Legal marrIage for girls under 10... Good grief....

[jammindude]

Upon further consideration, unless you're going to consider 1Peter speculation (which you probably should  ), then I think you'd have to accept that God and the Bible recognize Iran's new age of consent as legitimate.  You could argue that God disapproves, but wants us to obey The Man anyway, but I'd consider that fairly weak.  He left an out clause in Peter, that our laws couldn't conflict with his, and never seems to have taken up a position on age of consent.  So clearly he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

This is still all speculation.   By this reasoning, the Bible also condones drug use in any place where it might be legal...which it doesn't.

[jammindude]

Actually....13 is more recent Jewish tradition.  Not mentioned in the Bible at all.

As a matter of fact, when Jesus was on the earth, you were not considered a man until you were *30*...which is why Jesus had to wait until he was 30 to be baptized.

If it is a matter of fact, can you please point to where it is stated as fact that as a Jew in biblical times, "you were not considered a man until you were *30*"

Too many scriptures to quote...but to sum up.   You could not be accepted for temple duty until you were 25, and at 25 you were taken in under a sortof "light duty" learning assignment.   You could not take up full duty at the temple until the age of 30.  Also, most of the registrations only counted people from 30 years old upward (though some did count from 20 upward).    Again, that is why Jesus could not get baptized until he was 30.  (See Luke 3:23)

[El Barto]

Upon further consideration, unless you're going to consider 1Peter speculation (which you probably should  ), then I think you'd have to accept that God and the Bible recognize Iran's new age of consent as legitimate.  You could argue that God disapproves, but wants us to obey The Man anyway, but I'd consider that fairly weak.  He left an out clause in Peter, that our laws couldn't conflict with his, and never seems to have taken up a position on age of consent.  So clearly he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

This is still all speculation.   By this reasoning, the Bible also condones drug use in any place where it might be legal...which it doesn't.

How is this speculation?  If the bible prohibits drug use, then it's not applicable to Peter.  Otherwise, our law is his law.

[eric42434224]

Actually....13 is more recent Jewish tradition.  Not mentioned in the Bible at all.

As a matter of fact, when Jesus was on the earth, you were not considered a man until you were *30*...which is why Jesus had to wait until he was 30 to be baptized.

If it is a matter of fact, can you please point to where it is stated as fact that as a Jew in biblical times, "you were not considered a man until you were *30*"

Too many scriptures to quote...but to sum up.   You could not be accepted for temple duty until you were 25, and at 25 you were taken in under a sortof "light duty" learning assignment.   You could not take up full duty at the temple until the age of 30.  Also, most of the registrations only counted people from 30 years old upward (though some did count from 20 upward).    Again, that is why Jesus could not get baptized until he was 30.  (See Luke 3:23)

Just quote me where it says that, "at 30 you are considered a man".  Or that Jesus wasnt baptised until 30 due to this reason.

I will take any legitimate source...you dont have to stick with only Bible quotes.


Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,
LOL...seriously, your bible quote only said he started his ministry at around 30....it says nothing of the jewish age of manhood...LOL


EDIT:  I asked a jewish scholar client of mine, and he said, "there is NO age of maturity in the bible"

[theseoafs]

It makes sense that the Bible wouldn't say that, since there was no way of knowing at that time that the average life expectancy would double or triple over the course of a few thousand years. 

Remember that even if the Bible does condemn prepubescent sex, that doesn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the Iranian law, which doesn't want to make prepubescent sex legal, as 9-year old girls are indeed pubescent.

[Super Dude]

It makes sense that the Bible wouldn't say that, since there was no way of knowing at that time that the average life expectancy would double or triple over the course of a few thousand years. 

Remember that even if the Bible does condemn prepubescent sex, the Iranian law doesn't want to make prepubescent sex legal, since 9-year old girls are indeed pubescent.

Right, a man who lived to be 30 was living to a ripe old age, although I suppose L.E. by Jesus's time was probably slightly higher (Alexander himself died at 40, didn't he?).

[El Barto]

It makes sense that the Bible wouldn't say that, since there was no way of knowing at that time that the average life expectancy would double or triple over the course of a few thousand years.

Unless you're the all knowing, all perfect creator of the species.   

[theseoafs]

It makes sense that the Bible wouldn't say that, since there was no way of knowing at that time that the average life expectancy would double or triple over the course of a few thousand years. 

