- Rebecca Hughes
- status
- How do you rationalize the Bible authors' lack of modern knowledge with the idea that an omniscient god guided them to write these things?
For example, God supposedly impregnated Mary. Mary was approximately 12-14 years old. Christians excuse this by saying "it was normal at the time," but will also claim that God knows everything that will ever happen, meaning he knew what pedophilia was and why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth. He knew that in modern times, the age of consent would average around 16-18 in first world countries. He knew that by impregnating her, he was putting her life in danger.
Other comparisons can be drawn, such as when life truly "begins" (the Bible can't seem to give a straight answer despite modern medical experts having a clear understanding of the brain development in utero, so God should've known this too), no mention of what would later be known as "transgender" (they basically just called it cross dressing) despite the mountains of scientific research that would come about for it, and more examples I'm sure other atheists in here could provide.
So how exactly do Christians reconcile the Bible authors' lack of modern understanding with the idea that a god with all foreknowledge guided them to write it?
- I answered
- twice, A and B
- A
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "meaning he knew what pedophilia was"
Yes, a catchword equivalent to lumping murder, arson and jaywalking together.
She was obviously no child, or she couldn't have been pregnant, duh!
- Rebecca Hughes
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are you claiming your god didn't understand pedophilia?
You do realize children can get pregnant, right? Some girls start puberty as early as 8 years old. They could get pregnant. That does NOT stop them from being a CHILD.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I'm claiming "paedophilia" isn't a thing to understand in the first place.
A girl pregnant at 8 is not herself a child, she's just statistically likely to be a child, and a statistically unlikely case.
- Rebecca Hughes
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
A pregnant child is still a child. Puberty does not equal adulthood. Some girls experience precocious puberty as young as 5 years old. A pregnant 5 year old would STILL BE A CHILD.
If you're claiming that pedophilia doesn't exist because impregnating a child magically makes her an adult, I have news for you, you freak.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In a five year old, puberty would indeed be precocious.
But in normal puberty at least of medium age (like 14 for males and 12 for females), one must presume normal maturity to assume puberty.
One cannot assume a generalised mismatch between puberty and maturity.
And you weren't saying Our Lady was 5 or 9, but between 12 and 14 some time.
- Rebecca Hughes
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
Puberty does not equal maturity. One can absolutely assume a mismatch between the two because we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward.
So, again, with that knowledge that your god supposedly had access to, why did he still purposefully choose a 12 year old CHILD instead of a more mature woman who could more safely carry and deliver the pregnancy?
- Jimmy Perry
- Rebecca Hughes by you calling her a child is disingenuous. Her age is unknown.
- Rebecca Hughes
- Jimmy Perry Children in that time were typically betrothed around 12-14 years old. If she were much older than that and unmarried, then she would've been considered a spinster and likely brought shame to her family.
There is not a single historian who estimates her age any greater than 16 at the MOST.
So, either way, she was definitely a child, and that means your god purposefully and intentionally chose a child over all others to impregnate.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Rebecca Hughes About your history lesson, thank you. Apart from the incorrect word child.
Betrothed children have certainly existed. The mother of St. Francis of Sales was betrothed at 8 and married at 14, giving birth to him, her eldest son, next year. The husband was significantly older.
She was a child when betrothed, but no longer when she got married.
"Puberty does not equal maturity."
Not in very seriously precocious puberty, like puberty in a five year old if that exists.
However, pretending medium age of puberty is NOT equal to the maturity needed to marry (which is not every maturity there is), is an accusation against God far beyond the instance of the Blessed Virgin's age.
You see, in Genesis 1, God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He also says "and it was very good" ... this would not be the case if people who got married and got children had over history been very often too young to take that decision.
"we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward."
Underdeveloped for exactly what?
In bodies, we can take hip bones. Now, at 13 a girl's hip bones are too narrow, at 30, if she hasn't given birth, somewhat too narrow but less so, but on the other hand too stiff. The suppleness at 13 compensates for the narrowness, when you get to 30, you need earlier child births to have easy deliveries. Inapplicable in males, and being tall enough to drive a car is historically not an issue for most people. By the way, in Europe it is not an issue in cities, because you have shops within walking distance, you don't need to drive to a supermarket. Same observation Middle East 2000 years ago, in case you forgot.
Brains. St. Thomas Aquinas certainly acknowledges that you have more maturity at 25 than at 14/12. However, he says 14/12 is the proper maturity for marriage, you basically need emotional intelligence and knowing what taste you have in the opposite sex (and yes, taste changes do come with puberty, even on a culinary level, I couldn't eat blue cheese or drink beer with hops before puberty, and I wasn't keen on black coffee either).
25 by contrast, is the maturity you need to take charge of other people, not meaning wife and small children, but people big enough to have decided wills of their own. Hence, taking your inheritance, running a business, being ordained a priest, starting to rule in your own name instead of others doing so for you, if you were heir to the throne, all these are for 25.
The explanation of St. Thomas was about experience, but that applies to the brain development too. At 12 the brain is at its largest, but it takes a shrink, gets rid of superfluous neurons, gets more stable around 18. You can argue it's not a fully developed brain, but it is developed enough to know your taste in the opposite sex, for instance if I like girls chubby or lean (fact: somewhat chubby).
- B
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "he knew ... why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth."
As She could get pregnant, She was not a child.
And "incredibly dangerous", apart from skewed outcome statistics by the one mostly happening in first world and the other mostly in the third world, a first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30.
From memory of my ma's words, and she had a gynaecology professor she respected.
Now, if giving a first birth at 13 in Ethiopia is more dangerous than at 30 in NYC, there are other factors than inherent dangerosity that contribute.
And yes, He knew.
Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth
[1 Timothy 4:1-3]
- Rebecca Hughes
- She was 12 years old. She was a child. Children can get pregnant. That doesn't excuse it.
"A first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30."
Were there no women between the ages of 20-30?? Literally anyone other than a child?
"He knew" what? He knew that he was participating in pedophilia? Yeah, that's my whole point.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Children can get pregnant."
A person who can get pregnant is not a child.
A person is NOT a child up to 20.
Your blasphemies make me shudder for the hearts and lives of young women you would call "children" ...
- Rebecca Hughes
- Hans-Georg Lundahl A person may not be a child all the way up to 20 years old, but historians haven't estimated Mary's age to be ANY higher than 16 at the most, and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically. Their bodies are physically not matured to adulthood.
If you think a child 16 and under isn't a child because they are capable of becoming pregnant, you are sick in the head. I'm genuinely surprised you put that on the internet under your own name. Would you show your boss that comment?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Rebecca Hughes "and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically."
No.
That's a false definition of childhood.
Omne animal quod potest facere sibi simile perfectum est.
The basic biological perfection, as defined by Aristotle and accepted by the Scholastics excludes the immaturity one should call childhood.
Rebecca Hughes "Would you show your boss that comment?"
I don't have one. I don't intend to get one I couldn't show it, nor one who would want to make it a secret.
samedi 13 juin 2026
Was Mary "a Child"? No. With Child.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire