The bible is actually pro pedophilia?

[Rnion]

I read some stuff in the old. Before you say "old covenant".. this is in terms of war spoils. Not in context to laws of moses or the typical what you should do. More like an act of war spoils, but basically even so it does give a clue to what is ok or not. Basically according to later bible verses the war spoils were given up to the people.

Deuteronomy 20:14
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies."

Numbers 31:18
but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This essentially is in context to virgins. Basically virgins was seen as pious, morrale by the god of abraham. So you could marry and have sex with them. Though then again it doesn't actually refer to age. But considering if i was a pedophile back then i would interpret it to maybe mean..

12 .15..17 year olds?.

I guess the new testament says do not despite the little ones or make them stumble. But marrying them i guess according to these people is not the same as hating them

For example the pagan world usually had sex slaves and stuff as war booty. This was likely their "we are not gonna do as foreign nation do" so yeah we are gonna marry them instead, that way you get new converts aswell as making the other gods seen as immorale and us more better in comparison if one has to take captives you have to marry then have sex with them.

Which yeah now is immorale, but i guess they had to have a reason for war lords and aswell as creating a better moral rift than what the others did. I guess they didnt consider marrying underaged ones wasnt considered that.

I learned it from looking it up. I read the whole 20 chapter but mostly numbers 18 seems much more clear that its not a crime being a pedophile, being a sex offender in new testament sure as in perv or having no honour in marriage and being wicked of ideas is seen as bad, but being attracted to young girls, not so much, but i read it to be sure i wasnt misinterpreting it. So let me know what you think?
What the Bible says about pedophilia



But let me know what you think?

 

[Rnion]

i meant to say numbers 31 not 18, but somehow it wont let me edit. Sorry about that

 

[Sketcher]

Being as it doesn't say to have sexual relations with children, I'd say you're reaching pretty far to come to the conclusion that it is endorsing it.

 

[Halbhh]

But they were specifically also protected by God's Law. -- If such a woman woman rejects the man, then he owes her full freedom. Deu Ch 21

 

[Rnion]

But they were specifically also protected by God's Law. -- If such a woman woman rejects the man, then he owes her full freedom. Deu Ch 21

It says "if a man is not pleased" a female has no say in it in terms of war booty. The point here is that they wanted to show how better their god was compared to other cultures and religions that allowed sex slaves as spoils of wars, in this case marriage. It wouldn't make sense in having women having rights as captives. This wasn't in a time when they had human rights or constitution, this was simply a culture trying to seem superior than others.

Deuteronomy 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

 

[sethrak]

Well, those are the records of that people at that time~what the thought and did. Sounds at this point the same to me as it reads to you.
Good night~

seth

 

[paul1149]

There were protections built in. As horrible as these rules of war sound to us now, for the time they were very advanced. God was dealing primarily on the national level back then, and there was little to no social structure for rehabilitation. Bear in mind as well that Israel had to under 400 years of captivity while waiting for "the error of the Amorites" to be fulfilled. The nations being conquered at this point were exceedingly evil. Sadly, by our standards, innocent people got in the way.

But we have a more accurate picture of God now, with the revelation of Jesus. There is no need to go back to what went before.

 

[Halbhh]

It says "if a man is not pleased" a female has no say in it in terms of war booty. The point here is that they wanted to show how better their god was compared to other cultures and religions that allowed sex slaves as spoils of wars, in this case marriage. It wouldn't make sense in having women having rights as captives. This wasn't in a time when they had human rights or constitution, this was simply a culture trying to seem superior than others.

Deuteronomy 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Yes, that's partly right. Except by law there are no sex slaves in the sense you are thinking.

Not like us here in the U.S. today, in other words.

To get the full picture, you need only read further -- in Deuteronomy 23 (would you like me to bold scripture references for easy sighting?) we also have the surprising law that any escaped slave is to be given equal and full citizenship as a free person anywhere in Israel immediately upon escaping and showing up in any town or city. More, they are to be treated equally to all other people, by God's law, which is something.

