Age gap

[neo-x]

Pakistani actually but same ethnicity historically.

[Nessa]

i guess i kinda saw you like your avatar pic...tho thats cs lewis right?

[neo-x]

Yes, Lewis.

[RickD]

So lemme get this straight.

A 50 year old minister's wife died. He needed a new wife to take care of his children. So he married a 12 year old? Was the step mom younger that any of her step children?


I know it was a completely different time and culture from my own, but some things just seem universally wrong.

I wonder how that relationship was looked at by those around him...

[neo-x]

It was the norm of the society and was not considered bad or taboo. I know how it seems but there it is.

[RickD]

It was the norm of the society and was not considered bad or taboo. I know how it seems but there it is.

Sure, I understand it was considered normal in that society.

But it brings up an interesting issue. Are there things that are just wrong, despite society's acceptance?

For example:
chattel slavery in the pre-civil war southern U.S. In that society, it was accepted and normal.

Abortion in the U.S. after 1973. Abortion is accepted, at least legally.

In modern Pakistan where men have young boys dance in front of them, and then have "sex" with them. That's accepted in that culture.


At least to me, it seems marrying and having sex with a 12 year old girl is wrong. Even if it's accepted in society. Just as abortion, slavery, and pederasty are wrong.

Anyone?

[neo-x]

It was the norm of the society and was not considered bad or taboo. I know how it seems but there it is.

Sure, I understand it was considered normal in that society.

But it brings up an interesting issue. Are there things that are just wrong, despite society's acceptance?

For example:
chattel slavery in the pre-civil war southern U.S. In that society, it was accepted and normal.

Abortion in the U.S. after 1973. Abortion is accepted, at least legally.

In modern Pakistan where men have young boys dance in front of them, and then have "sex" with them. That's accepted in that culture.


At least to me, it seems marrying and having sex with a 12 year old girl is wrong. Even if it's accepted in society. Just as abortion, slavery, and pederasty are wrong.

Anyone?

FYI, the thing about boys and having sex with them is not accepted in the pakistani culture but in the afghan one.

To some degree I agree with you, in principal and somethings are wrong no matter who does them, I agree again, but this logic also backfires. Like having slaves in biblical times and stoning people and killing animals and babies and children and young women and old men when winning wars etc. If this is wrong today then it was also wrong then and God, our God commanded such actions and those actions were not clearly considered bad, and that is true for a majority still today, people won't commit them but they considered it justified and moral and righteous. Can you see the problem? either we take things in context and their own circumstances and background or we objectively declare these wrong but that comes at a price.

What do you think?

[Jac3510]

Things are only absolutely wrong in the sense Rick means them if they are intrinsically disordered. It's very easy to confuse the ick-factor with intrinsic disorder precisely because so many things that are intrinsically disordered are also icky. But there is a difference in that the former is largely driven by culture and the latter never is.

As I said in my own response, there is nothing intrinsically disordered about large age gaps, even a fifty year old marrying a twelve year old. But when you dig down into the details, you may find intrinsic disorder in this or that particular case. For instance, there are plenty of twelve year olds who are not yet menstruating, so it would be intrinsically disordered to marry her. Likewise, marriage cannot be validly entered into via coercion, either physical or emotional, so it is possible if not probable that the typical twelve year old girl cannot validly marry, and so to marry such a girl would be intrinsically disordered. Yet it is possible that a girl of twelve, given a certain raising and a certain culture and a certain temperament, could well wish to freely enter into a marriage with a much older man. In that case, such an action would not, it seems to me, be intrinsically disordered and so would not be objectively wrong. But even here we need to press further. For just because something is not wrong, it does not necessarily follow that it is permissible, and even if it is permissible, is it virtuous? After all, there is a difference in a man who simply does not do wrong and in one who does what is right or best. So is it virtuous--is it prudent and temperate and other such things--to marry this particular girl in these particular circumstances? Such questions cannot be answered absolutely but necessarily depend on the "facts on the ground" as it may be.

