NationStates Jolt Archive

Very interesting article from the New York Times today about a church which is facing a connundrum.

An ex-con who was in jail for sex crimes against children wants to join the congregation, as it is incumbent upon christians to let him do, with jesus' focus on forgiveness.

Assuming the same were the case at your church, and the sex offender was above-board with what he had done, and repented it, what would you do?

Jesus said to treat the least among us as we'd treat him, and it doesnt get much lower than child molester, at least amid today's moral panic.

Article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/us/10pilgrim.html?hp

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5190505

Looks like more than a few Christians (and non-Christians) are OK with cramming child sex offenders under a bridge.

This looks like a thread that is thinly disguised as "OMFG! Christians aren't Christian!"

Maybe you should troll on a NAMBLA site to get people who like child sex offenders.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5190505

Looks like more than a few Christians (and non-Christians) are OK with cramming child sex offenders under a bridge.

This looks like a thread that is thinly disguised as "OMFG! Christians aren't Christian!"

Maybe you should troll on a NAMBLA site to get people who like child sex offenders.

So, the only people who would be in favor of allowing him into a church are people who "like" child sex offenders? Nothing to do with applying the principle Jesus is supposed to have applied? I'm not in favor or against it because psychology texts say this kind of disease doesn't disappear (but the church can help him sublimate these desires), but I certainly can see people in favor of giving him a second chance without "liking" sex offenders.

I think this thread makes a very valid point: a lot of the people who claim to be christian, aren't actually, well... christian.

That's not news. Even Jesus said it back then, that most people won't make the cut because they can't live it.

And your point is?

I think this thread makes a very valid point: a lot of the people who claim to be christian, aren't actually, well... christian.

I don't know who's teachings they actually follow, but it's not Christ's. O'Reilly's, maybe?

Which raises the question - why do these people claim to be christian? Do they think it gives them a moral highground elsewhere in life?

Or is the reason actually religious: do they think it entitles them to everlasting life or such? This one I'm doubting - you'd need even more self-deception than even I'd credit a lot of people for, to think eternal life would arrive if you're not actually following Christ's teachings.

Absolutely, after all, it was that Jesus dude who said "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more", without so much as the slightest demand for punishment.

Very interesting article from the New York Times today about a church which is facing a connundrum.

An ex-con who was in jail for sex crimes against children wants to join the congregation, as it is incumbent upon christians to let him do, with jesus' focus on forgiveness.

Assuming the same were the case at your church, and the sex offender was above-board with what he had done, and repented it, what would you do?

Jesus said to treat the least among us as we'd treat him, and it doesnt get much lower than child molester, at least amid today's moral panic.

Article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/us/10pilgrim.html?hp
I wouldn't belong to any club that would have a rapist for a member. But that's just me.

I wouldn't belong to any club that would have a rapist for a member. But that's just me.

I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me for a member. But that's just Groucho Marx. :D

I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me for a member. But that's just Groucho Marx. :D
SWISH!

:D

If he's done the time and is trully regtrettful, I would(as a non-christian) let him in. People need to forgive and go on.

I am Anti-Religion but that’s irrelevant, I would have sex offenders striped of all possessions and dumped into the Atlantic by the RAF.

Executioner > Sex Offender

The most spiritual congregation I ever belonged to had people of every problem area. There is nothing like a person that hit bottom and is on their way up.

Obviously, I wouldn't put a sex offender in charge of children's ministry or allow them to be alone with a single person, but there are many other ways to serve. I would be much more worried about people that didn't admit to a problem then one that everyone knows has a problem. With the latter precautions can be made.

I am Anti-Religion but that’s irrelevant, I would have sex offenders striped of all possessions and dumped into the Atlantic by the RAF.

Executioner > Sex Offender

I see. And what would you tell the family of an innocent executed by mistake?

Of course Christ would want you to let the guy in but most people simply can't live up to his example. Of course I doubt the people in Christ's time would have to deal with this, the bastard would be executed instead of getting a weak jail sentence.

I wouldn't care about his/her past. some sex offenders truly want to change and everyone should be given that chance to change.

Actually, it wouldn't be called "child molesting" back then, it would be called "consummating marriage" or "prostitution" or "the spoils of war" depending on the context.