Remember that even if the Bible does condemn prepubescent sex, the Iranian law doesn't want to make prepubescent sex legal, since 9-year old girls are indeed pubescent.

Right, a man who lived to be 30 was living to a ripe old age, although I suppose L.E. by Jesus's time was probably slightly higher (Alexander himself died at 40, didn't he?).

Well, to be fair, by the time you successfully reach teenagerhood, your life expectancy shoots up a few years, maybe to 40 or 45.  25-30 would be a rough average for all the people who ever lived during that era, including the many people who died during birth or childhood.

Regardless, the point stands that I don't see a great way to condemn the Iranian law using only Biblical principles, since the Bible is pretty mum on exactly when you can legally have sex.

[Super Dude]

Oh, no, my original point is that although this whole deal in Iran is objectively disgusting, it's unfortunately not that distant from the norm human beings have upheld for thousands of years. Technically speaking, we're the unusual ones for waiting so long, but only because it's only been so recent that average life expectancy around the world has been more than 50.

[theseoafs]

It makes sense that the Bible wouldn't say that, since there was no way of knowing at that time that the average life expectancy would double or triple over the course of a few thousand years.

Unless you're the all knowing, all perfect creator of the species.   

Well, given the Bible's track record for scientific accuracy, I'd let God off the hook if he didn't see that one coming.  He never came off to me as a science guy.  He's an art history major, I think.

[yeshaberto]

What record shows the biblical people of israel had a life expectancy the same as today?

I quoted the scripture...if you don't view that as valid, we will have to agree to disagree.  But this is also a side point, and not the main point I was addressing.

You quoted the bible as a record of the life expectancy of a people?   
Didnt the bible say some people lived hundreds of years?

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, doesnt the bible say that a marriage is "OK" as long as both declare it, with witnesses, and as long as it isnt against an earthly law?

I don't appreciate the laughter icon in response to someone's statement. 

[El Barto]

Oh, no, my original point is that although this whole deal in Iran is objectively disgusting, it's unfortunately not that distant from the norm human beings have upheld for thousands of years. Technically speaking, we're the unusual ones for waiting so long, but only because it's only been so recent that average life expectancy around the world has been more than 50.

I don't think life expectancy has anything to do with it.  Over the years, a rather strong stigma has been applied to sexuality.  Despite the fact that we're wired to want to get our rocks off, we're culturally conditioned to place a tremendous emphasis on the emotional aspect of getting laid, an aspect which is our own creation.  That's the culprit.  Kiddos can't comprehend our own puritanical construct.  As long as you view getting off as some sacred gift from God, then children have no business being involved. 

[Super Dude]

I imagine there was some practical context to that moralistic imposition. Like, y'know, people killing other people who were boning people they wanted to bone. Or rape, for that matter. For early humans, placing some sacred importance on the institutional and emotional aspects of a sexual relationship was probably the best solution they had at their disposal.

[jsem]

In Jewish tradition, girls were betrothed at young ages of like 12.. so it's very possible that Virgin Mary herself was a teenage when she got pregant? Given the legal situation today, God would've been guilty of all sorts of crime for that incident.

[El Barto]

I imagine there was some practical context to that moralistic imposition. Like, y'know, people killing other people who were boning people they wanted to bone. Or rape, for that matter. For early humans, placing some sacred importance on the institutional and emotional aspects of a sexual relationship was probably the best solution they had at their disposal.

Boning another man's property is already problematic as a function of our desire to procreate.  There wasn't any need to invent a moral construct.  However, I could see how that might arise as a means of involving The Man.  I suppose not everybody's up to the challenge of fighting off one's genetic rival.  That sanctity is a tangible quality from which a social framework can be constructed.  The Bible suggests a sacredness to it, but it also describes in great detail the rights of ownership to thy snapper. 

[Odysseus]

Also, for access to P/R, go here.

I'm in.  Thanks mate! 

As far as I'm aware, the bible doesn't say anything about the age of marriage/consent.  However, a quick flick through Leviticus is enough to give me the shivers on some of the things it does mandate, but that's a whole bunch of other threads....

I guess culture is an important consideration here - what is applicable in the context of 21st century western civilisation is a whole world away from, say, a remote tribe in the ass-end of the Brazilian rainforest.  That said, I don't think Iran or Saudi Arabia can legitimately pull the cultural imperialism card if challenged on marriage of 9 year olds.  in many respects they are just as advanced as the rest of us. It sounds like this is more about ownership of women, like someone hinted at further up the thread.   Let's face it, the Middle East is hardly a bastion of feminism and some sectors af their populations are stuck firmly in the dark ages with regard to their treatment of women.

