Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 1: sin is transgression of God's law

Disclaimer:  I am an atheist, and not a pedophile.  When the US Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's death penalty for child-rape, I think the Court got it wrong and that the death penalty is the only appropriate answer of society to the crimes of child-rape and both production/possession of child porn.  Not only do I detest adult-child sexual acts, my atheism means I damn sure don't worry whether my morality is consistent with the bible, I don't prefer things I prefer because I noticed that they are approved in the bible.  So for any of the readers who might think I discuss this subject only because I myself am a pedophile, it is perfectly illogical to say an atheist would try to justify his or her sexuality from the bible.  That would be about as stupid as a Christian trying to justify their own morals from the Upanishads. 
------------------------------------

James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, decided on his own Molinist freewill to resurrect a controversy I started back in 2015 at theologyweb.com, a discussion board that particularly caters to the more immature Christians who perceive Jesus and the bible to be little more than talking points in a fun intellectual game.

The 2015 Tweb thread I started was entitled "Does your god approve of pedophilia?".

Those who responded to me were laymen Christians who were largely incapable of distinguishing their opinions from the voice of God, having learned to be this foolishly dogmatic from their leader James Patrick Holding, whose extensive list of moral disqualifications are thoroughly documented at this blog.

Now that I know how the more rabid "inerrantists" try to combat the accusation that their god approves of pedophilia, I've decided to subject each plank and presupposition in my argument, to all the invasive searching criticism that any Christian is capable of bringing to bear.

Mr. Holding produced a video this year where he tried to refute my arguments in said 2015 Tweb thread.

I've already responded to that video, and I've recently responded to his rebuttal.  Holding currently has the last word, with a second video "Cartoon Interlude", where the only thing in my response which he attempts to address is the fact that I made the off-hand remark that the cartoonish nature of his videos tells the viewer something about the intellect of Holding's followers. 


Because Holding refuses to admit the fallibility of his interpretations, and insists anybody is a moron if they disagree with his views on this matter, I will proceed to decimate him in point by point fashion

First, Holding is clear that he thinks the god of the bible views sex within adult-child marriages as "sin".

So naturally, we ask

What criteria does the bible say a human act must fulfill, 

in order to be correctly identified as "sin"?

For this blog post, I limit my analysis to a single bible verse.  Lawlessness is sin:

 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
(1 Jn. 3:4 NAU)

The KJV makes the point a bit clearer:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
(1 Jn. 3:4 KJV)

This isn't controversial; you know that stealing is sin because the bible says "thou shalt not steal".

But sex within adult-child marriages cannot be identified as sin under this criteria, since to act with lawlessness means to act contrary to the Law, and the "Law" in the bible says nothing about this subject, and does not specify what age or other criteria a girl must fulfill before she can be eligible for marriage/sex.