Christians believe in child marriage

As I stated in the other thread, I've personally met a young lady and her husband in the states close to 30 years ago, the young lady was 16 at the time and had 3 children, the husband was close to 30. They actually got married when she was 13. The married couple were devout Christians and were married in their local church. Not sure of how many other cases there were but as I stated was astounded to say the least.

To be fair, not all Christians believe in child marriage just like not all Muslims believe in child marriage. The shallow argument that child marriages only happen in Islamic religions is just outright chicanery dressed in faux compassion. I'm talking about those that use this as a weapon against Islam.

My thoughts: Girls become sexually inclined before boys and believe that environmental situations play a huge part in when this occurs. Teenage sex has always been around and certainly won't stop no matter what we do, unless we take away people's freedoms. Education however and a steady home life will help with any premature activity. My experience as a young guy and I'm sure many of you including women have experienced that girls tend to instigate sexual contact at a young age. Guys initiate contact during mid teens as their hormones increase lol. I had no thought for sex at the age of 12 but many girls did. I think I had my first dream at close to 14.

Now I'm not trying to prove anything to the loonies who post on this forum but certainly do not support a mature adult having sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18. What is a mature adult? I suppose it would need to be a clear age gap as far as I'm concerned. My mindset is that it is a sleazy desperate act that requires the full force of the law. In fact I'd be inclined to lift the legal age to 18 despite young people having legal independence at 16. Yes girls can become sexually inclined at a young age but certainly need to protection and should come from laws that stop perverted behaviour. As I write this other issues come to mind.

I'd be keen to listen to all sides of the debate and not interested in the shallow Islamic slur regarding child marriages, especially in the instances that all religions have unsettling takes on the issue.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-child-marriages-for-christian-homeschoolers/

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/chr...e-with-creepy-meme-comparing-girls-to-apples/

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/bible-allows-child-marriage.7365540/

 

You use 2 blogs and a site that doesn't open, as evidence to substantiate your argument.

You need to educate yourself on how to intellectually use a reference when debating. You do understand that Blogs are NOT facts, just opinions.

 

Ain't nothin wrong with a blog to source information. It certainly isn't a blog created by a Muslim to discredit Christianity but people discussing the issues. There are loads of sites and materials with information regarding child marriage in Christian denominations.

You need to go back to the drawing board and provide us with something else to debunk. I hold Christian values and raised as a Christian but certainly don't hide behind pretension with regards to the deeper issues. I certainly don't subscribe to Islam but not stupid enough to make up shallow falsities and hypocritical stances based on the actions of a couple of loonies.

 

When this child abuse supporter states "Now I'm not trying to prove anything to the loonies who post on this forum but certainly do not support a mature adult having sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18." clearly demonstrating the opposite.

Obviously, they could not find real evidence to support their particular deranged gutter life. Blogs are all they can come up with.

Note how the entire comment is predicated with the claim of not supporting child abuse and being against child abuse while justifying the OP's understanding of what constitutes child abuse.

Just as pointing out the theological understanding of marriage compared to legal stance is completely different...

No, I believe the best thing to do is let the grub wallow in its own excrement while trying to defend its own beliefs on what constitutes child abuse.

 

You are a disgusting human being, by pretending that Islam doesn't condone child sexual abuse & paedophilia though forced child marriages.

 

This kind of individual disgusts me. Its hard for me to acknowledge sometimes, that there really are human beings on this planet, who are nothing more than oxygen thieves.

 

Look at these 2 going bonkers because their pretenious game is up and all credibility is lost

The stories are getting even more desperate and the ad hominems are flowing faster than the impacts of gobbling down a pack of laxitives!

Islam is no worse than Christianity with regards to child marriage. The secular world is were we tend to see higher standards of living and tolerance.

 

Hmmm,
most certainly an interesting subject. However there are 2 main subjects, sex under the age and early marriage (Islam/Christianity). Am I correct?
So let us start, who determins what age is under age or what age is the right one?
We all need to look back an start being honest.....
Cheers

 

marriage is a matter of culture, not religion

 

What did you expect from those 2 clowns?
I never hear them taking a stand against Christian priests sexually abusing young boys. Its their white true blue world against anything different, as always...
Regards

 

As you're probably aware I have been commenting on a couple of threads about this and I feel that this thread is a further escalation.

I have been accused of being a paedophile sympathiser in some strange twisted way. I have stated right from the very get-go that I am against any underage activities what-so-ever, from my heart, from an ethical and moral position, and from a legal one.

My only "crime" was to define the term paedohile, which is a medical term to describe a psychological condition. Their own admission is that the Muslims that do marry young girls, do it for position, money, connections etc.

Now none of what I am about to say means that I in anyway support the use of a child under age (16) for anything.

First let's get paedophiles out of the way. Paedophillia is a phsycological disorder.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia
I use those documented definitions and comparing their own reasoning as to why a few Muslims marry underage girls, I find no concordance what-so-ever. Now according to our friends here, because of this I am labeled as condoning paedophillia.

