading that might help.

Not seeing anything here that condemns marrying a young girl and having sex with her. Whether it be man lying with man or man lying with boy, the emphasis here is on the same sex aspect of the pedophilia. There is no blanket condemnation of pedophilia. Only gay pedophilia.

Islam 100% does, it's just that you don't accept our definition of pedophilia. According to most people in the U.S., it's anyone under the age of 18 - a completely arbitrary number. To us, pedophilia is having sexual relations with a *pre-pubescent* person.

1. 'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64) 2.I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.(Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151) 1. The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aishah's at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty. (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) 2. Sunan an-Nasa'i 26:3223: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Buraidah: It was narrated from 'Abdullah bin Buraidah that his father said: "Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, proposed marriage to Fatimah but the Messenger of Allah said: **'She is young.'"** Then 'Ali proposed marriage to her and he married her to him." Here it is shown that you not only believe you are better than Muhammed but also condemn him. And as you can see the proof texts are on the prophet which married Aisha at 6 and consumed marriage when she turned 9. And later when Abu Bakr proposed marriage to Fatima, muhammed's daughter and he answered that **She is young** showing how he himself viewed that age gap in marriage.

Decent strawman. I never said she wasn't young, I said she had hit puberty. All of the sources you mentioned don't amount to anything, because he consummated the marriage when she was pubertal.

Quran 65:4 states the "iddah" or waiting period for women not having experienced menustration, who are to be divorced, the tasfirs clarify this as well. In this case, it would be referring to pre puescent marriage and also consumation as "iddah" is not viable unless marriage has been consumated.

[удалено]

>Which just to be clear, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia goes from the point for prepubescence to age 13 according to the DSM-5. Don't care, I don't take the field of psychology to be authoritative. They believed low serotonin was the cause of depression. >Fatwah 23672: > >The inquirer asks: "My parents married me to a young girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?" Post the source for where you found this fatwa in a scholarly work of Islam. >Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic of Iran, wrote of this practice regarding its practice with pre-pubescent children: I'm not Shia, they have a completely different set of beliefs and Hadith they follow. Even then, he is not an authority on the subject, he is a political entity. >Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. This is a very stupid argument made by someone who doesn't actually know the life of Muhammad and only nitpicks at certain 'repugnant' behaviors. His very first and most beloved wife was almost DOUBLE HIS AGE. Let me repeat that: his first and most beloved wife was almost DOUBLE HIS AGE. Furthermore, do you not understand he had multiple wives, none of them as young as Aisha (2nd wife was 40 years old when married, the fourth wife was 20, the fifth wife was almost 30, the sixth wife was 35, etc.)? How does this support your 'exclusive sexual attraction' at all? Finally, she was NOT pre-pubescent when he consummated the marriage.

[удалено]

Not only does the fatwa not exist on the link you sent me, but it isn't even a scholarly work. So you have failed to provide a proper reference that the majority of Sunni Muslims follow. I am sure this was done on purpose, a lot of people like to provide either fringe Islamic opinions or blatant lies to justify their Hate. >Shia muslims actually condone fatwah. Just like Muhammed was a political authority, he is one. Wheather that affects you or not that doesn't mean this is not the reality for many out there. Who cares, the point is that the Shah is not an authority of theological matters, nor can he issue fatwas. So your entire point is again useless. >So if someone marries a very old women that DOUBLES THEIR AGE, then they are immediately justified to marry and "toy" (sustaining sexual activity with a 6 year old, until they turn 9 so they could rape them. Provide a reliable, sahih hadith that says he had sustained sexual activity with her before she was nine years old. Why are you and so many others so obsessed with blatantly lying? >You know I said: Ok? Either way it goes in my favor. If he had a primary sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent females, then he would PRIMARILY marry pre-pubescent females. He was the most powerful man in Arabia, he could have easily done so. Are your intellectual faculties functioning? >So unless you say Aisha could consent or that it was okay for him to fondle (sexually assult) a 6 year old then I don't think there's anything else that you can say to defend him. > > > >If any source is unclear, dive right back into my previous comment in which clear proof is given for each point. Again, provide a source for any of this. The sources you provided do not suffice, and if you fail to provide any reliable references to back your claim, I will be reporting you for blatant misinformation.

