I've been publicly attacking the biblical inerrancy doctrine since 2003. The vast majority of inerrantists presume that the bible-god views pedophilia as a sin. So to attack that view, I've been arguing for the last 20 years that this understandably popular doctrine has no support in the Mosaic Law. The inference, that Christians seek to avoid like the plague, is that God doesn't condemn sex within adult-child marriages as sin, because he doesn't think such activity is sinful in the first place. The whole notion that god thinks an act to be sin, but has nowhere plainly declared so, is theologically problematic.
The attack comes mostly in the form of arguing that Numbers 31:18 is not merely authorizing Hebrew soldiers to use underage girls as "house servants", it is also authorizing Hebrew soldiers to both marry and sexually consummate such marriage to such underage girls (i.e., sex within adult-child marriages, i.e, pedophilia).
17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Num. 31:17-18 NAU)
As you can imagine, Christian apologists have for more than 20 years been hitting me with everything they can possibly think of to justify their tendency to create god in their own modern western democratic image, in their effort to show that by some strange coincidence, the Old Testament YHWH just happens to hate pedophilia equally as much as today's Americans do.
The link-fixes that appear below are some of my reasons why such attempts to avoid biblical moral disaster fail, and therefore, my view (that YHWH had, in the days of Moses, approved of sex within adult-child marriages), remains reasonable.
These arguments do not prove that Christians are wrong in how they interpret the bible. The arguments only show that us atheists/skeptics can be reasonable to interpret the bible the way we do. That is, these arguments refute the Christians who characterize my view as "unreasonable". They may hate that view, but they are absolutely paralyzed from proving it to be unreasonable. None of my views arise from improper exegesis. Thus they are forced to say the view is reasonable no matter how distasteful or religiously incorrect they think it is.
If you disagree, then your job is not to show that I'm "wrong" (because I don't claim I'm right), your job is rather to show that my arguments fail to establish the reasonableness of the interpretation I advocate. That's a much more difficult goal to reach, for daily reality tells us we can possibly be reasonable even if wrong. Only a stupid fool insists that everytime somebody gets something wrong, it is because their method of truth-seeking, if any, was unreasonable. No, sometimes we make innocent mistakes.
Reasonableness can arise from accuracy, but it by no means demands accuracy. Therefore, "you are wrong" is not sufficient to show my views to be unreasonable. You must show that my exegesis is so poor that no person concerned for truth could possibly condone it.
If you can't do that job, then you must live with the knowledge that yes, at least some atheist bible critics, even if not all of them, can possibly be reasonable to view the biblical YHWH has having approved of sexual relations within adult-child marriages back in the days of Moses.
Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 1: sin is transgression of God's law
-------In this entry, I argue that Romans 7:7 forbids the notion that we can know sin without the Mosaic law, therefore, if in fact the Mosaic law doesn't clearly condemn pedophilia, then you have no biblical justification for saying God thinks sexual acts within adult-child marriages are sinful. The truth is that Romans 7:7 is itself false, but as a Christian, you don't have the option of winning the debate that way, you are forever stuck with what Paul meant with his words.
Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 2: We can know what sin is by our conscience?
------In this entry, I argue that because the bible founds the human conscience upon the Mosaic law, it is reasonable to deny that the OT YHWH thinks "conscience" is a way, independent of Mosaic law, to establish any act as sinful. Thus if your conscience bothers you when thinking of pedophilia in 2023, we are reasonable to conclude this "pang", even if it came from the NT God, did not come from the OT YHWH.
Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 3: We can know what sin is by intuition?
----forthcoming
Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 4: "In non-essentials, liberty"
----In this entry, I argue that if my opponent is the type of Christian who believes in the popular conservative maxim "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity", then because the Mosaic Law fails to clearly condemn pedophilia, what a Christian in your congregation thinks God's opinion is concerning sexual relations within adult-child marriages, constitutes nothing more important than a "non-essential". Thus if a Christian in your church in 2023 thinks God doesn't condemn sexual relations in adult-child marriages, we are reasonable to view you as under an obligation to give that Christian liberty of conscience on the subject, meaning, we are reasonable to condemn you if, because of his viewpoint on the subject, you ever disfellowship or excommunicate him.
Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 5: God establishes all the secular laws
----forthcoming
Does your God approve of pedophilia? Part 6: God expects Hebrews to use their "common sense"
----In this entry I argue that nothing in the bible indicates God ever expected anybody to use their "common sense" to fill in moral gaps created by omissions in the Mosaic Law. Thus we are reasonable to presume that silence in the Mosaic Law means silence from YHWH...a god that seems to have a need to condemn nearly everything he sees.
------In this entry I argue that, contrary to the hopes of many apologists, nothing in Ezekiel 16 renders unreasonable my view that the in the days of Moses, YHWH approved of sexual relations within adult-child marriages.
No comments:
Post a Comment