This does not however mean that I think that any of the three types should be spared, they should and are all charged with the same offence, and the are all judged by the same criteria, I have no problems there what-so-ever.

My issue lies with their support of terrorism. Sir Francis Bacon said "Nothing is terrible except fear itself." and centuries later “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”, said by Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his inaugural Address.

We can fight ISIS and win. There are battles going on while we speak, and the population in Iran is fighting back, ground is being claimed back. We should monitor what goes on, give support if requested through the proper diplomatic channels. What we are doing in Afghanistan is one thing, but what we did in Iraq is a totally different kettle of fish.

Iraq was about Saddam Hussein, him, his style, his control over their oil reserves and the possible instability he could cause to their other "oily" friends in the Middle East, Hussein was "off the deep end" and that scared them, not that he could really do much, not nearly as much as they made out he could.

The outcome from the Iraqi wars was a lot of dead people, Iraq is still unstable, and last but not least the creation of ISIS.

Afghanistan has been an issue twice recently. First it was the Red's, the Ruskies took it. Now Afghanistan is one of those "God forsaken" places, not much there for anyone to want, but like they say in the Real Estate industry it's location location location. It's Afghanistan's strategic location that Russia wanted, as is the Crimea (but that's a different story) and the US didn't want them there. Now they didn't want to start an international incident *cough cough splutter* so they found this young, US educated engineer who was leading a rebel army against the Russians, his name was Bin-Laden and his army the Taliban, the rest is history.

Well we got Hussein and Bin-Ladin, but we still have the Taliban in Afghanistan and we now have ISIS. We seem to go from worse to worse. Now ISIS are attacking on three fronts.

First we need to define who is the enemy of ISIS, the answer is simple, EVERYONE. Muslim, Christian, Jew, Shinto, Buddhist, atheist, everyone who isn't a part of their cult, everyone who doesn't submit to THEIR law. French, English, German, Belgian, Japanese, Indian, Indonesian, Australian, any nationality. Black, white, yellow, green, it's not about racism or bigotry. It's not about religion, it's about hatred, it's about how with enough hatred people can do evil things.

Hatred is usually bred from a wrong or a perceived wrong. Modern civilisation began with the birth of Christianity which heralded the end of the Roman Empire. Centuries of wars and conquests by the Spartans, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks etc had spread the knowledge and exchange of parts of culture all around the mediterranean. The last of these, the Romans were ruling at the time of the birth of Jesus. Jesus defied the Romans and the Jews so together they got rid of him. The Christians quickly headed off to Rome, there were 100's of thousands of peasants there who hated the roman too, and they needed God. They followed the teachings of Jesus who also told them that God was the God of the Torah.

Now the Christians were not going to have much chance of convincing all the jews. Around 500 years after Jesus, at that time there were really three groups of believers in the God of Abraham. The Jews, the Christians and all the other people around the Middle East.

Now as I said the Christians took off for Europe, the Jews and others stayed. Now apparently once, every person had heard the voice of God, everyone so it had to be real. The Jews wrote laws and books and the Torah, the others kind of slackened off, they couldn't read, were poor, communication wasn't good so a lot drifted off from the laws of the God of Abraham.

According to Islam God revealed himself to Muhammad who came from an area rife with these slackers. So Muhammad wrote his version of the "New Testament". Oh and a lot of Christian religions also don't believe in the Trinity and Islam recognises Jesus but not as the Son of God.

So there we have it, 3 religions and one God. Good, next bit.

Neither the Torah, the Bible or the Koran give permission for an adult to have sex with a child, just the opposite. True non do specify an age, but they do specify that for marriage, the girl has to be old enough to meet certain criteria, all would need her to be at least 12 or 13. There is the option of a girl being given up for marriage at around 9 years of age.

Now this was not just confined to believers of these three religions, it was kind of standard practice around that time around those parts. If you want to get a good feel of what society and life was like around that time, and see an example of what I am going to say, watch the movie "Mongol".

Life was hard, much harder then we can imagine, much much harder then we can show in movies and documentaries. People tended to live in clan like communities, it was safer among kin than among strangers. This led to problems of in-breeding, they believed as do many still that this causes genetic defects whist really it amplifies them, both good and bad, which is why it is sued in animal husbandry where the bad defects can be "disposed of".

But causing/amplifying it's all the same, it means an increase in genetic mutations, most not good and anyway it is hard to "dispose" of a human. So the circumstances/customs/superstitions ruled. To ensure that there was no in-breeding, girls were given up for marriage long before they became sexually active but when they were old enough to understand the concept of marriage and had been taught by their extended families their duties, there weren't many, life was much harder, simpler and shorter then.

Now marriage as we know it is a modern concept. In those days the couple would start at about 9 to 10, it was usual but not the rule for the father to choose the family or clan but allow the son to choose the bride. The families agree and usually the children agree, dowries are set etc. Now either the girl would remain with her family and the boy go back with his, or both the boy and the girl would go back with his. Whichever way, the girl was cared for and protected from having any other liaison by her having given herself already.