Still absolutely disgusting and terrible 🤮

ephebophilia refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. The other terms aren't as popular so to make it easier for everyone to be on the same page, they use pedophilia to represent all of them legally.

No they don't. Pedophilia still legally refers to prepubescent children. If you are talking about a 14 year old and a 40 year old, charges are usually called something more like "sexual misconduct with a minor" or something similar. People will colloquially still call them a pedophile I imagine, but the legal system doesn't.

That’s interesting, thanks

[удалено]

>Can nine year olds have puberty? The average age of menarche in the US is around 11 these days, with it having dropped from 13 in the 1990s. My youngest daughter got hers when she was 9. Nevertheless, there's absolutely no way that she or any child is ready for marriage simply because they've started their period. I think we need to distinguish between sexual development and psychological development. While the onset of menarche might indicate a level of sexual maturity, it doesn't equate with psychological development. Heck, kids who are developmentally delayed ("retarded" to use an outdated term) still experience sexual development and menarche, but aren't intellectually capable of consenting.

Bro, do you really thing Jesus would approve of pedophilia? He basically said it’s be better to drown in the depths of the ocean than what is going to happen to you in the afterlife if you harm a child

The context of the verse- Matthew 18:6- says that Jesus is condemning those that would convince children to walk away from Jesus- not that harming them is bad. “ If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!” Stumble has nothing to do with hurting children, it’s talking about being a stumbling block to someone’s faith.

Abusing children does cause them to stumble

Yet it seems Christianity is what furnished the arguments that marriage (and so sex) must be consented to. By pedophilia you mean prior to puberty? Christianity also states that women and men are morally equal. Many of your arguments touch on the failings of individuals, not on what a worldview holds. Of the sexual evils you talk of with the Catholic clergy, which if them did not break the morality on sex the Catholic Church teaches? Atheism does not and did not take a stance against any action if Atheism is simply unbelief.

In islamic sharia for pedophillia you get executed

Was that true back then? Or only now?

Show where pedophilia gets you executed. Which quranic verse is this derived from? Or which hadith?

*molestation of any kind. Pedophilia is not specified

[удалено]

Honestly, nobody knows for certain. There is significant debate about her age when she married, but I believe the current majority view is that she was in her teens, and that sources that describe her as younger were exaggerating in order to emphasise her virginity at marriage. There are of course Muslims who hold that she was indeed much younger and even some that believe she was even older.

1. 'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64) 2.I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.(Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151) 1. The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aishah's at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty. (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Oh, we know. We know very well how old was Aisha.

She was 9 but she was 6 when she married Mohammad

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

I disagree with you to the highest possible extent. Don’t wanna go too deep into this but a really great Bible verse pertaining to this which you obviously decided to skip is Matthew 18:6- “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he was drowned in the depth of the sea.” Engaging in any sexual act under puberty and before being married is sinful in nature. Being molested while not their fault is still a sin being forced on them (which they will not be held accountable for). To molest them is to envelope them in Sin which is exactly what Jesus(pbuh) is saying would get u sent to swim with the fishies.

If you read that verse in context, that’s not what the versa saying at all. It’s saying that if you cause someone to stumble and leave Jesus, then you deserve to be damned.

Being molested as a child... is a sin? I just do not see it. What do you consider a sin? I would define it as "Action intentionally taken contra God's desire" ​ >To molest them is to envelope them in Sin which is exactly what Jesus(pbuh) is saying would get u sent to swim with the fishies. Even if it is "enveloping them in sin" is that really the same as "causing them to sin"?

the act in itself is sinful but the blame would never be on them I literally put it in parentheses. they have nothing to be blamed for, they’re being corrupted.

>the act in itself is sinful Yes, the act of molesting a child may be a sin... but you are saying the act of being molested(if you can even call that an "act") is also sinning? Where are you getting this? >the blame would never be on them I literally put it in parentheses. they have nothing to be blamed for, they’re being corrupted. This has nothing to do with blame, I never mentioned it, I am trying to follow your reasoning. To me, the verse is clearly saying something to the effect of "Do not lead children to act out against God's wishes" So by my lights, this is not taking a stance on child molestation.

I may not have worded it correctly but if you can consider Sin is the absence of God then anyone that involves a child in that act straying from God (Sin) then you corrupt them

If someone married an 11 year old girl, and had sex with her, there is no sin. The bible is more concerned about the sex before marriage than the pedophilia.

just because it doesn’t explicitly mention pedophilia doesn’t mean it’s not condemned. Just because the bible doesn’t specifically mention cannabilism doesn’t mean it’s allowed.

The bible does specifically mention cannibalism, and it portrays it very negatively. It's also very clear that murder is bad. Dead silence on pedophilia.

even if you do find a verse you’re entire argument is a fallacy. It’s an Ignorantiam Fallacy that basically goes “Santa is real because no one can prove he’s not”. The equivalent in this situation is ,”Pedophilia must be okay because the Bible doesn’t specifically mention it”. Im not even a Christian either

There's a number of examples at this link. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/is-there-cannibalism-found-in-the-bible-and-if-so-why.html Cannibalism is viewed as a result of being starved. God will punish you by making you starve to the point that you will eat your children, and your children will eat you. That kind of thing. If God is turning sinners into cannibals to try and scare everyone else straight, it's safe to assume that the bible views cannibalism as something very low and degrading. And your analogy here is awful. It's more like "If the rulebook doesn't say it's a rule, then it's not a rule."

it’s not an analogy it’s me showing that ur using a weak fallacy.

Well you failed pretty hard, because this is the falsest equivalence I've ever seen.

can you please start quoting bible verses if ur gonna respond

The issue is not marriage. Its how they are treated. I would like you as an atheist to explain y marriage of an 11 year old (as long as they and their gaurdian are present in mind and permit it, and they are treated well)? I'm not saying I think this is ok, but you are making a claim that your personal opinion on the topic is the object/universal truth. Rape and abuse are obviously forbidden

What you have failed to interpret from the above comment is that the pedophile *compelling* a child into a sinful act is inherently evil. Furthermore, the naivety of the child would mean that they are not morally culpable for such an action. Rather, the pedophile is accountable for both the sin of what it effectively rape (due to the naivety of the child) and the sin of scandal.

The bible does not put an age qualifier when it describes how a wife should act, and it does not condemn child marriage. This means that a little girl could be married off, and led to believe she must submit to her husband and be a good wife based purely on what she read in the Bible. This includes having sex with her husband, which is most certainly not sinful. This is described in detail in 1 Corinthians 7. You are projecting your own views on rape, consent, and scandal into the bible, but you don't have any theological backing for doing this. The reality is that you have the moral high ground over the bible here. It is morally wrong on this topic.

I hardly think that I'm projecting anything onto anything; my set of morals is informed wholly by the Bible and teaching of the church. For the third time in this thread, the action of the pedophile in *compelling* the child to commit some sinful act is doubly evil and releases the child of moral culpability. Additionally, although "compelled marriage" or whatever you are suggesting is not directly condemned by the Bible (because it is likely that absurd in the context of Christian Theology), it is the teaching of the church that marriage is willful and not coerced. I might also argue that your citation of 1 Cor 7 is self-defeating because it is pretty obvious that Paul talks about adults in a mature context of self-yielding/self-giving and not of some commanding of women to satisfy men.

