Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?

[Haven]

One of the most prominent claims Christians make about the Bible is that it is the word of their god, and is ultimately of divine origin (either through God controlling the human authors, dictating words to them, or 'inspiring' them to write).

If this purported authorship by an omniscient being were true, one would expect the Bible to be more scientifically and ethically advanced than the average person of the time and place (1000 BCE-100 CE, Middle East & Mediterranean -- the Ancient Near East [ANE]).

One would expect to find, for example, scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe and Earth, the animals that inhabit the planet, the origin of humanity, the nature of earthquakes, floods, and climate, and so on. One would expect useful insights on how to cure diseases, make childbirth safer, develop technologies to improve lives and help those with disabilities, et cetera.

Finally, one would expect an advanced moral vision, one that explicitly condemns slavery and sexual exploitation, affirms the equality of all nations, stands against war and genocide, declares the equality and inclusion of women and LGBTQIA people, and implores us to care for the Earth, avoiding disasters like famines, pandemics, climate change, pollution, and so on.

________________

The problem, for Christianity, is that no such advanced wisdom is found in the Bible. Instead, we have a collection of writings that by and large affirm the common knowledges, beliefs, and prejudices of the human inhabitants of the ANE.

One finds, for example, numerous scientifically inaccurate passages about the Earth being flat and resting on pillars, life being created in six days, the sky being made of water above a "firmament" and so on. It contains a statement that showing striped sticks to goats will cause their offspring to be striped. It says that a menstrual cycle made a woman "unclean."

The Bible contains numerous passages on planting crops, slaughtering animals, and reaping grain, but no accurate information on how to cure diseases or make childbirth safer. It contains no mention of mental illness, but talks endlessly about demons and devils causing illness, deafness, and insanity. It is about as scientifically accurate as an average ANE peasant.

__________

The Bible's moral vision also reflects a viewpoint that cannot be called advanced in any way. It calls homosexuality an abomination, but condones slavery, pedophilia (old men 'marrying' young girls), concubinage (sex slavery), and polygyny (many women / young girls 'marrying' one man, often for political reasons). It prevaricates on rape, calling for the death penalty when the victim is a "virgin," but also says a woman must marry her rapist. It says that a woman who doesn't scream loud enough is lying about being raped, and should be stoned to death for "adultery."

The Bible is extremely sexist in general, saying that women are subservient, influenced by evil, weak-minded, weak-bodied, created as men's "helpers" (not equals), not fit to speak in church, should be "silent" with "all subjection," and generally made to be vessels for birth, homemakers and little more. Christian scripture is also racist, explicitly affirming the Jews as God's "chosen people," and giving them favorable treatment compared to the rest of humanity.

It is violent and warlike, containing commands to wipe out entire ethnicities (Amalekites, Merathaimites), kill civilians (including children), take young girls as sex slaves / spoils of war, execute people for religious disagreements, and take/trade slaves. The Bible condemns gender non-conforming people, but commands slaves to serve their masters with subjugation, and never once says slavery is in any way immoral or not the "natural state of things." It says non-human animals are mere objects for human exploitation.

_________

I can go on and on and on, but the point should be obvious--the scientific and moral content of the Bible is more backward than even the most reactionary fundamentalist today. Far from advancing a more enlightened, wise viewpoint, its content is very human and very dated to the time and place in which it was written. It appears clear that the Biblical record contains human wisdom and foolishness, rather than any kind of divine communication.

Debate question: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom? Is there any evidence of divine authorship?

[AgnosticBoy]

A nonconsensual marriage (or arranged marriage) is still a marriage. The functions of a marriage are not just limited to sex, whereas sex slavery is limited to sex.

First, a marriage "arranged" between a captor and a captive stretches the notion of "arranged marriage" rather thinly. Second, you're just claiming that someone forced to have sex isn't a sex slave if they have to do other things, too. Fine. I mean, I disagree, but that's far from the crux of Haven's point.

I'm not sure if you have a logical and/or objective basis for your disagreement. There is a difference between using someone just for sex and carrying on a full blown relationship (i.e. marriage) with them.