[hefdaddy42]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

[jammindude]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

You may not see it that way...but I already cited scriptures where men were not allowed to serve at the temple in full duty til they were 30.   So it does have Biblical basis. 

[eric42434224]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

You may not see it that way...but I already cited scriptures where men were not allowed to serve at the temple in full duty til they were 30.   So it does have Biblical basis.

We dont see it that way, because it is plain to see that it isnt that way.
Can you show one solitary instance where manhood/maturity is equivalent to serving full duty in the temple?
You cant, because they are two separate things. 
The only thing you are showing is men weren't allowed to serve full time at temple until 30...that is all.  It is not the indicator of manhood...and you are making a jump to attach the two where there is absolutely zero basis to do so.

[jammindude]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

You may not see it that way...but I already cited scriptures where men were not allowed to serve at the temple in full duty til they were 30.   So it does have Biblical basis.

Can you show one solitary instance where manhood/maturity is equivalent to serving full duty in the temple?
You cant, because they are two separate things. 
The only thing you are showing is men weren't allowed to serve full time at temple until 30...that is all.  It is not the indicator of manhood...and you are making a jump to attach the two where there is absolutely zero basis to do so.

If you think those two things are unrelated, we're going to have to agree to disagree...because I honestly can't see how they are not related.    At this point, it's like to explain why water is wet....so, I'll just walk away.

[eric42434224]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

You may not see it that way...but I already cited scriptures where men were not allowed to serve at the temple in full duty til they were 30.   So it does have Biblical basis.

Can you show one solitary instance where manhood/maturity is equivalent to serving full duty in the temple?
You cant, because they are two separate things. 
The only thing you are showing is men weren't allowed to serve full time at temple until 30...that is all.  It is not the indicator of manhood...and you are making a jump to attach the two where there is absolutely zero basis to do so.

If you think those two things are unrelated, we're going to have to agree to disagree...because I honestly can't see how they are not related.    At this point, it's like to explain why water is wet....so, I'll just walk away.

I think walking away might be a good idea for you on this subject, because if your assertion was as obvious as "water is wet", you would have easily been able to show a multitude of supporting evidence showing that you are not a Jewish Man until 30.  But since that wont be forthcoming, the walking away with the parting comment of how you just cant see how obvious it is will be your best course of action.

EDIT:  But I must say, your response really isn't in the spirit of what PR is about.  You really shouldn't be able to say, "well it is so obvious and you obviously don't get it, so instead of showing proof, I guess I will just walk away".  It is kind of insulting.

[theseoafs]

Unless you're keeping a relevant verse from us, JD, I'm with Eric - serving in a temple and getting married and having sex and children are two completely unrelated activities.

[hefdaddy42]

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about matters such as this.  Not even sure how it came up.

And the whole "age of 30" thing has no Biblical basis either.

You may not see it that way...but I already cited scriptures where men were not allowed to serve at the temple in full duty til they were 30.   So it does have Biblical basis.

You didn't cite them, you just mentioned that there are some.  You didn't say what those scriptures were, except the one from Luke, which doesn't prove anything either.  It just says how old Jesus was when he started his ministry.

Even if you cite Scripture that has those regulations on age for the Temple, that still has nothing to do with "being a man" at that age.  Here in this country, there are different age limits for different things, and none of them have anything to do with each other.  I could drive at 16, vote at 18, drink at 21, and run for President at 35, but none of those have anything to do with each other.

[jammindude]

EDIT:  But I must say, your response really isn't in the spirit of what PR is about.  You really shouldn't be able to say, "well it is so obvious and you obviously don't get it, so instead of showing proof, I guess I will just walk away".  It is kind of insulting.

I apologize for coming across as insulting.  In re-reading it, I can see how it would come across that way...so I retract the statement.  I'm sorry.

[eric42434224]

EDIT:  But I must say, your response really isn't in the spirit of what PR is about.  You really shouldn't be able to say, "well it is so obvious and you obviously don't get it, so instead of showing proof, I guess I will just walk away".  It is kind of insulting.

I apologize for coming across as insulting.  In re-reading it, I can see how it would come across that way...so I retract the statement.  I'm sorry.

No worries.   

[senecadawg2]

Talk about being stuck in a tight spot... 