Yeah, what was it they called Aisha?

Of course Christ would want you to let the guy in but most people simply can't live up to his example. Of course I doubt the people in Christ's time would have to deal with this, the bastard would be executed instead of getting a weak jail sentence.

Actually, it wouldn't be called "child molesting" back then, it would be called "consummating marriage" or "prostitution" or "the spoils of war" depending on the context.

I wouldn't care about his/her past. some sex offenders truly want to change and everyone should be given that chance to change.

For that reason, the church's presiding priest/minister/reverend should meet with the person first to see if the person is committed to changing and they have embraced the teachings.

I doubt sex with prepubescents would be tolerated by anyone at anytime.

Unless your name is Muhammed.

Actually, it wouldn't be called "child molesting" back then, it would be called "consummating marriage" or "prostitution" or "the spoils of war" depending on the context.

I doubt sex with those prepubescent and younger would be tolerated by anyone at anytime.

I doubt sex with prepubescents would be tolerated by anyone at anytime.

Sex with children in puberty is considered child molestation / child sex offense, is it not?

Sex with children in puberty is considered child molestation / child sex offense, is it not?

I was trying to draw a line between sex with girls of marriageable age and what are children which would be simple pedophilia. The idea that the people would tolerate THAT is something I don't believe.

I was trying to draw a line between sex with girls of marriageable age and what are children which would be simple pedophilia. The idea that the people would tolerate THAT is something I don't believe.

That I'll agree with.

I'm amazed that nobody's made any Roman Catholic jokes yet. :p

Unless your name is Muhammed.

He used the word "marriage" to give a home to, among other people, an old lady and a child. He did not have sex with either, at least not until the girl was of age. However, if you want me to point out the details about YOUR idea of God, keep the trolling on.

I'm amazed that nobody's made any Roman Catholic jokes yet. :p

We didn't want to offend you Father.

Let them into the congregation. But I wouldn't want them to be in a position where they are alone with anyone else. In other words, definitely NOT the Sunday School teacher.

I see. And what would you tell the family of an innocent executed by mistake?
Talk to them? They will not care about their paedophile family member being executed, why should they care anyway; it is not them being executed.

And no, people don't get paedophile status by mistake.

The most spiritual congregation I ever belonged to had people of every problem area. There is nothing like a person that hit bottom and is on their way up.

Obviously, I wouldn't put a sex offender in charge of children's ministry or allow them to be alone with a single person, but there are many other ways to serve. I would be much more worried about people that didn't admit to a problem then one that everyone knows has a problem. With the latter precautions can be made.

Indeed. If the person is up front about their history and proclivities, they can be dealt with effectively and respectfully.

Talk to them? They will not care about their paedophile family member being executed, why should they care anyway; it is not them being executed.

The family of an innocent person that was wrongfully convicted. As much as you people that favor death penalty want to deny, wrong convictions happen.

And no, people don't get paedophile status by mistake.

What the hell makes you so sure?

Pardon my French, but what the fuck makes you so sure?
By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called (officially) a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!

By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!

No, all it needs is someone calling you a nonce, and there you have it.
"I heard it, it must be true."

By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called (officially) a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!

Lots of people have gotten charged for crimes they did not commit. This including everything from murders to theft. Sometimes there was even evidence, yet they can still get accused and charged wrongly.

Potential Innocent > Executioner

By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called (officially) a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!

You may have the same NAME as an offender. Evidence can be planted. Witnesses can make mistakes. And you can't raise back from the dead an innocent you seem so willing to kill just for the sadistic pleasure of watching someone guilty die too.

By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called (officially) a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!
No, but it doesn't take much more than the offer of a happy meal to convince someone's kid to start telling lies.

By fucking evidence, you don't suddenly get called a nonce because you ate a fucking a happy meal!

You can get called a pedophile because you look like a pedophile.
It's very easy to make a mistake about that.
And it's also very easy to make mistakes about sex crimes, seeing as there are always only two witnesses, the victim and the criminal.
If the victim misidentifies someone, then that's a pretty strong case against an innocent person.
Some of the other evidence you would have here only sets up that there was a crime committed.
There isn't that much stuff you could use to exonerate an innocent person.

