Update on "Does your God approve of sex within adult-child marriages?"

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.

Does your God approve of pedophilia? Part 7: Ezekiel 16 establishes nothing except more apologetics embarrassment

------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.

My reply to Brendon Naicker on Paul's apostleship

 When I downloaded Mr. Naicker's pdf "Apostles" from Academia, I sent him the following message:

Hello,
I have two criticisms of your paper:
You say of Paul in your pdf page 12:

He did not fulfil the qualifications of Acts 1:21, but the Damascus Road experience was a resurrection appearance (1 Cor. 15:8), and he could claim to have “seen the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:1); he was thus a witness of the resurrection. 

I don't understand why you would believe Paul's claim to have "seen" the Lord, as Acts 9 and 22 make clear, Paul was blinded by the light, and nothing in those stories ever expresses or implies that Paul physically saw a risen Christ.

The second criticism is:  you admit on the same page that Paul

"...did not fulfil the qualifications of Acts 1:21...."

That is correct, but I don't understand why you felt that Paul's alleged experience on the road to Damascus qualified him anyway.  The original apostles in Acts 1:21 made it a criteria of apostolic office that the person in question must have accompanied Jesus "from the beginning".

If you admit Paul didn't fulfill that criteria, then what makes you think his alleged "seeing" the risen Christ on the road to Damascus was a sufficient substitute?

The criterion in Acts 1:21 does not express or imply any exceptions.   You either accompanied Jesus and the apostles "since the beginning", or you don't become an apostle, period.

Worse, if you think Paul's "seeing" the risen Christ was a sufficient substitute, then do you say the 500 who saw the risen Christ at the same time (1st Cor. 15:6), means there were 500 "apostles" while Paul was still alive?  If their seeing the risen Christ didn't suddenly make them apostles, then why do you make an exception for Paul? 

In short, can skeptics be "reasonable" even if not infallible, to insist Paul was a false apostle?

The email about J.P. Holding I recently cc'd to many Indonesian churches and others

Beware of heretic James Patrick Holding, former president of Apologetics Afield 

Hello,

I am concerned that you don't know about the on-going ceaseless and egregious sins of somebody that might be trying to gain a leadership position of some sort at your church.  I'm also concerned to make sure my name is not further libeled or defamed by somebody trying to gain a position of leadership with you.  This email was sent to you in my attempt to, at least partially, mitigate the damages this man presently continues to inflict on my reputation.

This man claims to be an "apologist" and is seeking to partner with "Indonesian" churches of the Philadelphia and Los Angeles areas.

However, he doesn't specify which exact churches, so in my effort to obey Matthew 18 and tell his sins to the entire church, I had to collect many email addresses that are associated with Indonesian churches in Los Angeles and in Philadelphia, to make sure the specific churches this man is trying to deceive, will be properly notified.

This man is also an author of articles in the Christian Research Journal, which seems to indicate he has also hoodwinked Christian Research Institute...or...they know about all this and simply don't think slander constitutes sin.  This email is being cc'd to other non-Indonesian persons because they already know some of the history.

Everything I say about this man in this email, and in the attached libel lawsuit, and at my blog, linked below, are factual truths, not opinion or satire.  This is neither spam nor a joke.  I am quite aware Mr. Holding will try to use this email against me the next time I sue him for libel, so I would hardly have cc'd this to him, as I've done, if I was afraid that anything I allege herein is baseless, misleading, or otherwise libelous/defamatory.  It is all truthful fact.

This man is biblically disqualified, due to his extensive sins and unwillingness to cease those sins, from holding any office of Christian "teacher" to any degree whatsoever, at least among the conservative evangelical churches he aligns himself with.

His name is James Patrick Holding, formerly "Robert Turkel".  Before he dissolved the corporation, his ministry was called "Apologetics Afield".

I have a problem with you people donating money to this person for his "services" of "apologetics", while being ignorant that he is beset with many presently on-going sins that he has no intentions of ceasing.  Unless you think Christian teachers have no obligation to walk in the light, read on.

Mr. Holding has been slandering and reviling me for years.  The bible obviously identifies slander as sin,

 17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."
 (Matt. 15:17-20 NAU)

and apostle Paul requires the church to disfellowship the brother who engages in "reviling" (i.e., slander).

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

Mr Holding has defamed me so much that I had to file two libel lawsuits against him. The attached pdf, is the latest lawsuit I filed against him.  You will more than likely be shocked at his foul language, his need to use language making him sound like a closet-homosexual, and his pathological need to slander anybody and everybody he disagrees with.

Mr. Holding escaped having to answer the first lawsuit on the merits, with the artifice of "lack of jurisdiction".  He then escaped having to answer the second lawsuit because the judge incorrectly held that I lacked standing to sue. Since these two lucky wins, Mr. Holding feels himself utterly unaccountable for his sins of slander, which he continued to commit even after he narrowly escaped the first two lawsuits.  There is literally no reasoning with this scoundrel whatsoever.

I've informed Mr. Holding about a year ago I'd be filing a third libel lawsuit against him.  Not only did he continue libeling me, he began to libel and slander me even more.  Telling this man to stop committing the sin of slander not only accomplishes nothing, it makes the situation worse by inciting him to commit those sins with greater frequency and intensity.  Worse, Mr. Holding likely realizes this third lawsuit will be litigated all the way into jury trial, costing him at least $50,000 in legal fees, money that he likely doesn't have...yet he absolutely will not stop slandering me in ways that constitute "libel" under American law, despite my numerous attempts to settle these matters with him out of court.

Matthew 18 requires those aware of a brother's sin to confront him privately and then do so again with witnesses to get him to repent.

I have already tried this, multiple times, and not only does he not listen, he rebuffs those attempts as foolish.  He insists he is not sinning, despite the fact that his lies about me including falsely accusing me of crimes I've never committed.

He never never expressed or even implied the least bit of genuine remorse or sorrow for these sins, and he has never apologized to me, ever.   This man seems to have some sort of demon that causes him to mistake the sin of slander for holy rebuke.  I don't see anything wrong with holy rebuke.  But that's a far cry from this man's many sins of "bearing false witness".

So now I must tell his sin to the entire church, as the third step in the Matthew 18 disfellowshipping process:

 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
 (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

This man's unbelievably filthy mouth and pathological need to slander anybody he disagrees with,  is extensively documented at my blog too,

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-is-likely.html

There, I document Mr. Holding's great sinfulness in detail.  No fool would think this homosexual scoundrel was even remotely qualified to be a "teacher" in the conservative evangelical churches he doctrinally aligns himself with, all of whom think slander is sin, all of whom think homosexuality is a sin.

I would hope you would agree with me that this man's continuing sins need to cease, and he needs to show genuine remorse for them, and he needs to make just and fair reparations to me for all the reputation-damages and emotional distress he has inflicted on me,  before you can consider him to be biblically qualified to hold any office of Christian "teacher".

And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18)Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

If you wish to contact him about this matter, Holding's email address is

jphold@att.net

All I ask is that you first obtain his confession of these sins, and that you are satisfied he exhibits genuine repentance over them and that you are satisfied he has made some type of reparation to me for these libels, before you start giving him money.  he doesn't use your money merely for his ministry, he also uses to post defamatory cartoon videos about me to his juvenile delinquent YouTube channel, 

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com