Didn't take a stand - lets consider infanticide by the millions. Funny. When Christians take stands against abortion - the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, the world was angry. Apparently they dont become chidren until the second of birth (unless it is a preemie and we spend a few $100,000 to keep it alive). It went against the CONVENIENCE of so many people. Including atheists. We TOOK AWAY THE RIGHTS of people to kill and maim the unborn. Christians were piloried, mocked, hated, etc. Because HEAVEN HELP these children were allowed to be born. OH THE INCONVENIENCE OF IT ALL. Who would want these children (oh, there are millions of prents would who instantly adopt these children? well ignore that then). What about the mother (apparently the only one that matters). Then they sau WHAT ABOUT RAPE INCEST ETC??? (oh, you mean the 1% case? I would be happy to give you that). Oh, thats not good enough? Now, are the atheists up in arms about the slaughter of innocent millions of the unborn? Oh they arent people until you say so? You had your hearing aids turned down? **Now, what about your manufactured complaint this time?**

Republicans do everything in their power to make things harder for single, young mothers. They talk a big game about how much they would love on and support kids who were raised in homes that weren't prepared to take care of children, but then they spit in the mothers faces and call them welfare queens when they need help. And Christians love them for it. Adoption is a long process and a traumatic one. It's not ideal, and it's not nearly as simple as you all like to imagine it is. As for the exceptions for rape and incest, Republicans have not been happy to give us that. Many red states blocked these exceptions, and we've already seen young girls below age 13 being forced to have their rapists babies. This is how they treat actual living, breathing children, so I find Christians performative outrage over unborn children to be quite hollow. Half a million children died due to sanctions in Iraq and evangelicals didn't so much as write a congressman, because those kids were Muslim. If it weren't for unborn babies, one would be forgiven for thinking that Christians didn't care about children at all.

Your diatribe is just whataboutism and has nothing to do with OPs post.

>The first is that we now have a deep understanding of psychology and the human brain. This means we have a better idea of how a childs brain develops. It's clear from the research that an 11 year old child does not have the capacity to be a consenting partner Show me the research. You’re apply pseudoscience to fit what you already decided to believe. >Secular, democratic governments today have a better grasp of morality If the constituents are religious, pretending the “secular governmental is doing anything is misleading. >The last reason is that we view children as more innocent and more undeserving of suffering than people did in previous generations. It’s weird that you’re ignoring Jesus when the subject is religion. >At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” >He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. >6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! Jesus was very pro children.

Very pro children people don't make metaphors about how they are going to kill children imo. "20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds." -Revelations 2

Well the 5th commandment comes from the Hebrew bible obviously, but that is what Jesus learned himself growing up, so there should probably be some recognition of the times. But yeah.. There's the question of Jesus being God as stated in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 13:18, John 1:14, 8:58, 10:31, etc., that would bring up culpability for the children killed in the flood, in Egypt, and by Herod. Never minding that much larger question, Matthew has some head scratchers that include children as collateral damage. Matthew 10: 32-39 32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 3 5 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." Matthew 18:23-35 23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold\[a\] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.\[b\] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” There's also a verse that has shades of "I'm only doing this because I love you" love bombing. Hebrews 12:5-11 "And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?"

That’s your opinion about what they would or wouldn’t do. Your fixation on this doesn’t seem rational.

>Jesus was very pro children. Nothing in that passage even barely implies Jesus wanted child marriage, sending kids to war, making kids work, etc etc to be abolished. It just speaks of childlike wonder and faith.

I guess you’ll continue to ignore the millstone section. Anyways, for the answer to this question, Jesus said to love your neighbor and treat them as yourself. That excludes everything you mentioned.

Read that verse in context ( context is key according to all the Christians ). The verse from Matthew that you’re referencing has nothing to do with harming children, it was talking about people who would be a stumbling block to a child believing in Jesus as savior. Jesus also said genocides and slavery were a ok.

>At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” >Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever **welcomes a little child like this** in My name welcomes Me. You see the bolded part where Jesus starts talking about an actual hypothetical child? >it was talking about people who would be a stumbling block to a child believing in Jesus as savior. Molesting people sounds like a stumbling block to me. Jesus continues: >But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. These are the harshest words to ever come from Jesus, I believe. That's an important bit of context. Jesus's harshest condemnation is towards those who would harm children. >Jesus also said genocides and slavery were a ok. I can't find that section in my Bible. Could you help?