EDIT: And by the way, kids are horrible witnesses, because it's very easy to convince them of stuff that didn't happen. Just ask the questions the right way.

And by the way, kids are horrible witnesses, because it's very easy to convince them of stuff that didn't happen. Just ask the questions the right way.

To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Sexual_abuse

I see. And what would you tell the family of an innocent executed by mistake?

Well, of course the justice system isn't stupid, they do all that is possible to prevent that from happening....and there are good laywers out there...and scientist, and CSI..ect..

Well, of course the justice system isn't stupid, they do all that is possible to prevent that from happening....and there are good laywers out there...and scientist, and CSI..ect..

ONE innocent executed is more than ENOUGH!

I understand the Catholics make them their leader.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5190505

Looks like more than a few Christians (and non-Christians) are OK with cramming child sex offenders under a bridge.

This looks like a thread that is thinly disguised as "OMFG! Christians aren't Christian!"

Maybe you should troll on a NAMBLA site to get people who like child sex offenders.

Says the guy reading into someone's simple question, and tells them to go "Troll on a NAMBLA site."

I'd say the only troll here is you.

I am Anti-Religion but that’s irrelevant, I would have sex offenders striped of all possessions and dumped into the Atlantic by the RAF.


What's the RAF?

Of course Christ would want you to let the guy in but most people simply can't live up to his example. Of course I doubt the people in Christ's time would have to deal with this, the bastard would be executed instead of getting a weak jail sentence.

Firstly, things which we'd consider child abuse and/or sex offences were entirely legal back then.
Secondly, Jesus is supposed to have made friends with a tax collector. Provincial Roman-era tax collectors were the scum of the earth. Legalised gangsters who were allowed to extort as much money as they liked from anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen.

So I find it quite credible that Jesus would have been dealing with people just as bad as the guy in this story.

I wouldn't belong to any club that would have a rapist for a member. But that's just me.

Neither would I.

But I voted yes as a non-Christian. If I join a religion, it won't have any of that "omg treat everyone equally" shit, but Christianity does!

What's the RAF?
Royal Air Force...

Says the guy reading into someone's simple question, and tells them to go "Troll on a NAMBLA site."

I'd say the only troll here is you.



What's the RAF?

Royal Air Force, presumably.

Royal Air Force...

Sorry, not a UKian, and therefore don't know the official TLAs of your organizations.

Unless your name is Muhammed.

Yeah. I was right. You're either a troll, a bigot, or both.

Talk to them? They will not care about their paedophile family member being executed, why should they care anyway; it is not them being executed.

And no, people don't get paedophile status by mistake.

You're delusional. I'm sorry. I at least try to have semi-reasonable debates on these forums, but I can't reasonably argue against something that unreasonable.

What's the RAF?

Royal Air Force, I believe.

Also, given that you've said I understand the Catholics make them their leader. I don't see where you've got much room to call someone else a troll for making comments about Muhammad and his underage wife.

of course he should be welcome at services. thats what the church is for.

considering that most child molestors are never sent to prison, every church should be cautious about its membership no matter if they have a convicted sex offender in the group or not.

Also, given that you've said I don't see where you've got much room to call someone else a troll for making comments about Muhammad and his underage wife.

I felt obligated to fulfill everyone's expectations and make a catholic joke. I must say, I really should have put a grinning face or something similar to indicate that it was a joke, since it is difficult to tell when someone's joking over the internet.

Sorry, not a UKian, and therefore don't know the official TLAs of your organizations.

Come now. I'm an ignorant American Southerner, and I knew what it meant. Not being from the UK is hardly an excuse.

I wouldn't belong to any club that would have a rapist for a member. But that's just me.

what about a drug addict?

what about a drug addict?

That would certainly make getting help for a drug problem difficult. "You need to go to narcotics annonymous." "Sorry, I won't join any club with members who are drug addicts."

Yeah. I was right. You're either a troll, a bigot, or both.

Why ? While the age of Aisha at the consummation of her marriage is disputed, a majority of muslems seems to accept the "6 at marriage, 9 at consummation" figures. Many argue that that was the age she hit puberty though. Considering Mohammed is the holy prophet and the example of how to lead a good life for all time...