It's a powerful anti-slavery law, making 'slavery' only temporary (there are additional laws protecting slaves also, again unlike what we did in the U.S.).

In essence, this law from God forced all such relationships to be entirely voluntary, and would apply to these slaves.

If you could imagine the situation with a young woman/teenager or child after a war....

If no one takes them in, they would starve or must sell themselves. Pretty brutal not to take them in.

But if they are taken in as a slave, like a bond servant in a sense, until they could be married presumably (after marriage they are a wife), they then by law could leave/escape at some point if they wished.

If the relationship even before marriage, just as a slave, isn't pleasing to her, she can run off and then has full freedom, and is no longer a 'slave'.

For the law-abiders, this is not 'slavery' as we knew it here in the U.S. in the 18th and 19th century. Here, slaves not wanted are sold into more slavery. All very brutal.

Not in Israel 3500 years ago though. Totally different.

And not like our current U.S. slavery Today in 2017 -- our modern U.S. slavery we call 'human trafficking' is brutal (as you can find out about).

 

[SolomonVII]

Are people really shocked and appalled that a Bronze age people had a moral and legal code that does not reflect the modernist, humanist, secularist values and mores of our post-Christian society?

 

[Rnion]

Like maybe i am saying it wrong. Maybe its not pro pedophilia. But the interpretation of a pedophile could the least justify it. Who knows, maybe the spoils of war such as children was used for slavery in general, child labour. But really i have no clue. The point is you can interpret this as you want, like the new testament even says scripture can be reproofed and reinterpreted so its not like you have to be ok with it.

 

[Halbhh]

Like maybe i am saying it wrong. Maybe its not pro pedophilia. But the interpretation of a pedophile could the least justify it. Who knows, maybe the spoils of war such as children was used for slavery in general, child labour. But really i have no clue. The point is you can interpret this as you want, like the new testament even says scripture can be reproofed and reinterpreted so its not like you have to be ok with it.

Often I think of the laws themselves as very pragmatic at this point in this way -- Israel had already failed over and over to follow the 10 commandments.

So, since they could not follow these broader laws, the 10 commandments, instead they were now given very detailed and incremental laws.

Incremental means taking them exactly the place they were at -- slavery and war, just like all the nations around them, same manner and fashion, and then regulating that from where it was at, with an incremental improvement.

Although you could say this Underground Railroad type Law that isn't even underground isn't incremental --

15 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."

As a Law from God Himself, it looks very much like a way to end slavery and replace it with only indentured servanthood and voluntary associations.

So, you could argue that's not even incremental.

If we could end slavery here in the U.S. right now it would be great!

 

[Rnion]

Well the bible is pro slavery, though the new testament is sort of saying if you find freedom in god then its good for you, and is putting more negative attitude towards slavery in general as in "do not be yoke of bondage and slavery" but still you should obey earthly master most likely that rebellion is also a sin in the bible.

But the difference is old testament you should atleast have somewhat dignity to a slave, like if someones eye was cut off you had to pay with your life. But yes its brutal.But in comparison the point was to show that Yahweh was simply better law giver and wanted to prove to be more moral in comparison to what they percieved other nations to be wicked, like drunkards, molestations, abuse and that stuff.

 

[Halbhh]

Well the bible is pro slavery, though the new testament is sort of saying if you find freedom in god then its good for you, and is putting more negative attitude towards slavery in general as in "do not be yoke of bondage and slavery" but still you should obey earthly master most likely that rebellion is also a sin in the bible.

But the difference is old testament you should atleast have somewhat dignity to a slave, like if someones eye was cut off you had to pay with your life. But yes its brutal.But in comparison the point was to show that Yahweh was simply better law giver and wanted to prove to be more moral in comparison to what they percieved other nations to be wicked, like drunkards, molestations, abuse and that stuff.

Did you ever read the very short 1 page book Philemon (new testament, 1 page)?

Same writer who also had written separately --

5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free."