[jammindude]

I thought of a better way of communicating what I'm trying to say.

On this subject, there has been a very "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere towards The Bible.   As in, despite lack of evidence, the Bible is guilty of condoning underage sex.  And the only evidence that has been presented have been the people who *CLAIM* to be following it...but which have also been shown to be *DISOBEDIENT* to it.     (i.e.  I'm an electrician...so if I disobey the National Electrical Code and a building burns down...it's the NEC's fault.)

Perhaps I havn't been communicating it well...but that electrical illustration I just used is a *BIG TIME* sticking point with me.   Just because there are bad electricians doesn't mean there's something wrong with the National Electrical Code.   And trust me...it's VERY similar.   If you know the Code, you can be a very safe and effective electrician.   But I know very few practicing electricians that actually know the Code.   There are some really "bubble gum and paper clip" hack jobs out there...and I don't know how they got their licence.   But it's only a matter of time before they *really* hurt someone. 

BUT THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THE CODE....

Anyone get what I'm trying to say???

[El Barto]

I get what you're saying.  I just think there's more to it than you're seeing.  What's undeniable is that the bible at one point commanded the raping of children.  You can argue that children was never defined, but it's highly problematic, regardless.  You're also glossing over the whole 1 Peter problem.  I view that as tacit approval of some seriously skeevy behavior.  You're correct that God never explicitly said "thou shalt go forth and fuck all the 9 year old girls," but honestly, that's not really the point. 

[jammindude]

The Israelites were not allowed to "rape" at all.    Although they would occasionally take wives from conquered nations...but there were rules for that as well.   And marriage under the law was not something that was taken as lightly as it is in the modern day.   And even where the Bible says that children were taken captive, it *does not* say that those children immediately became wives to anyone.

So again...there is a implicit "guilty until proven innocent" accusation in what you're saying. 

[El Barto]

The OT is littered with directions to keep young, virgin girls as spoils of war.  If you want to believe that God only meant to enslave them, I won't change your mind, although that's bad enough.  Given all the references to taking captive virgins as wives, I think it's pretty naive, though.   

[eric42434224]

I dislike the "not able to be guilty" view of the bible as much as some dislike the "guilty until proven innocent" view.

Also, the Electrical Code is far more clear and factual.  It doesnt need constant, and sometimes drastic interpretations...especially when one needs it to fit their own pre-conceived notions.  Also, when sections clearly dont fit or are relevant anymore, it is re-written.

[jammindude]

I dislike the "not able to be guilty" view of the bible as much as you dislike the "guilty until proven innocent" view.

I can see how you would view it that way.    But in a court of law, what is the standard?   The support of proof is on the accuser.   And the accusations are usually leveled at the people, and then the book pronounced guilty by association....which brings me back to my Code vs. hack who doesn't know the Code argument. 

The Bible will say one thing....but then people come along (on *both* sides of the issue...both theologians who are supposedly supporting it, and Bible critics who are openly looking for guilt) and say, "Well it *says* this...but it really *means* that."   Then everyone gets the idea that "THE BIBLE SAYS THIS" when it really doesn't.

That is also how we get the *deeply* ingrained idea that Jesus was a frail, long-haired Caucasian.   Now everytime someone sees a long haired hippie in a piece of toast, they think "THAT'S JESUS!!"    No...that's what you've been trained to believe Jesus looked like.  They even believe that THE BIBLE SAYS SO.  And people believe it to be fact even though it has *absolutely NOTHING* to do with what the Bible says.   

[eric42434224]

The problem we have, in this particular instance, is we have proven our point.  The evidence is clear for what El Barto has said, yet you are in the "it cant be guilty" mind set.  I showed clearly what the Bible said about your 30 year old argument, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it.
You yourself, by the above viewpoints, put yourself squarely in the "hack" camp you so dearly despise.

[jammindude]

So...wait....I must have missed where El Barto proved unequivocally that in the Bible, God commanded the rape of children. 

What's undeniable is that the bible at one point commanded the raping of children.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support this statement.   Only the implication that since children were, upon occasion, spoils of war, THEY MUST have therefore been raped.    That accusation would hold absolutely *zero* water in a court of law.

[eric42434224]

That is a discussion for you and El Barto, but I do know that he had other points, as I was not speaking specifically of child rape. 

Why, when addressing me, do you not address my point about your very misguided interpretation of the "30 Year Old" scripture?
Would your interpretation hold up in a court of law?