Also, if the Biblical god existed, supporting or worshiping it would be an incredibly immoral thing to do. Yahweh is perhaps the most vile and evil character in all of literature. It's hard to imagine anything more evil.
As a former evangelical Christian I can assure you that any average one of them can only be said to have read the bible in the same way that I could be said to have read my favorite cook book. If that.
As someone who did read the full book years ago when going to school and remembers fuckall in it except how repetitive and boring the Old Testament was, this helps me understand their approach of picking and choosing scripture.
Well, as I see it, evangelical Christianity has just about totally morphed into Christian Nationalism by now, and the canon for Christian Nationalism seems to essentially be Trump’s Truth Social feed.
Oh the regimes biggest protector of child raping scum are the Abrahmic religions including fundamentalists such as:
the Catholic church ran an industrial scale child raping, torture and incitement to suicide system. This pushing people to kill themselves was a key policy by the church leadership, to avoid paying compensation of their victims even after the raping priest has been imprisoned and guilt could not be mitigating
"Church officials followed a "playbook for concealing the truth", minimizing the abuse by using words like "inappropriate contact" instead of "rape"."
And that's with a head buried in the sand approach that US authorities take with religion ie it has to be so blatant and undeniable before they'll investigate.
However from Ireland to Australia in those two countries alone the Catholics abused tens of thousands of children. There are as many or more cases in the US and yet its clear the authorities are happy to pretend otherwise.
Worse the abuse and active protection and cover up went to the Cardinals themselves, both Cardinal Pell and Clancy were rapists and rape protectors.
Southern Baptist Churches
SBC's executive committee, detailing that SBC leaders had stonewalled and disparaged clergy sex abuse survivors for nearly two decades. It also listed the named cases that involved the admission, confession, guilty plea, conviction, judgement, sentencing and registered sex offenders. It did not include cases that did not relate to sexual abuse nor cases that ended in acquittal. The report listed more than 700 entries within the parameters
The leadership of religiious organisation are devoid of the moral and ethical leadership their organisations claim is a God given.
It is little surprise they are happily refusing to mount any meaningful protests against the Trump regime.
Shit the the closes I've ever seen religious organizations protests the Trump regime was the grassroots spontaneous protest of various clergy in the Minneapolis to stop airlines from running ice deporting/transfer flights.
I honestly believe that the Catholic Church has been operating an intergenerational homosexual trafficking ring for centuries. Most, perhaps all, of the molesting priests were probably molested by priests themselves when they were very young, and like many abuse victims, grew up to be abusers themselves, using the same vehicle as their abusers - the Catholic Church itself.
That's why the Church has always excused it and covered it up: it's literally a long-standing tradition, and a major recruiting strategy. You wouldn't have nearly as many priests if your only draw was celibacy.
This is at least an area where I've seen improvement in many denominations. The Episcopal Church in particular has gotten pretty hard-nosed about its sex abuse training. I was volunteering for a food drive and they made me take a 6-hour course along with any other volunteers who hadn't been through it because children may be present and they have instituted strict rules.
The training had video confessions of people who had used church activities as a way to become "trusted" sonthey could abuse children. They talked about what they did and how they used their positions of trust to grrom their victims (e.g. "accidentally" touching kids while playing to gauge their reactions).
They then make crystal clear that the rules they have are not optional, or meant as an attack on the adults either. An adult roughousing with kids or talking with a distressed kid alone is most-likely not a rapist. We all understand that, so when someone says "hey - make sure to leave the blinds open with talking to Kelley" or "Steve - we can't play flag football with the kids" it isn't an accusation. It's a reminder that we're there for the kids and we all follow the rules so that if someone evil does show up they can't engage in probing through "harmless fun". If anyone can't respect those rules they're not allowed to participate.
The one exception we had for the "no touching" rule when I worked for a Methodist church was for a specific teenager who was usually very sweet but had developmental issues that would occasionally lead to extreme behavior, including occasional violent outbursts. For him we had a few specific adults that had special training (and waivers) that were allowed to restrain him. We also made one of his parents accompany any activity he was involved with. I only had to physically intervene one time when we were bowling and he took a ball into the parking lot to attack cars.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers is good but for the very best ultra-violence I suggest Deuteronomy
Deut. 21:18-21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
Pedophilia has always been a part of Christianity. Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Joesph was in his 70s. It's the basis of the religion. At least Christianity tries to hide it by pretending that she was virgin and her child was actually from god. That's better than, say, islam, where mohammad just outright marries Aisha when was 6 years old and pretended that allah told him its halal.