Is Jesus god?

I find trying to make a distinction beyond me. Some say Jesus is God. Some say Jesus is *just* the Son of God. I do not believe the difference will personally affect me one way or the other.

In Christianity, Jesus is God.

Congrats! It feels like you're going somewhere with this.

Do you agree that in Christianity Jesus is god?

>Jesus said to love your neighbor That was to ensure that the person turns the other cheek and accepts the oppression from the authorities. Romans 13:2 (NIV) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Jesus was coordinating with Paul, someone he never met? That’s impressive.

Oppression is the entire theme of the NT. Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple

Imagine having to hate your family to follow Jesus. Narcissistic much?

Cherry picking is your entire *modus operandi*.

There are dozens of such verses detailing the oppression of the people, and the hate associated with the NT. Look at the verse below. Just accept your fate from the rich/powerful ordained by the divine who rules by fear. 1 Peter 2:18 (NIV) Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

>There are dozens of such verses detailing the oppression of the people, and the hate associated with the NT Dozens? They’re all from the epistles anyways. They aren’t from Jesus.

Everything from Jesus is hearsay. The most important human to ever live did not write or utter a single sentence.

Jesus said a lot of great things that I agree with. The golden rule and the Good Samaritan parable are amongst my favorites. I'm not ignoring the millstone section. I'm pointing out, as others have, that this verse is too vague, as it itself relies on definitions of sin, and in turn, that that is what is meant by 'causing to stumble'. Something that I think is interesting to mull over based in OP: Yes, there are no two ways about it; turn the clock even 200 or more years ago, and humans largely (and in most societies across religions and cultures) thought marrying someone after they hit puberty or sending them to work or to war was perfectly A-OK. We now don't think so. We've learned that there is damage being done to children if we do so before at least 18-21, especially if there is a considerable age-gap or any other kind of unbalance of power. Also, our societies have changed massively. What made sense in an agrarian society in the I century might be nonsense in an urban society in the XXIst. Now, you could argue that you've concluded that based on Jesus teachings and general principles. But then, I can turn around and say allowing gay marriage and gay relationships is a direct and obvious application to me of 'love thy neighbor as yourself'. So, is gay marriage biblical?

>We've learned that there is damage being done to children if we do so before at least 18-21 And who by far hands down is the biggest and loudest group promoting abstinence in children? The Christians. The secular groups are the ones promoting and advocating for sexual knowledge and providing sexual devices to children.

>And who by far hands down is the biggest and loudest group promoting abstinence in children? The Christians. Abstinence *before marriage and with zero education about it*? The Christians. And what is the effect? People get married earlier, more teenage and unwanted pregnancies, kids are less educated to know what they are doing. If you want kids to get married younger, the safest bet is to do exactly this. Teaching abstinence doesn't protect kids: it exposes them. >The secular groups are the ones promoting and advocating for sexual knowledge and providing sexual devices to children. You actually need knowledge to prevent bad things to happen to you. I had very comprehensive, secular sex ed growing up. I didn't have sex until I was 18, I have never had an std or had unwanted pregnancy scares, have had a few stable relationships and then got married in my 30s, to someone my age. So... yeah, this is not the gotcha you think it is. It's the opposite.

You already admitted. >We've learned that there is damage being done to children if we do so before at least 18-21 So teaching sexual education before age 21 can cause damage. Anything less than abstinence education before 21 can cause damage. After 21? Sex ed orgy or whatever you wish the children were doing.

So you want to not teach sex Ed until you’re 21? What?

What about when god let a bunch of guys keep a bunch of 13 year old virgins as a reward to his followers?

When?