All that is to say, it's probably a good rule of thumb to suggest that it is wrong for 50 year olds to marry 12 year olds. We probably shouldn't say that such is objectively wrong, though, in the same sense we say that abortion or men having sex with little boys is objectively wrong.

[Kurieuo]

Gee Jac, I wonder whose theory you subscribe to. (the right one)

[RickD]

Neo wrote:


FYI, the thing about boys and having sex with them is not accepted in the pakistani culture but in the afghan one.

forgive me, I got my "stans" mixed up.

To some degree I agree with you, in principal and somethings are wrong no matter who does them, I agree again, but this logic also backfires. Like having slaves in biblical times and stoning people and killing animals and babies and children and young women and old men when winning wars etc. If this is wrong today then it was also wrong then and God, our God commanded such actions and those actions were not clearly considered bad, and that is true for a majority still today, people won't commit them but they considered it justified and moral and righteous. Can you see the problem? either we take things in context and their own circumstances and background or we objectively declare these wrong but that comes at a price.

I don't see that as the same. That, at least to me, would be saying that God wasn't justified in doing what He did. I don't think I'd want to presume God didn't have a good reason.

[Philip]

Rick: FYI, it was PaulS who made the comment, not Philip.

Annette,

***comment deleted because in was insensitive.

Yes, let's not drag me into return fire from Rick's sense of "humor."

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:


FYI, the thing about boys and having sex with them is not accepted in the pakistani culture but in the afghan one.

forgive me, I got my "stans" mixed up.

To some degree I agree with you, in principal and somethings are wrong no matter who does them, I agree again, but this logic also backfires. Like having slaves in biblical times and stoning people and killing animals and babies and children and young women and old men when winning wars etc. If this is wrong today then it was also wrong then and God, our God commanded such actions and those actions were not clearly considered bad, and that is true for a majority still today, people won't commit them but they considered it justified and moral and righteous. Can you see the problem? either we take things in context and their own circumstances and background or we objectively declare these wrong but that comes at a price.

I don't see that as the same. That, at least to me, would be saying that God wasn't justified in doing what He did. I don't think I'd want to presume God didn't have a good reason.

The problem is then its having your cake and eat it too, you can't have it both ways. Stick with your original statement, somethings are just wrong no matter who did it or when it happened, universally, otherwise you just dented the argument for objective morality, that it doesn't exist if God's actions themselves force you to prove otherwise.

And further even its granted to you then again, you see, its irrelevant if God was justified or not. If you say he was justified, I'd simply ask you if he commanded you to stomp a child to death or cut down a pregnant girl, would you do it? Its irrelevant what the reason is, lets say there is a reason. Still, what your argument then says, is, if in your opinion (or you think its divine reason) there is a justifiable reason to do something you can do it, no matter how immoral that action may be. It can be done in the name of God. Your reason would absolve you. And that is the wrong reasoning, my friend. I reiterate again, its irrelevant if you have good reason or not, even if you do, the act makes you immoral.

Or you can tell me that a person stomping a baby to death, in atleast one case, is not immoral, if his/her God commands them to?
Somehow I doubt you'd agree.

The truth is, biblical times had slaves, was engaged in war and did acts which you would never do, even if God told you to do so. Like taking women as plunder of war, or throwing babies on rock and cutting down every single soul.

You mean well Rick, I know you do. I am just showing you where is the strength and weakness of your argument. I really don't advocate marrying 12 year olds but either we take things in their own context or we don't. Each has it pros and cons. We can't do what you did in your post above to allow for OM when we think it applies and then retreat from it when it comes to God, we exempt Him from such. It is contradictory reasoning and I doubt will ever help you in an apologetic discussion.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
The problem is then its having your cake and eat it too, you can't have it both ways. Stick with your original statement, somethings are just wrong no matter who did it or when it happened, universally, otherwise you just dented the argument for objective morality, that it doesn't exist if God's actions themselves force you to prove otherwise.