It's very unlikely Joseph was in his 70s. Neither of their ages are mentioned. Common estimates for Mary are 13-14, and Joseph being in late teens or early 20s.
If God is perfect why does his religion adhere to “social norms” instead of right and wrong? Maybe that’s why the priests get to diddle kids, because of social norms.
It's religious mythology built atop historical cultural standards. Arguing over the age at which a literal angel impregnated a virgin is fucking absurd and has nothing to do with modern morals either inside or outside the religious traditions predicated on it.
Two-thousand years later, members of this same Christian faith have overhauled both the cultural and legal standards for marriage around the globe. Meanwhile, outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss ended up all over the Epstein Files, despite unburdening themselves of archaic religious dogma.
I don't know anything about Mary in the Bible but yes Aisha was definitely 6 when she was married according to the Koran, Muslims don't deny it. They just do a bunch of mental gymnastics to explain how that's somehow okay. Usually involving the fact that he waited until she was 9 to consummate the marriage, how noble and considerate.
Yes, the sahih hadiths explicitly state that mohammad married Alisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9.
This marriage was justified in the quran via a verse 65:4, which virtually all the credible islamic tafsirs agree that it justifies child marriage and pedophilia.
There is absolutely no verifiable documentation of Jesus's birth, much less Mary's age at the time of pregnancy. Might as well complain about the ages of Alcmene or Deichtine.
This kind of rhetoric is playing straight into the magical realism of the biblical literalists. Next, you're going to start accusing Adam and Eve of incest.
Morality and legislation used to be entirely justified by being the word of God. Not that long ago (enlightenment) we started making those decisions based on what we think is a good idea. That's basically what Nietzsche was talking about when saying "good is dead", he didn't mean that literally...
Check out poor Lot whose evil daughters plot to get him drunk so they can rape him. The poor old man, I'm sure there was no redaction going on in post production.
Instead of taking his virgin daughters, the mob wanted the men (angels). Pretty demoralizing for his daughters. Lot's daughter may be the first recorded femcels, which would explain their desperate attempt at getting pregnant by their father.
Then I thought shitposts have evolved into what would previously have been called cutting, brilliant satire. Then I thought that fascists killed satire, and this is just straight-up news.
Finally I realized this is indeed a shitpost and should have just thought "Yeah, heh." And be done with it.
Old enough to be considered a woman, but culturally it could have been as young as 16.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! (Luke 1:41-42)
Yes. it can absolutely be spun that way, as I said. As most anything in the Bible can be. Let me ask this then. Could she have said no? And when would that have happened?
I guess it's consent. The master/deity or their aide comes to the servant and tells them of master's will, the great plan. The servant says, yeah, okay.
Yet another fail in writing. Why not make it so God and Gabriel give her the choice, and she adamantly agrees? Remove all doubt from the story's plot. Or better yet, add some drama, have Mary unsure, and Gabriel explains the importance (not that it's already planned, but why her choice is key to the direction of salvation and all that). And she with some thought decides to do it.
Oh, right... that would give a woman some agency. Never mind.
That was AFTER impregnation, though, and under duress from supernatural beings. I don't think that's the correct order of operations for valid consent...
No, the angel was telling her what was going to happen. It was speaking in future tense, and she agreed while talking to the angel.
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Mormons took that and really ran with it, as their a "Doctrine & Covenants" are much more blatant in support of rape. Joseph Smith told Emma Hale that God would destroy her for refusing to marry him.
I believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn't stay loyal to him in their marriage.
She's specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It's a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.
They were not, and that's not what it says, but you're welcome to twist it however you like to believe differently - same as people do with the Bible.
If someone came up to your mom/sister/daughter and said "There's a hidden sniper with his rifle trained on you right now. Marry me and stay loyal, or else he'll shoot you" then you wouldn't consider that to be rape? I most certainly would. Whenever you threaten someone with violence for refusing a sexual relationship, that is rape.