Of course, this just means that many muslems would not call someone a childrapist if the intercourse happened within the bounds of marriage. Which definately does not mean they would have to accept such encounters out of wedlock.

Of course, this just means that many muslems would not call someone a childrapist if the intercourse happened within the bounds of marriage. Which definately does not mean they would have to accept such encounters out of wedlock.

Somehow I doubt that many muslims wouldn't call someone a child molester if they had sex with a child. Maybe we should ask Soviestan. Of course, whether or not he's a muslim tends to get called into question once in a while.

Come now. I'm an ignorant American Southerner, and I knew what it meant. Not being from the UK is hardly an excuse.

And I'm one of those blue-statists, and I knew, too. ;)

And I'm one of those blue-statists, and I knew, too. ;)

Brazilian, here, and I knew.

Betelgeusian here and I knew that as well!

I can hardly say there is a culture clash on this because most British people would agree with you but I have lived in many countries and seen different ways of dealing with criminals.

I also understand you have to be 18 to have sex in most of America so the paedophile issue may be different there.

My personal problem with sex offenders is that they get off likely, how do you allow someone like that to live among the honest citizen? Why allow them to have a television, food, a bed and an education from your taxes if they are in jail (Or if they live in a council house in the UK)?

I know you may think people get falsely accused but that is rare and that’s why the media shags the story.

Betelgeusian here and I knew that as well!

You're quite the hoopy frood, aren't you?

I know you may think people get falsely accused but that is rare and that’s why the media shags the story.

One is enough. Or you'd accept YOURSELF being executed while innocent as an acceptable loss in order to have a death penalty that doesn't even deter crime?

And I'm one of those blue-statists, and I knew, too. ;)

I live in a ridiculously liberal part of a red state (At least, it went red in 2004). We added homosexuals to our nondiscrimination laws in '81, and those with gender identity issues (Such as transsexuals. Not saying they have "issues" in a negative way.) in '97. Which puts us way ahead of most of the US. Not sure how we measure up to Europe, though.

[/communalpride]

I also understand you have to be 18 to have sex in most of America so the paedophile issue may be different there.

I'm not actually sure what the national average is. I'm guessing it's either 16 or 18.


My personal problem with sex offenders is that they get off likely,

Assuming you meant lightly, I disagree. Many years in jail and permanently ostracized and blacklisted.


Why allow them to have a television, food, a bed and an education from your taxes if they are in jail (Or if they live in a council house in the UK)?

How about, this is just a theory here, but so they don't begin to totally hate society and not even attempt to become a normal citizen, but instead just vent their rage? Think about it this way, if you were cooped up in some cell, forced to sleep on the floor, fed only rarely (I'm not going to say never, I do realize you're suggesting killing them.), and if they're uneducated they basically CAN'T become functioning members of society.

Of course, we could just murder them. God forbid they be given a second chance. Maybe we should go back to the olden days, where you went to jail and stayed there until either someone freed you or you were hanged.


I know you may think people get falsely accused but that is rare and that’s why the media shags the story.

If by "rare" you mean "common" you'd be right. It'd be rather difficult to get statistics on who actually did it and who did it, but I'll bet it's a disturbingly high percentage. Of course, in my opinion, less than 1%, but more than 0% is a disturbingly high percentage, because I'm one of those crazy justice-loving hippie freaks.

Christian-one who has saving faith. Not defined based upon action but saving faith.
Saving faith-belief in the fundamental (necessary for salvation, i.e. Triune God) doctines of the Bible.
Non-fundamental-(not necassary for salvation) (i.e. six day creation)
Christian -wrongly defined (per man)-one who follows Christ's teachings (outwardly).... again being Christian is based solely upon faith, action is just in response, a thankful gesture to forgiveness.

The Bible states that no man can look into another man's heart. No one can tell with certainty if one is a Christian or not, and though actions are a good indicator, they are not defining. These points go both ways. We should not judge whether the people in this congregation are Christians based upon their actions, no should we or they judge this man upon his actions as to whether he is a Christian/interested in being a Christian.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3: 23 (no one likes to hear this because it, along with the rest of the Bible, says no one can get into heaven on their own and that ever since the Fall of Man we are bad people, every one of us, but only through our Savior can we enter God's glory in heaven.)-http://www.carm.org/diff/Rom3_23.htm

Forgiveness of sins-God declares us not guilty (justification) in His courtroom so to speak (no eternal punishment in hell). It does not exclude temporal (earthly) punishment for wrongs commited, which is a reason why we have the government.

