Biblical morals.

by Anti-Christ 88 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  So you are saying twelve or thirteen is OK then? If they are breedable of course.

  Actually six years old isn't so far fetched. There was a five year-old-girl named Lina Medina who gave birth to a boy in 1939. A caesarian was used, but I'm not sure if it was actually needed or just done to be safe.

  Snopes article about it: http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp (Warning, contains a nude medical photo of the pregnant child.)

  I can only hope that the majority of people who hear about this are a bit less religious about it then BA.

  Lore - W.W.S.D?
• 

  Brother Apostate

  It is nearly impossible to have a discussion on the internet without someone trying to narrow or broaden the scope of the thread, put words in your mouth, or try to hijack it.

  For the record, of course I'm opposed to pedophilia and slavery, but that isn't what the topic of this thread is about.

  Back on topic, "Biblical morals" are those based on the Bible.

  Israelite men of OT times would only have sex with their wives, concubines and slaves, and these would have been at an age
  that would allow them to remain healthy while bearing healthy children.
  These women would have been physically mature.
  We can speculate forever what age they were, no one knows.

  Slavery is still alive and well, in many, many forms.
  In fact, we are all slaves to something(s) or someone.
  Does the Bible make rules against it? No.
  Perhaps that is why- it has, and will, exist, until God changes things.
  It will take more than mankind to end slavery.

  BA- Petulant children's comments don't shake this man.

  PS- Has puberty always had the same age of onset? Who knows.
• 

  changeling

  Of the issues you raise, all were allowed in order to fulfill His promise to Abraham, that his seed would be numerous, so Israel could be a mighty nation.

  I concede that issues such as having multiple wives (Old Testament) versus the one man + one woman Christian law principle could be construed as morally different, however, there was a good reason for that difference (see above

  BA: Do you not find this Machiavelian thinking disgusting, and if you don't, why not?

  changeling
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Do you not find this Machiavelian thinking disgusting, and if you don't, why not?

  What about it is "Machiavellian"? Machiavelli came along in the 16th century. Care to clarify your question?

  BA
• 

  5go

  PS- Has puberty always had the same age of onset? Who knows.

  Again your ignorance shows, it has never had a set age it depends on the circumstances of the person in question. Mine was rather late. Some get their's very early; even as early as age 5, as LtCmd pointed out.

  You are trying hard to side step the issue by saying their isn't a moral conflict. There clearly is one!
• 

  changeling

  His premise was that "the end justifies the means".

  So poligamy, slavery, incest and the like are OK if it helps the nation of Israel grow in numbers?
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Captain Obvious 5go,

  As usual, you miss the point. Do you know at what age the women in OT times got their first period? No.

  That's the point.

  BA- Carry on, then.
• 

  5go

  Captain Obvious 5go,

  As usual, you miss the point. Do you know at what age the women in OT times got their first period? No.

  That's the point.

  BA- Carry on, then.

  There you go again you are ignorant of simple human biology. There is no set time for a women's first period at any time in human existance. To deny this is appealing to your imagination as proof that female biology did not work that way back then. All you are doing by dening it is proving you are ignorant and not credible.
• 

  changeling

  Again I ask: Do you think the end justifies the means? Is God justified in allowing practices that demean human beings when these further his purposes?
• 

  Brother Apostate

  So poligamy, slavery, incest and the like are OK if it helps the nation of Israel grow in numbers?

  Different times, different place.

  Polygamy- still practiced by outlaw mormons, ask them how well it works, not me. I've seen TV reports where all of them seem to be happy. Just because modern society deems something to be wrong (or right), does not make it so. Admittedly, it's hard to put ourselves in that position. But if we lived in those times, if you really try to put yourself into those times, living as a tribe, in the wilderness, it makes sense and had many advantages.

  Slavery- Already covered that, better a live slave than a dead "freeman". We are all slaves, you and I included.

  Incest- Looking at these things through modern spectacles, it is hard to see things as they were. Apparently the human genome allowed close mating back then without defects. Even in our day, most states allow first cousins to marry, and there are remarkably few defects as a result. Most domesticated animals are still "line-bred".

  Life as a tribe in the wilderness surrounded by opposing tribes who wanted everything you lived for at any cost was a fact of life in those days (OT). Read history on any tribal society, even to our day, and it gives a different perspective to what you might judge as "moral" given our comfy existence in twenty first century western society.

  BA

  PS- 5go, you are assuming that the onset of menstruation has not changed, I am assuming nothing, simply pointing out that it is unkown what effect thousands of years has had on the onset of menstruation.