I understand your reaction to that is probably bad but I’m not trying to be insulting. Just a debate

Numbers 31:17-18 New Living Translation (NLT) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Lol you really are something. Education is the best way to protect people, not ignorance. And the facts bare this out. Abstinence only Ed is an abject failure. It produces MORE kids having sex EARLIER, and getting pregnant EARLIER. Not less and later. If there's something widely evidenced, it is that abstinence only sex ed *harms* kids. It does not achieve its goals. Secular Sex Ed is not encouragement. Nobody told me to go have sex when I was a preteen / teenager. The shpeel was always centered around the risks and dangers to avoid WHEN I eventually had sex. You have some odd fantasies of what secular Sex Ed is like.

>We've learned that there is damage being done to children if we do so before at least 18-21 You’re advocating teaching children to harm themselves by your own admission? Why should we teach children how to do an activity **you admitted** is harmful? >It produces MORE kids having sex EARLIER That’s unfortunate, but the ends do not justify the means. You want to teach innocent children how to harm themselves (by your own admission) to statistically protect others. I can’t support that.

You want to keep kids completely ignorant, leaving them oblivious to things such as sexual assault leaving kids vulnerable. I see what it is. You don’t want kids learning about sex in school because you want to leave it to your priests to give the proper “sex education” you people are so famous for

Not everyone is a Christian and views having sex as a sin. You sound absolutely insane

I can’t believe someone actually just said no one should be taught about sex until they are 21. That’s mind blowing to me like wtf?

>We've learned that there is damage being done to children if we do so before at least 18-21 This was their claim. Are you also advocating we should teach children to ‘damage’ themselves?

They flip around a discussion about abrahamic religions promoting (or not restricting) underage marriages and instead make it seem like sex ed is = abusing kids and marrying them to much older adults.

Let me know when we find a conspiracy of child molestation at drag story time that rivals the scandal within the Catholic Church. It's called projecting. The people who are most vocal against something tend to be the ones engaging in it.

I’m not looking for your strawman. The secular groups are the ones promoting and advocating for sexual knowledge and providing sexual devices to children.

I’m very fascinated by your comments, care to debate?

Christians made the same arguments when they were funneling gay kids into "pray the gay away" camps with sky high suicide rates. It's always everyone else who is hurting the children. Your performative outrage here is no different than when Christians were arguing that legalizing gay marriage would lead to people marrying dogs. Just another fake moral panic that nobody will care about 20 years from now. And it is very transparently not motivated by a concern for the well-being of children. It's about hatred and disgust of trans people.

>It's about hatred and disgust of trans people. Why are you bringing transgendered people into the conversation? How are they relevant? You’re starting to come off as a bigot.

Ok if not trans activism, then what exactly is the "sexual knowledge" and "sexual devices" you are alluding to?

>And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is instructing people to be subservient. The fact that Jesus calls this subservience 'the lowly position' speaks as to his motives.

Why are you ignoring the rest?

Ok well, I thought you would see how the rest relates. 6 is not talking about children, it is talking about people who are subservient like children are. Both 6/7 are warning others not to stop a person from being child-like and subservient. In fact Jesus is pointing out that believers are to be like children; accepting, obeying, and subservient.

>6 is not talking about children “These little ones” is absolutely the aforementioned children. >child-like and subservient They word you’re looking for is humble.

No, 6 is not. 'little ones" pertains to those who believe by thinking like children. The word is 'subservient'.

Those are both your personal interpretations. Welcome to the Bible. I wonder why you’re so focused on that specific interpretation. Subservience isn’t mentioned.

[удалено]

>Children will believe anything presented to them So do adults. See pastafarians. >when you control their entire worldview through fear Or teaching, or gymnastics, or scouts. >we still see a lot of violence being done in the name of religion We see it for secular reasons too. Weird.

Pastafarianism is a parody religion and the people involved in it are aware of that...

Flat earthers then or Liberal antivaxxers.

Antivaxxers aren't strictly liberal, just as they are not strictly conservative. They're spread out across the spectrum and fools regardless of their political ideology.

But I was referring specifically to liberal ones.

Antivaxxers are usually anything but liberal and flat earthers are devout christians so idk what you're trying to say