Sanctification-our lives in response of thankfulness for this forgiveness; not by doing good do we in anyway help ourselves into heaven, otherwise there would be no need for a Savior. To think we could even begin to help ourselves into heaven is not Biblical, but rather teachings of earthly churches and man. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3: 23

The Bible also clearly states that God rules over the governments of earth and has provided them to bear the sword (punishment including the death penalty), not individuals (unless God states so otherwise).

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
The Bible is very clear that God has instituted civil government as "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Romans 13:4. The civil government is called to be a minister of God's justice: "to punish those who do wrong" 1 Peter 2: 14.

The primary duties and responsibilities of civil government are the protection of the law-abiding citizens and punishment of law-breaking criminals. Psalm 101 reminds us that the duty of God-honouring rulers is to destroy the wicked, to root out evil and to protect the law-abiding - all to the glory of God.

"Every authority instituted among men . who are sent by Him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." 1 Peter 2:13-14

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong . for He is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for He does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Romans 13:3-4


The three types of law, civil, ceremonial, and moral: http://www.whataboutjesus-explorethebible.com/Lessons/Lesson_10/lesson_10.shtml

-Mr. Gieschen

I don't think I would.

I don't think I would.

May I gloat now?

May I gloat now?

if you're asking? then... no. :p

I'm not actually sure what the national average is. I'm guessing it's either 16 or 18.
Well I spoke to a friend in LA and she said it is eighteen where she is, here it is sixteen (although it is not enforced) and in France it is fifteen and thirteen in Spain, In Oman you have to be married.
Assuming you meant lightly,
Yes. Sorry, that was a typo.
How about, this is just a theory here, but so they don't begin to totally hate society and not even attempt to become a normal citizen, but instead just vent their rage? Think about it this way, if you were cooped up in some cell, forced to sleep on the floor, fed only rarely (I'm not going to say never, I do realize you're suggesting killing them.), and if they're uneducated they basically CAN'T become functioning members of society.If you cannot become a member of society, what place do you have in it? If they are killed then taxes are saved instead of wasted on food and televisions for them. Sure if you want, you can throw a few innocent people into it but if you want to make an omelette...

If you cannot become a member of society, what place do you have in it? If they are killed then taxes are saved instead of wasted on food and televisions for them. Sure if you want, you can throw a few innocent people into it but if you want to make an omelette...

Good to know you're willing to die so other people also have to. If you're ever charged unfairly in a murder case you'll thank all the entities you may pray to that the system isn't the one you so ardently support - even though death penalty is not a deterrent, and is much more expensive than life in prison. You're willing to kill innocents just so you can watch guilty people die. Count YOURSELF in the equation or be forever remembered as a hypocrite! I, however, refuse to be counted in it, and mark my words: If I ever get executed for a crime I did not commit, whoever supported it will regret it somehow.

I frankly could not give a shit about someone I have never met getting killed because they like bedding five year olds.

If I ever get executed for a crime I did not commit, whoever supported it will regret it somehow You are really clinging onto this view that the world is fair. And what will you do wile your dead, I suppose?

And what is this "Good to know you're willing to die so other people also have to", everybody dies. You should take a trip to The Congo, a beautiful country with a load of lazy people waiting for international aid instead of getting up and start doing things themselves, they did not have charity or international aid during the Bronze Age yet Europe makes more money than any other continent today.

I frankly could not give a shit about someone I have never met getting killed because they look like someone that likes bedding five year olds, as long as that person isn't me.

FIXED.

Unless your name is Muhammed.

The idea that the prophet(pbuh) was a paedophile is simply untrue and unfair. Aisha had hit puberty by the time they started living together. The youngest age I've seen puts her at 9 when they moved in. Others say as old as 12 to 15. At that time such things were not uncommon. The prophet(pbuh) had many critics that said a whole lot of things about him. Things like he was a liar, crazy, a con man, etc. but not once did they accuse him of wrong doings concerning his marriage to Aisha. Marriage at puberty was fairly common in those times. Also he had I believe 5 to 6 wives, all his other wives were older than 17.