Neo,

My saying that God was justified if He told Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, doesn't change my point about some things being wrong no matter what. Nor does it dent OM. If and I'm saying if, God commanded Israel to kill the Canaanites, then He had a good reason to do it. Look, I don't claim to understand everything in the bible. But I have no problem leaning on God being God, for the things I don't understand.

And further even its granted to you then again, you see, its irrelevant if God was justified or not.

Again, IF God commanded Israel to kill all the Canaanites, then since He is God, He was justified. To say otherwise, is saying you know better than God.

If you say he was justified, I'd simply ask you if he commanded you to stomp a child to death or cut down a pregnant girl, would you do it?

If I thought God commanded me to kill a child or a pregnant girl, I'd have some serious mental health issues.

Its irrelevant what the reason is, lets say there is a reason. Still, what your argument then says, is, if in your opinion (or you think its divine reason) there is a justifiable reason to do something you can do it, no matter how immoral that action may be.

No, that's not what I'm saying. We are talking about a specific instance at a specific time in history. And let me be clear on this...I have not concluded that God actually commanded the Israeli army to kill women and children, much less that they actually did it. So, I'm going on the assumption that He actually did, and they actually did. If Canaan was as utterly evil as scripture says, then why is it unreasonable to you that God would want all Canaanites destroyed? If God is the maker of all, can't He be just if He destroys them?

It can be done in the name of God. Your reason would absolve you. And that is the wrong reasoning, my friend. I reiterate again, its irrelevant if you have good reason or not, even if you do, the act makes you immoral.

Neo,
You changed what I said. I said if GOD had a reason to kill, then it was not wrong to kill. Somehow you changed that to someone killing in the name of God is ok.

Or you can tell me that a person stomping a baby to death, in atleast one case, is not immoral, if his/her God commands them to?
Somehow I doubt you'd agree.

The truth is, biblical times had slaves, was engaged in war and did acts which you would never do, even if God told you to do so. Like taking women as plunder of war, or throwing babies on rock and cutting down every single soul.

So, I guess you have concluded that scripture is clear that God Commanded Israel to kill babies? And since you have a problem with that, how do you deal with it?

You mean well Rick, I know you do.

Thanks Neo. There's nothing like a good patronizing comment to liven up a discussion.

I am just showing you where is the strength and weakness of your argument. I really don't advocate marrying 12 year olds but either we take things in their own context or we don't. Each has it pros and cons. We can't do what you did in your post above to allow for OM when we think it applies and then retreat from it when it comes to God, we exempt Him from such. It is contradictory reasoning and I doubt will ever help you in an apologetic discussion.

What? How in the world does my saying that IF God wants someone killed, that throws out OM? You can ignore the rest of my answers, but please answer that.

[neo-x]

Let me reiterate:

1. My saying that God was justified if He told Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, doesn't change my point about some things being wrong no matter what. Nor does it dent OM. If and I'm saying if, God commanded Israel to kill the Canaanites, then He had a good reason to do it. Look, I don't claim to understand everything in the bible. But I have no problem leaning on God being God, for the things I don't understand.


Again, IF God commanded Israel to kill all the Canaanites, then since He is God, He was justified. To say otherwise, is saying you know better than God.

It doesn't matter if God is justified or not. Let's say he is justified but then that means that if there is a good reason, killing a baby is fine? When you say cananites you mean only men? what about the amalekites or other nations, they had old people, pregnant girls, small babies, little children, who were killed. You say God had a good reason and that is fine, may be he did.

And my point is that your arguments sounds like, we can skip OM if there is a good reason to do so.

If I thought God commanded me to kill a child or a pregnant girl, I'd have some serious mental health issues.

Have you ever wondered if Israel ever considered that possibility?

