Some piping hot tea

Being opposed to pedophilia=/=hating Muslims.

Deflection 100! This isn't about Islam. Whatever medieval religious texts say (and, spoiler! they all liked child marriage) real children are being married off right here in the USA by the thousands.

https://www.businessinsider.com/child-marriage-us-traps-girls-still-legal-in-46-states-2021-4#:

I'd be willing to be a significant number of those are Muslims. It's in accordance with their faith. Why do you think the article fails to address this?

Most of it, anyways.

Selective, aren't we, as Lyoll above pointed 10hrs prior that it was a practice common to everyone - in fact, the trend against it began where with whom taking the lead again?

People tend to forget what a splendidly medievel cesspool of a world this was before we recreated it in our image after WWII.

I don’t hate Muslims. I hate pedophilia. Why are you defending it?

They (zak) have to justify it. 100%deflection and whataboutism, pure and simple.

I'm not defending it. Why must you tell these vile lies, you slime?

It doesn't give an "age".

It outlines conditions, such as the ability to know right and wrong, but this cognitive function varies from person to person. The Jews settled on 12 as a generalized rule. It's a little odd that we're trying to import 21st century Western morals into ancient culture. Especially since many claim that we should not do that to cultures currently residing on the planet practicing the same things. Considering the average lifespan of the human during that time period getting them married and bearing children was important for the survival of a civilization. Not so much today though. Which, is why there is confusion on this subject. Why is it wrong today, and not wrong for the ancient culture?

That comment should be framed and hung on a wall.
Well put.

Who say's it's wrong? Better question, Why is it wrong? Adulthood was set based on puberty among other things. A person capable of working and/or reproducing was sufficiently prepared to handle what society required of them during that time. It's different now; we live over 40 years longer, have thousands of occupations to choose from, education is required, etc. There is no good reason for a young woman, or girl to get married in such a situation. But when you are likely to die in your thirties, having a child as soon as you are able is important for the simple reason that you need to be there to raise them. The challenge for someone in our culture when it comes to judging theirs is the standard by which you judge. It's not wrong...just because you say it's wrong or me either for that matter. How is a society supposed to survive and increase in population if they establish age requirements that leave children motherless and fatherless before they become of age to marry? They followed natural laws, that demonstrated those with the ability to reproduce, should, and were perfectly capable of raising kids, having all they needed or was available to do that one job. The fact that this is still practiced all over the world wherever you find Third world living conditions only buttresses this fact. It was even practiced in the US during the last century, and on a very limited basis in this. It's not needed here, so I agree that it is wrong on a certain level, but not on some universal moral level that we aren't morally qualified to exert on other cultures.

"I and most other people"

You and most people 3000 years later in a culture that offers thousands of other options versus the scant few they had.

"Because children shouldn't be married off to adults"

They define adults differently. Old enough to work, old enough to reproduce...then have at it. You're an adult. That applied to men and women. It was any "able-bodied" person that went to war when the call came. What else were they gonna do...play SEGA while they wait on some arbitrary birthday to arrive? Teenagers in Middle school are giving birth all the time, showing that the human body is mature enough to handle the task. The only thing that makes us wait is the fact that we don't like these unprepared kids dumping their parenting obligations on the rest of society. The moral argument is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and sounds silly coming from atheists. It's based on a universal standard for all. Atheists cannot apply a moral argument on anyone other than themselves, so judging, even the guy next door, is antagonistic to an atheist's worldview and a glaring contradiction to how they want to be treated by others. For you to say something is wrong...for you, but somehow stand by the statement that it is just wrong while taking a position on a sub-culture that lived thousands of years ago is recognizing the dilemma, while embracing the contradiction you've created.

Good question: Are we allowed to criticize ancient cultural norms that are different today?
Sure, but with an understanding that we aren't in their shoes, but are a culture that owes its existence to them and their ways, a culture that has thousands of years of education and history to learn from, whereas they had, at best, a solid family history and local group of leaders privy to a little history...that looked much like their current situation since knowledge was usually localized.

Would it work in their given situation, or would it hurt?

Would an age restriction on marriage make them stronger or weaker compared to surrounding cultures, with their own beliefs? It would definitely hurt their ability to grow, which was crucial to the survival of a culture in competition with surrounding ones.

Not addressed. Try being less pig-ignorant.

I've always said no one believes in God[s] more than an Atheist, because with them it's personal.

What