You're quite the hoopy frood, aren't you?

But does he know where his towel is?

But does he know where his towel is?

:D

As for the topic at hand... I see no reason why not. I would encourage the church to put some safeguards in place, though.

The idea that the prophet(pbuh) was a paedophile is simply untrue and unfair. Aisha had hit puberty by the time they started living together. The youngest age I've seen puts her at 9 when they moved in. Others say as old as 12 to 15. At that time such things were not uncommon.

That it was common at the time makes it acceptable behaviour for normal people. Not for the most honoured prophet whose life serves as an example for all time.

Sex offenders joining a congregation...?

Aren't they the ones leading it?




Yeah... Yeah... I know. I'm going to hell....

the sex offender can join, but should keep his past to himself.

If the sex offender is truly repentant then I dont see why not, but should keep to himself and not get involved in extra church activitys, just stick to praying for his absolution and not think about his perverse nature.

That it was common at the time makes it acceptable behaviour for normal people. Not for the most honoured prophet whose life serves as an example for all time.

To answer that :

He used the word "marriage" to give a home to, among other people, an old lady and a child. He did not have sex with either, at least not until the girl was of age. However, if you want me to point out the details about YOUR idea of God, keep the trolling on.]

Marriage to secure a female child's rights in a time of civil unrest, IMHO.

Marriage to secure a female child's rights in a time of civil unrest, IMHO.

If one accepts the hadiths literally the prophet truly consummated the marriage when Aisha was 9.
Of course, many muslems simply do not trust the hadiths and limit themselves to the Qu'ran. Others doubt Aisha could count, and in fact make quite decent cases as for why Aisha could not have been 9 but had to be several years older.
However, a majority of scholars simply accepts the 9. At which age it is of course possible that a girl is menstruating, so is "of age".
Current western morals however disagree with that notion.

That it was common at the time makes it acceptable behaviour for normal people. Not for the most honoured prophet whose life serves as an example for all time.

It was acceptable at the time. Or you're expecting someone from years and years ago to know what our standards would be now? "Prophet" and "omniscient" are two different things...

It was acceptable at the time. Or you're expecting someone from years and years ago to know what our standards would be now?

If that person was divinely inspired to serve as an example to all mankind ?
Definately, yes.

However, a majority of scholars simply accepts the 9. At which age it is of course possible that a girl is menstruating, so is "of age".
Current western morals however disagree with that notion.

The problem is, people who want to paint him as a paedophile in order to go "moslems R ebul" willfully, and knowingly, apply our notions to a time in which it was, yes, acceptable to do that. Assuming that did happen.

If that person was divinely inspired to serve as an example to all mankind ?
Definately, yes.

So, if in the future nailing 9-year olds becomes a moral requirement, he'll be screwed no matter how he behaved? Or a future in which cannibalism is a moral requirement? "Oh my God, the Prophet never ate anybody!" and we'll be having this exact conversation a thousand years from now? Can you perceive how ridiculous is your notion?

So, if in the future nailing 9-year olds becomes a moral requirement, he'll be screwed no matter how he behaved? Or a future in which cannibalism is a moral requirement? "Oh my God, the Prophet never ate anybody!" and we'll be having this exact conversation a thousand years from now? Can you perceive how ridiculous is your notion?

You are missing my point. The Prophet Muhammad is supposed to be an example of how to live a good life in the eyes of Allah. If Allah believes it is fine to have sex with a 9 year old girl within the bounds of marriage than that is Allah's opinion - and until the example of the Prophet is replaced by a new Prophet it stays his final word on it to its followers; regardless whether or not society changes its norms.*

So, if a muslim accepts that the Prophet had sex with Aisha at age 9 he can not condemn other men having sex with such young children within the bounds of marriage - regardless of his own feelings on this issue. Condemning it would mean saying he knows better than Allah.

* Christians face the same problem with the Bible.

