there are only about 5 of us on the forum and as aquila has clearly demonstrated , education and compassion is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
I dunno, maybe. Seems like a stretch, to me. But even so, was it not prohibited until the first century? The OT doesn't address it, far as I know, but it's very specific about certain other practices.
I think the age of consent, and arranged marriages, back in the ancient world was around 11 or 12... so it might not have been a major social issue.
I dunno, maybe. Seems like a stretch, to me. But even so, was it not prohibited until the first century? The OT doesn't address it, far as I know, but it's very specific about certain other practices.
One might be able to condemn pedophilia under the incest clause:
Leviticus 18:6-18
English Standard Version (ESV)
6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
I dunno, maybe. Seems like a stretch, to me. But even so, was it not prohibited until the first century? The OT doesn't address it, far as I know, but it's very specific about certain other practices.
One might also argue against it under the rape clause:
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
English Standard Version (ESV)
25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
Or you could just say morality has evolved over time.
Yes, social mores have evolved over time. And "morality" (how those mores are practiced) has changed with them. For example, women used to be regarded as being whorish women if they didn't wear head coverings. Today, that's not an issue. But the principle of modesty and propriety does remain. We wouldn't let a woman in church topless... unless we were ministering to some native tribe of primitive peoples somewhere.
However, the principle of upholding human dignity, value, and protection from abuse has nearly always been the foundation of all moral teaching in every age.
Yes, social mores have evolved over time. And "morality" (how those mores are practiced) has changed with them. For example, women used to be regarded as being whorish women if they didn't wear head coverings. Today, that's not an issue. But the principle of modesty and propriety does remain. We wouldn't let a woman in church topless... unless we were ministering to some native tribe of primitive peoples somewhere.
However, the principle of upholding human dignity, value, and protection from abuse has nearly always been the foundation of all moral teaching in every age.
And in most cultures and religions.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
there are only about 5 of us on the forum and as aquila has clearly demonstrated , education and compassion is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
Lol--no, a la the 316; tags you when quoted, etc. I don't push this here, however, as the powers may have reasons that I'm not privy to for the entrenchment? Apo/Pents are, after all, notoriously allergic to change.
there are only about 5 of us on the forum and as aquila has clearly demonstrated , education and compassion is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
I don't consider myself either one, but have to say that this seems to be verified in travel, of all things, which might be called "education." I see nothing so much as provincialism in conservativ...ness? ism? ity? and wonder what the forum question "If you are a conservative, how far/often have you traveled outside your home town/state" might reveal.
Also, as a "con," it seems like one would pretty much have to own our current economic situation; unless one is deluded into thinking that Presidential actions produce instantaneous results...
Of all the people to... Lord help me refrain...
Linear Mode