She was called a woman by her cousin who was so old that John the Baptist's birth was miraculous. She could have been older, not all women married young. But to be considered a woman she wouldn't have been 13.
"Well God can use 'imperfect people'. Just look at King David."
How that story actually went...
David: Has an affair with Bathsheba and has her husband assassinated.
God: "Listen here you little shit. I gave you everything you could ever want and you decided that wasn't enough. I'm feeling merciful so I won't kill you like you killed Uriah. Instead, you can spend the rest of your miserable life suffering the consequences of your evil deeds."
Yes, instead he tortures David's innocent child to death for a week for David's crime. And no punishment at all for the 200 philistine foreskins or any other of David's immoral behaviour
Quite easy. It was either King Salomon or King David who in their later years "had virgins in his bed every night." In that time, you can assume that we are neither talking about 18+ women nor that this was in any modern sense consenting...
Daunting that what we'd been doing in prohibiting was not only handing it over to the black market, but increasing the value and attraction of our children to the molesters and blackmailers and worse.
That's the hardest to come to terms with "Prohibition does not prevent. Pohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.", for our children.
103 Comments
bibbasa@piefed.social · 152 pts · 180d
i mean, the catholics managed
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 180d
If the Pope can figure it out, so can you.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 13 pts · 180d
This is the purpose confession serves
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world · 106 pts · 180d
Literally zero friction integrating pedophilia into traditional Christianity
funkajunk@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 180d
There's a joke in there, but I'll go to Hell if I make it.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 180d
I mean, if the Evangelical Christians are going to Heaven - I’d rather go to hell
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 180d
I'd go for the music alone
funkajunk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 180d
Chicago kicks ass!
fartographer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 180d
Hey, this coke tastes like Pepsi!
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 180d
Also, if the Biblical god existed, supporting or worshiping it would be an incredibly immoral thing to do. Yahweh is perhaps the most vile and evil character in all of literature. It's hard to imagine anything more evil.
Instigate@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 180d
The Gnostics really were onto something there. They’re the only Christian sect that makes a lick of sense.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 180d
The teletubbies HAVE to be more evil. I swear they are hiding something
alaphic@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 180d
You know what they say: Go to Heaven for the atmosphere, go to Hell for the company
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 180d
It's already been there forever, they're just saying it out loud now.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 94 pts · 180d
Have you read the Bible? Harems, concubines, child brides, slavery, women shouldn’t speak, etc…
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 99 pts · 180d
Evangelical Chriatians:
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 180d
Victor Garber!
Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 180d
You misspelled "cretins"
deacon@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 180d
As a former evangelical Christian I can assure you that any average one of them can only be said to have read the bible in the same way that I could be said to have read my favorite cook book. If that.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 19 pts · 180d
That’s insightful, thank you.
As someone who did read the full book years ago when going to school and remembers fuckall in it except how repetitive and boring the Old Testament was, this helps me understand their approach of picking and choosing scripture.
itistime@infosec.pub · 8 pts · 180d
This is brilliant
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 180d
Ok, so what is the current canon?
I don't think the new testament includes child diddling, but I didn't read much of that either.
Probably because I lost faith quite some time ago.
deacon@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 180d
Well, as I see it, evangelical Christianity has just about totally morphed into Christian Nationalism by now, and the canon for Christian Nationalism seems to essentially be Trump’s Truth Social feed.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 180d
Oof, how can someone be so mindless, that they will go against basic human decency to do whatever leader tells them?
Proof that philosophical zombies are real.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 4 pts · 180d
Oblig. 45-second masterpiece
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UA3OqrNnezc
Cruel@programming.dev · 1 pts · 180d
I don't think the Bible talks about child brides. Without that, none of those are related to pedophilia...
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 84 pts · 180d
The Republican party is not a monolith guys, it's made up of several distinct groups such as child rapists and child rapist enablers.
how_we_burned@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 180d
Oh the regimes biggest protector of child raping scum are the Abrahmic religions including fundamentalists such as:
suicides(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States
And that's with a head buried in the sand approach that US authorities take with religion ie it has to be so blatant and undeniable before they'll investigate.
However from Ireland to Australia in those two countries alone the Catholics abused tens of thousands of children. There are as many or more cases in the US and yet its clear the authorities are happy to pretend otherwise.
Worse the abuse and active protection and cover up went to the Cardinals themselves, both Cardinal Pell and Clancy were rapists and rape protectors.
Southern Baptist Churches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Southern_Baptist_churches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Brooklyn%27s_Haredi_community
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(novel)
The leadership of religiious organisation are devoid of the moral and ethical leadership their organisations claim is a God given.
It is little surprise they are happily refusing to mount any meaningful protests against the Trump regime.
Shit the the closes I've ever seen religious organizations protests the Trump regime was the grassroots spontaneous protest of various clergy in the Minneapolis to stop airlines from running ice deporting/transfer flights.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 180d
I honestly believe that the Catholic Church has been operating an intergenerational homosexual trafficking ring for centuries. Most, perhaps all, of the molesting priests were probably molested by priests themselves when they were very young, and like many abuse victims, grew up to be abusers themselves, using the same vehicle as their abusers - the Catholic Church itself.
That's why the Church has always excused it and covered it up: it's literally a long-standing tradition, and a major recruiting strategy. You wouldn't have nearly as many priests if your only draw was celibacy.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 180d
Don't forget the Mormons!
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 179d
This is at least an area where I've seen improvement in many denominations. The Episcopal Church in particular has gotten pretty hard-nosed about its sex abuse training. I was volunteering for a food drive and they made me take a 6-hour course along with any other volunteers who hadn't been through it because children may be present and they have instituted strict rules.
The training had video confessions of people who had used church activities as a way to become "trusted" sonthey could abuse children. They talked about what they did and how they used their positions of trust to grrom their victims (e.g. "accidentally" touching kids while playing to gauge their reactions).
They then make crystal clear that the rules they have are not optional, or meant as an attack on the adults either. An adult roughousing with kids or talking with a distressed kid alone is most-likely not a rapist. We all understand that, so when someone says "hey - make sure to leave the blinds open with talking to Kelley" or "Steve - we can't play flag football with the kids" it isn't an accusation. It's a reminder that we're there for the kids and we all follow the rules so that if someone evil does show up they can't engage in probing through "harmless fun". If anyone can't respect those rules they're not allowed to participate.
The one exception we had for the "no touching" rule when I worked for a Methodist church was for a specific teenager who was usually very sweet but had developmental issues that would occasionally lead to extreme behavior, including occasional violent outbursts. For him we had a few specific adults that had special training (and waivers) that were allowed to restrain him. We also made one of his parents accompany any activity he was involved with. I only had to physically intervene one time when we were bowling and he took a ball into the parking lot to attack cars.
ikidd@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 180d
And Catholics.
Blubber28@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 180d
Like they said, child rapist enablers
ikidd@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 180d
Little of column A, little of column B...
flamingleg@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 179d
don't forget team blue
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 179d
the purple party
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 50 pts · 180d
Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 29 pts · 180d
Numbers is good but for the very best ultra-violence I suggest Deuteronomy
Deut. 21:18-21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 180d
What... the actual... fuck
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 180d
As Jesus intended
/sWorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 180d
So, if I understood right, they groom them for when they are adults? That's...little better.
You are still grooming a child just for sex.
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 180d
No need, it's already part of it and has been for centuries.
Remember how the Catholic church raped kids and protected pedophiles? It's not just Catholicism.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 180d
Also many of The other denominations too
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 180d
Pedophilia has always been a part of Christianity. Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Joesph was in his 70s. It's the basis of the religion. At least Christianity tries to hide it by pretending that she was virgin and her child was actually from god. That's better than, say, islam, where mohammad just outright marries Aisha when was 6 years old and pretended that allah told him its halal.
Cruel@programming.dev · 15 pts · 180d
It's very unlikely Joseph was in his 70s. Neither of their ages are mentioned. Common estimates for Mary are 13-14, and Joseph being in late teens or early 20s.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 179d
Why are you acting like that is better?
markovs_gun@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 179d
Homie it was literally 2000 years ago and social norms have changed dramatically.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 179d
If God is perfect why does his religion adhere to “social norms” instead of right and wrong? Maybe that’s why the priests get to diddle kids, because of social norms.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 179d
It's religious mythology built atop historical cultural standards. Arguing over the age at which a literal angel impregnated a virgin is fucking absurd and has nothing to do with modern morals either inside or outside the religious traditions predicated on it.