When the girl reached puberty, able to take a sacrament, make an informed decision, and to people battling to just survive this world, she was old enough, then they would consummate the marriage, they would be at least 12 or 13 and post pubescent.

Of course those conditions do not exist now and so they are expected to follow modern concepts and "age of consent", 14-18 years of age in most countries for the past 80 to 100 years.

Of course there are the idiots who believe that their religion is above the civil law and I do not believe that it is any more prevalent among Muslims then any other religious group. The Amish are well known to have done it and some still do.

I do know however that we hate what we fear, and what I am reading smells badly of hatred.

If we live in fear, THEY WIN. This is their third front.

 

Besides their helping the terrorists, they are taking the heat of the true paedophiles, watering down such an evil act, taking their "lusting" after prepubescent children and comparing it with a misguided religious/cultural thing. Sure true paedophiles may take advantage of the situation, but don't the Christian Clergy too or is the news wrong EVERY NIGHT.

I mean using terms like "kiddy fiddling" is making light of it, it is not "kiddy fiddling", it's performing or desiring to perform, sexual acts with a prepubescent child. I actually would be more worried about my son with the paedophile.

Paedophillia is much more sinister, much more evil. I would feel much safer for my daughter knowing that there was a dozen Muslim families with young sons living nearby then I would if I heard the was ONE paedophile.

 

Never expect much mate, they speak for themselves. Strange people.

 

You know what, this is certainly by far one of the best comments I've read. Appreciate the time and effort. I'm a bit of a contrarian, basically due to the fact that you always know there is a deeper meaning or reason for everything. I certainly can't stand for simplistic views that are shaped by surface information. You've certainly given me a deeper understanding about historical circumstances. I knew there was more, I was just hoping someone could bring it out.

There are only 2 that are throwing around silly childish little slurs. Mature adults want to dig deeper for understanding before going off half cocked with superficial information. I don't slur and all

Thanks again. I'm feeling smarter today.

 

You are a vile human being. Its your prerogative to keep pretending that Muslims and Islam don't condone child sexual abuse through forced child marriages.

I hope with all my heart, you spend eternity being confronted by all the children that been sexually abused by these Muslim cretins.

 

Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and had sexual intercourse with her while she still remained pre-pubescent at the age of nine lunar years. This fact has been recorded many times in Sahih ahadith. This article will discuss the Qur'anic verse that allows Paedophilia.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur'an

 

March 23, 2010: Women protesters hold up copies of the Qur'an outside parliament in Sanaa while stating that a proposed law banning marriages under the age of 17 in Yemen is un-Islamic[1]

And even the women are sick..

 

My great grandmother was 13 when she married. Had 13 kids, 12 that lived. I think Mary was 13 when she had Jesus.

 

13 is not 8

 

Agree. Just really happy we have no off-spring living in that pedo-nest called Australia.

 

I just cant believe that anyone in their right mind even attempts to defend a man having sex with kiddies
of such a tender age...

 

You seriously have to ask the question "why" are these people defending a religion that allows men to have sex with kiddies?

I now suspect they secretly have these tendencies themselves, because there is no other explanation why someone would do it.

 

Thank you for posting this perfect example of what I am talking about. Your reference is a wiki reference, wiki references are only as good as the person or persons who post them. Of course you will only see the logic as presented, for other readers whoever I feel it would be remiss if I didn't point out the manipulation.

Yes, Let's look at your FACT!

Your reference:

OK So this is where your FACT is proved! lol.

You will notice some bolded red numbers throughout the quote, I added them as reference for context.

1: The second 1 states this. "and those who never had menses" (because they are underage)
Quran 65:4" ... wrong, as it's own quote states at the first 1, "and for those who have no courses (it is the same)".

This is wrong, the subject of the sentence was "Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses". So the sentence is about women who have past the age of menses, pure and simple. They included those that do not and may never have periods, and those that are pregnant, and those that are past menses.

The author goes further to prove I am right. at 2:, it states "did not", he even goes on to say that it's past tense, you wouldn't talk about the age of puberty to a pre-pubescent girl in the "past tense". You would say "has not", however for a woman past the age of puberty you would indeed use the words "DID NOT".

The bit "(because they are underage)" is just the authors addition and isn't mentioned anywhere in the text.
Any more Facts

 

BECAUSE ITS NOT BLOODY TRUE Defending the truth and the innocent does not make us guilty of anything except being honest, what you two are doing is a perversion of the truth, lies in the worst sense.

 

NO ONE IS DEFENDING ANYONE HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN.

It is YOU that is abusing children. YOU are abusing the millions of innocent Muslim children by demonising them by LIES. You are abusing the thousands of children genuinely abused by using what happens to them as a WEAPON in your demented attack that is without any evidence except the twisted and perverted views of the like minded.

by CD's own fact,

This says, according to the author's own translation

"For those of you that are past puberty, it is three months, and if you did not have periods, it is still three months, if you are pregnant it is three months", if you believe in God, he will look after you."

The ands are very important as it links the second part to the first part, meaning "Those old enough and have periods, and those old enough who did not have periods"