Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
In their cultural context, that wouldn’t be that far outside the norm. The notion that there’s this magical line at 16-18 (in the US, depending on the state - possibly lower if the older partner is close in age or if they are married) is a 20th century invention. So, a guy from a text about 2000 years ago not expressing views on age and sexuality that were invented less than a hundred years ago is not exactly shocking.
Before the industrial revolution, children were often treated like smaller adults. Childhood was much shorter than nowadays and adolescence basically wasn’t a thing culturally for the vast majority of history.
According to researchers of Christianity, Mary would have been around 12 to 14. And obviously there would have been a massive power imbalance between her and a deity. So by modern standards, Mary could not consent and was sexually abused. And then of course he left her to raise Jesus, his bastard child. All Christians essentially worship a child rapist. I’m not religious, but I like to think that god hasn’t returned because the other gods have him serving time.
you wanna get into even more cursed territory?
Trinitarian Christians- which is the vast majority of Christians- believe Jesus is and always has been god. So Jesus raped Mary.
I don’t think they thought the whole trinity thing through.
First off, it’s teally weird that you assume I’m okay with older creeps banging teens.
In a practical sense, there has to be a legal age, and every country in the world has defined it somewhere.
That said, it’s not Just 2,000 years ago. And where do you going the creepy old perverts marrying 10 year olds in the us get the idea that’s okay?
It ain’t from the numerous rigorous psych studies looking at the harm it does.
To be clear, when I say something is “immoral” that is an objective statement derived from my subjective morals- which are based on the idea that things that one’s acts should do the least harm or most good they can; and that unnecessary harm is always wrong.
Objectively, slavery and child marriage (I would call it child rape) is always on the extreme end of “harm”.
So while it may be engaging in presentism, I would say that according to my morals, the vast majority of cultures 2,000 years ago were immoral.
By Iron Age standards, Jesus may have been a good dude. But those standards suck, and I find them horrific.
I also find that statement dubious. In mark 7 and Matt 15, we find Jesus literally arguing that the Pharisees have stepped away from the law by not stoning disobedient children, where the Pharisees and other rabbis at the time have decided to severely limit that to the extent it almost didn’t happen.
And telling people to free their slaves is heavily implied by the “give up everything you have and follow me” thing.
To whom or what were the possessions given up?
The rest of the community. Things that couldn’t be brought with (or weren’t needed,) were sold.
Things that couldn’t be sold were abandoned.
Jesus never called for slaves to be freed; because he saw it as normal and acceptable (and probably even “good”). Which is why the best you’ve got is “it’s implied in this thing in which it was never actually implied.”