Two-thousand years later, members of this same Christian faith have overhauled both the cultural and legal standards for marriage around the globe. Meanwhile, outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss ended up all over the Epstein Files, despite unburdening themselves of archaic religious dogma.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 180d
Yes, but Marry technically didn't get diddled.
tias@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 180d
Not by Joseph, but someone diddled her and he's allegedly much older.
bstix@feddit.dk · 5 pts · 180d
Three wise men decided to stop by for no reason.
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 180d
Three dudes: “That big star is in the sky again, Mary wants us to run another train on her!”
Shows up with her payment
“Oh.”
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 180d
Mary:
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 180d
Only because of a mistranslation
courval@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 180d
I had a Catholic education and it's the first time I've heard this about Mary's age, are those ages actually in the scriptures/Koran?
Urist@leminal.space · 8 pts · 180d
I don't know anything about Mary in the Bible but yes Aisha was definitely 6 when she was married according to the Koran, Muslims don't deny it. They just do a bunch of mental gymnastics to explain how that's somehow okay. Usually involving the fact that he waited until she was 9 to consummate the marriage, how noble and considerate.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 179d
Yes, the sahih hadiths explicitly state that mohammad married Alisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9.
This marriage was justified in the quran via a verse 65:4, which virtually all the credible islamic tafsirs agree that it justifies child marriage and pedophilia.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 179d
There is absolutely no verifiable documentation of Jesus's birth, much less Mary's age at the time of pregnancy. Might as well complain about the ages of Alcmene or Deichtine.
This kind of rhetoric is playing straight into the magical realism of the biblical literalists. Next, you're going to start accusing Adam and Eve of incest.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 180d
That doesn't make any sense. Morality is not something that was given by Gods, but something we have invented.
justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 180d
Morality and legislation used to be entirely justified by being the word of God. Not that long ago (enlightenment) we started making those decisions based on what we think is a good idea. That's basically what Nietzsche was talking about when saying "good is dead", he didn't mean that literally...
udon@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 180d
Check out poor Lot whose evil daughters plot to get him drunk so they can rape him. The poor old man, I'm sure there was no redaction going on in post production.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 180d
Remember that he tried hand them over to a gang of would be angel-rapists, first.
Cruel@programming.dev · 4 pts · 180d
Instead of taking his virgin daughters, the mob wanted the men (angels). Pretty demoralizing for his daughters. Lot's daughter may be the first recorded femcels, which would explain their desperate attempt at getting pregnant by their father.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 180d
Musta been a bunch of ugly bitches.
Oh, c'mon, you were thinking it, too.
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 25 pts · 180d
A lot of people don't know this but the Ghost that banged Mary was only 12.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 9 pts · 180d
But it's okay because it was actually incest
Agent641@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 180d
What
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 180d
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 180d
At first I though this wasn't a shitpost.
Then I thought shitposts have evolved into what would previously have been called cutting, brilliant satire. Then I thought that fascists killed satire, and this is just straight-up news.
Finally I realized this is indeed a shitpost and should have just thought "Yeah, heh." And be done with it.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 179d
Catholic here. Not as difficult as you might think.
RaoulDuke85@piefed.social · 14 pts · 180d
How old do you think the Virgin Mary was?
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 5 pts · 180d
Old enough to be considered a woman, but culturally it could have been as young as 16.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! (Luke 1:41-42)
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 9 pts · 180d
There wasn't consent though. It can be spun that way, but biblically Mary was destined to carry, and screw any free will.
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 4 pts · 180d
She did consent though. It's in the account.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 1 pts · 180d
Yes. it can absolutely be spun that way, as I said. As most anything in the Bible can be. Let me ask this then. Could she have said no? And when would that have happened?
nexguy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 180d
Are we really debating the sky wizard role playing game book?
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 3 pts · 180d
No, just debating which set of rules we're playing by.