You are missing my point. The Prophet Mohammed is suppossed to be an example of how to live a good life in the eyes of Allah. If Allah believes it is fine to have sex with a 9 year old girl within the bounds of marriage than that is Allahs opinion - and until the example of the Prophet is replaced by a new Prophet it stays his final word on it to its followers.

So, if a muslem accepts that the Prophet had sex with Aisha at age 9 he can not condemn other men having sex with such young children within the bounds of marriage - regardless of his own feelings on this issue. Condemning it would mean saying he knows better than Allah.

You could make the same argument defending slavery from the Bible--the apostle Paul said that christian owners should treat their slaves kindly. Does that mean that being an abolitionist means saying that you know better than God's apostle? This is the danger of taking "holy books" literally and not accounting for changes in society.

Edit: missed your addition to the post.

You could make the same argument defending slavery from the Bible--the apostle Paul said that christian owners should treat their slaves kindly. Does that mean that being an abolitionist means saying that you know better than God's apostle? This is the danger of taking "holy books" literally and not accounting for changes in society.

It is in fact the danger of relying on examples and lists of commandments instead of on the underlying reasoning. Reasoning which both Bible and Qu'ran unfortunately forgot to provide (or at least: spell out).

You could make the same argument defending slavery from the Bible--the apostle Paul said that christian owners should treat their slaves kindly. Does that mean that being an abolitionist means saying that you know better than God's apostle? This is the danger of taking "holy books" literally and not accounting for changes in society.

Edit: missed your addition to the post.

And that assumes the hadiths were correct in that.

It is in fact the danger of relying on examples and lists of commandments instead of on the underlying reasoning. Reasoning which both Bible and Qu'ran unfortunately forgot to provide (or at least: spell out).

You do realize the same case, albeit in a different way, can be made about atheism, right?

You do realize the same case, albeit in a different way, can be made about atheism, right?

No--unless someone put out the big book of atheism religion when I wasn't looking.

No--unless someone put out the big book of atheism religion when I wasn't looking.

Quite simple: No God = no "moral compass" = "do whatever you want to whoever you want". Arguing that "Allah allowed paedophilia" or "God allowed slavery" leads to arguing that "Atheism allowed ANYTHING". Fallacy? Yes. All three of them.

And that assumes the hadiths were correct in that.

Correct. A Muslim that does not accept the hadiths as being correct can therefor condemn such relationships without being inconsistent in his beliefs.

Quite simple: No God = no "moral compass" = "do whatever you want to whoever you want". Arguing that "Allah allowed paedophilia" or "God allowed slavery" leads to arguing that "Atheism allowed ANYTHING". Fallacy? Yes. All three of them.

Only if you need the words of a book inspired by an Invisible Man in the Sky (TM) to tell you not to go around killing people.

The argument that the lack of a God inherently implies a lack of morality is at best foolish and at worst intentionally dishonest.

Quite simple: No God = no "moral compass" = "do whatever you want to whoever you want". Arguing that "Allah allowed paedophilia" or "God allowed slavery" leads to arguing that "Atheism allowed ANYTHING". Fallacy? Yes. All three of them.

Ah. Didn't see where you were going with that.

Quite simple: No God = no "moral compass" = "do whatever you want to whoever you want". Arguing that "Allah allowed paedophilia" or "God allowed slavery" leads to arguing that "Atheism allowed ANYTHING". Fallacy? Yes. All three of them.

There is however a difference between "does not explicitly say it is against it" and "mentions it explicitly as an example of good behaviour".

Only if you need the words of a book inspired by an Invisible Man in the Sky (TM) to tell you not to go around killing people.

Read again: All of them are fallacies. I was pointing out that, God or no God, morality is cultural, and Atheism can "tell" people to do bad things just like the gods "can".

Read again: All of them are fallacies. I was pointing out that, God or no God, morality is cultural, and Atheism can "tell" people to do bad things just like the gods "can".

Ok. I misunderstood your point.

There is however a difference between "does not explicitly say it is against it" and "mentions it explicitly as an example of good behaviour".

I'm pretty sure the hadiths (assuming they're correct, assuming they do mention it as such) didn't mention any such detail as "example of good behavior". A story can depict the Prophet eating, not as an "example of good behavior", but as "something that people do or did at that time".

You're quite a good opponent though. I'm impressed.