But, after you read Philemon you might wonder a moment if the writer had multiple personalities....

So, which is it Paul -- slave remain slaves, or slaves run away and become free?

Which?

....

The key to unlocking Paul's instruction to slaves, and to women to remain in traditional roles also, is 1 Corinthians chapter 8.

Once you read 1 Cor 8, you will begin to see what Paul was looking at as the goal.

Once you read more fully you will see:

The Bible is the way to end slavery, even though slavery is apparently human nature, in all nations in all times.

 

[Rnion]

Nah i am saying that being anti slavery for paul would be as not obeying your master, the master should also treat the slave good and have mercy on him. Paul is however saying that being free under faith is also good. He's just saying that dont get rebellious, but freedom is also a gift from god

 

[Halbhh]

Nah i am saying that being anti slavery for paul would be as not obeying your master, the master should also treat the slave good and have mercy on him. Paul is however saying that being free under faith is also good. He's just saying that dont get rebellious, but freedom is also a gift from god

That's right, but it's not all.

Sincerely, spend the 3 or 4 minutes and read that 1 page book Philemon, and then the 13 verses of 1 Cor 8, and soon enough you will see it all in a different way.

Once you see all those pieces, you have to admit that this Bible could put to an end the universal human reality of slavery, over time. In time, once enough are converted.

It's a pathway to a different way of being.

Not the old way, not that old way that has slavery as the normal.

 

[Sketcher]

Like maybe i am saying it wrong. Maybe its not pro pedophilia. But the interpretation of a pedophile could the least justify it.

In other words, someone who dishonestly reads a justification for his own sin into the Scriptures can dishonestly read a justification for his own sin into the Scriptures. This isn't a problem with the Scriptures or God. It's a problem with the sicko reading them.

The point is you can interpret this as you want, like the new testament even says scripture can be reproofed and reinterpreted so its not like you have to be ok with it.

Where does the New Testament say that? Give me book, chapter, and verse.

 

[Mark51]

“Spoils” as you are suggesting was true, but practiced only by the pagan nations. Fornication was a sin against God. Compare Numbers 25:1-9; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 18.

The captive virgins where prospective war brides. Such sparing of only virgins would serve to protect Israel from false worship and no doubt from sexually transmitted diseases. Children were used for labor. Any slave-according to God’s law-were to be treated justly.

 

[Percivale]

Paul says in I Corinthians that a girl cannot be married until she is 'past the flower of her youth.'

Regarding slavery, remember that there had been slave revolts, which all failed, and so Paul would not want to encourage that sort of thing, and if the authorities believed Christians were anti slavery it would result in more persecution. Paul clearly valued freedom nonetheless.

 

[hedrick]

The passage is not necessarily condoning sex with kids younger than normal marriage age. It's reasonable to say that those who were still virgins were capable of turning into good Israelite wives. Presumably the young ones would do so after they had come to the appropriate age.

Imagine you're a girl who is suddenly pulled into a different culture. Women would be unlikely to think of escape back to their original group, even if they were still alive. It would be natural for you to marry someone in the group you're now with.

In some cases the result would probably be what we would call rape. However in a culture with arranged marriages and the other rules in the OT, you've got to wonder whether there was always free consent even in marriages within Israel. I think the expectations around marriage would have been fairly different in a bronze age culture and the US today. No requirement for monogamy, sex with slave girls and mistresses. Laws that verged on regarding women as property (though they never quite go that far).

And that's a major point in dealing with Scripture, particularly the OT.

 

[RDKirk]

Like maybe i am saying it wrong. Maybe its not pro pedophilia. But the interpretation of a pedophile could the least justify it. Who knows, maybe the spoils of war such as children was used for slavery in general, child labour. But really i have no clue. The point is you can interpret this as you want, like the new testament even says scripture can be reproofed and reinterpreted so its not like you have to be ok with it.

So you're saying that if evil men can find a way to twist the interpretation of a command in their favor, then the command is in favor of evil?