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.

Divine Atrocities of the Old Testament: God takes "joy" in watching men rape women

The more common ground two people have on a matter, the greater the chances they will resolve their differences on it.  While most conservative Christians are sufficiently brainwashed that they don’t really care any more about bible verses that say God creates evil, I would hope that the female Christian reader agrees with me that “rape” is immoral without exception.  If then it could be shown that God doesn’t just “cause” rape, but “delights” to watch it happen, no amount of theological sophistry will likely convince such females to just shove this under the rug of “god’s mysterious ways”, and they will hopefully express a concern about the depraved nature of Mose or whoever the author of Deuteronomy was.

Deuteronomy 28:1-15 is a cheerful passage about all the good that the Israelites can expect God to do for them if they obey him.

But Deuteronomy 28:15-63 details numerous shocking unspeakable atrocities that God will inflict on Israel if they do not obey him.

In 28:30, one of those curses God will inflict is the rape of Israelite women.

  28 "The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart;

 29 and you will grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you.

 30 "You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.

 (Deut. 28:28-30 NAU)

 “Violate” in the Hebrew is shagel, and it means rape or ravish.  This is why other English bibles use equal terms:

ESV  ravish her.

NET  rape her.

In 28:63, this depressing litany of horrors is summed up by declaring that God will take just as much “delight” in causing these horrors to disobedient people, as he takes in prospering those who obey:

NAU

63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. (Deut. 28:63)

NIV

63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

The lexicons tell us what the above-cited NAU/NIV comparison hints at, that the Hebrew word for delight (sus, or sis, Greek: euphraino in the Lxx) can be properly defined by the synonyms for delight, such as rejoice, please, joy, rejoicing, happiness, glee, bliss, gladness, exhilaration, exult, jubilation, etc., 

The same word (whether MT Hebrew or Greek Lxx) is used in Deuteronomy 20:6 to assert that a man would "enjoy" planting a garden and eating from it.  Here are a few lexical entries: 

Strong's
7797 שׂוּשׂ [suws, siys /soos/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 2246; GK 8464; 27 occurrences; AV translates as “rejoice” 20 times, “glad” four times, “greatly” once, “joy” once, and “mirth” once. 1 to exult, rejoice. 1a (Qal) to exult, display joy.---------Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (H7797). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] εὐφραίνω impf. pass. εὐφραινόμην; 1aor. pass. ηὐφράνθην; (1) active make glad, cheer up someone (2C 2.2); (2) passive, of social and festive enjoyment be merry, enjoy oneself (LU 16.19); of religious and spiritual jubilation rejoice, celebrate, be jubilant (AC 2.26)

εὐφράνθη VIAP--3S εὐφραίνω

εὐφραίνω    impf. pass. εὐφραινόμην; 1aor. pass. ηὐφράνθην; (1) active make glad, cheer up someone (2C 2.2); (2) passive, of social and festive enjoyment be merry, enjoy oneself (LU 16.19); of religious and spiritual jubilation rejoice, celebrate, be jubilant (AC 2.26)

Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.
Baker's Greek New Testament library (Page 181). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

The Harper Bible Commentary doesn't shrink back from the grizzly horror depicted here:

The most terrible thought of all may be v. 63, which describes God as taking grim pleasure in Israel’s destruction…

Mays, J. L., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1996, c1988).
Harper's Bible commentary (Dt 28:1). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Where exactly does the skeptic go wrong in saying Deuteronomy 28 teaches that God is capable of taking the same "delight" in watching the rape of Israelite women who disobeyed Mosaic law, that he takes in prospering those who obey Him?

Even if the "delight" is solely with reference to "justice", can you honestly tell yourself that the infinite creator of the universe was incapable of coming up with a less barbaric response to said disobedient women?  If God had appeared personally to the Israelites and physically interacted with them and prevented them from sinning much like a parent prevents a child from running out in the street, you are sure that such a theophany would have had no more beneficial effect on them?