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 2 pts · 180d
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
It's in Luke chapter 1. I mean a lot of people believe believe none of it happened, whatever. But consent was part of the account.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 1 pts · 180d
I guess it's consent. The master/deity or their aide comes to the servant and tells them of master's will, the great plan. The servant says, yeah, okay.
Yet another fail in writing. Why not make it so God and Gabriel give her the choice, and she adamantly agrees? Remove all doubt from the story's plot. Or better yet, add some drama, have Mary unsure, and Gabriel explains the importance (not that it's already planned, but why her choice is key to the direction of salvation and all that). And she with some thought decides to do it.
Oh, right... that would give a woman some agency. Never mind.
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 180d
That was AFTER impregnation, though, and under duress from supernatural beings. I don't think that's the correct order of operations for valid consent...
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 2 pts · 180d
No, the angel was telling her what was going to happen. It was speaking in future tense, and she agreed while talking to the angel.
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com · 2 pts · 180d
Mormons took that and really ran with it, as their a "Doctrine & Covenants" are much more blatant in support of rape. Joseph Smith told Emma Hale that God would destroy her for refusing to marry him.
Cruel@programming.dev · -1 pts · 180d
How do they support rape? Or do you consider it rape of I tell I woman she'll go to hell if she doesn't consent?
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 180d
Because in D&C 132:54, Emma is threatened with destruction if she refuses. That's called rape by duress.
Cruel@programming.dev · 1 pts · 180d
I believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn't stay loyal to him in their marriage. She's specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It's a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com · 3 pts · 179d
They were not, and that's not what it says, but you're welcome to twist it however you like to believe differently - same as people do with the Bible.
If someone came up to your mom/sister/daughter and said "There's a hidden sniper with his rifle trained on you right now. Marry me and stay loyal, or else he'll shoot you" then you wouldn't consider that to be rape? I most certainly would. Whenever you threaten someone with violence for refusing a sexual relationship, that is rape.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 180d
Could have been as young as 13, as Virgin generally meant not ready for sex yet.
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 4 pts · 180d
She was called a woman by her cousin who was so old that John the Baptist's birth was miraculous. She could have been older, not all women married young. But to be considered a woman she wouldn't have been 13.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 180d
however it is a misconception that people married and had kids young in the past. generally it was in your early 20s even in antiquity
Cruel@programming.dev · -1 pts · 180d
She was pubescent, and thus irrelevant to pedophilia.
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 180d
"Well God can use 'imperfect people'. Just look at King David."
How that story actually went...
David: Has an affair with Bathsheba and has her husband assassinated.
God: "Listen here you little shit. I gave you everything you could ever want and you decided that wasn't enough. I'm feeling merciful so I won't kill you like you killed Uriah. Instead, you can spend the rest of your miserable life suffering the consequences of your evil deeds."
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 180d
Yes, instead he tortures David's innocent child to death for a week for David's crime. And no punishment at all for the 200 philistine foreskins or any other of David's immoral behaviour
Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 180d
Tbh theres pedophilia and incest in the bible already
But sometimes it depends on the translation (and language)
db2@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 179d
"They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs"
And it turns out they were actually eating children. With disturbing descriptions of what it was like. RIP Madeleine McCann.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 180d
I’m pretty sure pedofilia is a problem in most religions. That’s why I choose no religion
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 180d
Pedophilia is already part of the Bible, is it not?
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 179d
Quite easy. It was either King Salomon or King David who in their later years "had virgins in his bed every night." In that time, you can assume that we are neither talking about 18+ women nor that this was in any modern sense consenting...
frank@lemmy.fraxoweb.com · 3 pts · 179d
Pretty sure some priests are pedophiles too.
sleet01@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 179d
Missing a "further" there.
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 180d
Most all ready believe that as long as a child is marry, its legal…
Digit@lemmy.wtf · -4 pts · 179d
Do need a lot of strength for that.
Daunting that what we'd been doing in prohibiting was not only handing it over to the black market, but increasing the value and attraction of our children to the molesters and blackmailers and worse.
That's the hardest to come to terms with "Prohibition does not prevent. Pohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.", for our children.
Do need a lot of strength to face that horror.
But WOAH there... you're gonna do what now?
"Integrate" how?