No, that's not what I'm saying. We are talking about a specific instance at a specific time in history. And let me be clear on this...I have not concluded that God actually commanded the Israeli army to kill women and children, much less that they actually did it. So, I'm going on the assumption that He actually did, and they actually did. If Canaan was as utterly evil as scripture says, then why is it unreasonable to you that God would want all Canaanites destroyed? If God is the maker of all, can't He be just if He destroys them?

Sure, sure, no problem, and had God rained fire and brimstone from heavens on to them, I wouldn't mind. That is because I can atleast say God did it. But when you (someone) say God commanded me to kill every living thing, be that child,, pregnant women, teens, old people etc. that is when I begin to think.

Neo,
You changed what I said. I said if GOD had a reason to kill, then it was not wrong to kill.

But God didn't kill, people did.

So, I guess you have concluded that scripture is clear that God Commanded Israel to kill babies? And since you have a problem with that, how do you deal with it?

Scripture indeed says that, its not my conclusion...at some point God did give the command of killing everyone in a particular nation. And I have a big problem with it. I see only one way, Israel warred like all other warring tribes did at the time, they usually killed everyone so that no revenge war could be started. I don't think God had much to do with it. But that is just me.

Thanks Neo. There's nothing like a good patronizing comment to liven up a discussion.

If it sounded like that, I'm sorry, didn't mean that.

What? How in the world does my saying that IF God wants someone killed, that throws out OM? You can ignore the rest of my answers, but please answer that.

What does OM say about killing?

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
It doesn't matter if God is justified or not. Let's say he is justified but then that means that if there is a good reason, killing a baby is fine?

I am saying that IF God commanded babies to be killed(and I'm not saying He did) then He had a good reason.

When you say cananites you mean only men? what about the amalekites or other nations, they had old people, pregnant girls, small babies, little children, who were killed. You say God had a good reason and that is fine, may be he did.

Again, I don't know if God commanded people to be killed. But if He did, He had a good reason. He's God, He's not going to do something against His nature. In fact, He can't.

And my point is that your arguments sounds like, we can skip OM if there is a good reason to do so.

And I have no idea why you would say that.

RickD wrote:
If I thought God commanded me to kill a child or a pregnant girl, I'd have some serious mental health issues.

Neo wrote:
Have you ever wondered if Israel ever considered that possibility?

Not really. I haven't concluded that God actually told Israel to kill babies or pregnant women, so no.

Sure, sure, no problem, and had God rained fire and brimstone from heavens on to them, I wouldn't mind. That is because I can atleast say God did it. But when you (someone) say God commanded me to kill every living thing, be that child,, pregnant women, teens, old people etc. that is when I begin to think.

And I hope you would.

RickD wrote:
Neo,
You changed what I said. I said if GOD had a reason to kill, then it was not wrong to kill.

Neo wrote:
But God didn't kill, people did.

So, you have concluded that God commanded women and babies to be killed, and Israel actually did it? Sounds like you have an issue with what you believed happened. How do you deal with that? The bible is in error? God is evil?

RickD wrote:
So, I guess you have concluded that scripture is clear that God Commanded Israel to kill babies? And since you have a problem with that, how do you deal with it?

Neo wrote:
Scripture indeed says that, its not my conclusion...at some point God did give the command of killing everyone in a particular nation. And I have a big problem with it. I see only one way, Israel warred like all other warring tribes did at the time, they usually killed everyone so that no revenge war could be started. I don't think God had much to do with it. But that is just me.

Of course you concluded that. It's your interpretation of scripture. There are others who disagree with your interpretation. It seems like you're saying that the bible says God commanded Israel to kill women and children, but that's not really what happened. The Israelites did it on their own. Is that what you're saying? So again, you seem to be saying the bible is in error.

RickD wrote:
What? How in the world does my saying that IF God wants someone killed, that throws out OM? You can ignore the rest of my answers, but please answer that.

Neo wrote:
What does OM say about killing?

I think scripture says that murder is wrong. Not killing in general. I believe there are times when killing is justified.

So, I'm still not getting how my belief that IF God commanded Israel to kill, that it hurts OM. You haven't explained it to me.