Another disagreement we may be having is on what we're trying to prove here. It seems that not only are you trying to show that sex slavery is involved but you're also trying to show that it is wrong. I've only come here to show how the charge of sex slavery is inaccurate, regardless of if it is right or wrong (in a moral sense). These are two separate issues, but when you mix the two them together, then that might lead you to think that the reasons for one has to apply to the other when that is not the case at all. To show that sexual slavery is not involve doesn't take showing that sexual slavery is wrong.

The bad part isn't that someone called them a sex slave when they were forced to have sex and sweep things or mill barley, it's that they were taken as prisoners of war and forced to have sex.

It seems that you don't want to let go of the moral aspect of sexual slavery. We can still say that there is some wrong with the passage but I wouldn't call that "sex slavery" but rather I would call it "forced marriages". The basis for determining that is to see what sex slavery involves. If the ancient Jews were doing more than what occurs during sex slavery, then it should not be called sex slavery, by definition. As I brought up earlier, there is a difference between using someone just for sex and carrying on a full blown relationship (i.e. marriage), which involves having children, paying for the woman, caring for her. Exodus 21:7-11 sheds some light on how a man is to treat a female slave that he then decides to marry "or designate to himself",

7 “Now if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to [f]go free as the male slaves [g]do. 8 If she is [h]displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people, because of his [j]unfairness to her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her [the female slave/ 1st wife?] food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 But if he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go [l]free for nothing, without payment of money.

[Emphasis added]

As an aside, while it's not the first time I've seen that argument, it's the first time from someone that identifies as an agnostic.

I follow logic and evidence whereever it leads. It seems almost as if you're implying that apologists are always wrong or that non-believers are always right.

For instance, look at Jacob's arranged marriages. He loved his wives, he cared for them, he had children with them, etc.

He also didn't slaughter his wives' parents and brothers before taking them away at swordpoint. As far as arranged marriages go, I'm sure Rachel and Leah had a pretty sweet deal. For the record, though, "it could have been worse" isn't really an argument that arranged marriages are benign, but that Jacob was much less awful than he could have been.

Slaughtering the parents doesn't show that sex slavery is involved. All marriages in that time period were without the consent of the woman, so essentially all women were forced or married without consent. Perhaps we shouldn't even use the term "force" unless the women expressed that they did not want to marry as opposed to saying nothing and entering into it passively.

When we get to the NT, like 1 Corinthians 7:5, then there is some mention of mutual consent for sex and how husbands should treat wives with love and care.

Which is what one might expect with roughly eight hundred years of human progress.

That's based on an argument from silence. Just because the OT Jews didn't bring such topics up, that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.

If you slept with a woman then you were expected to marry her and fulfill all of your marital obligations.

Yes, it could have been worse.

It's still not sex slavery, by definition. Keep your points about it being wrong or worse, separate and just consider the definition.

If you want to paint a picture of the Bible lacking wisdom in some cases, then some easier cases to accept are those that conflict with science, such as a 7 day creation story, or man being the first mammal (before Dinosaurs even), etc. I'm very skeptical when it comes to moral judgements unless you have some objective standard to judge by or you can show that the Biblical standards are inconsistent.

How about "nonconsensual sex and involuntary servitude are always bad" for an objective standard?

I don't view that as being an objective standard. To show that any moral standard is objective would take getting into ontology and epistemology. In other words, you must show how or why objective morals exists as facts or truths of the world. Then you must show how we can reliably become aware of such facts. I'd also like to know why such a system would exist when we're just like ants that can be wiped away by physical forces, no matter how much good or bad we do?

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure if you have a logical and/or objective basis for your disagreement. There is a difference between using someone just for sex and carrying on a full blown relationship (i.e. marriage) with them.

There often is, but if you include "arranged marriage" arranged by a captor with a captive, then the definition no longer necessarily includes a "full blown relationship," at least as modern people use the phrase. It can and probably often did (Stockholm syndrome is a thing, after all), but such relationships also developed as a part of slavery, no matter how narrowly you shrink the definition. I think that obviates the rest of your arguments about what we call it.

Another disagreement we may be having is on what we're trying to prove here. It seems that not only are you trying to show that sex slavery is involved...

Nope. I'm willing to accept your definitions for this discussion, remember? We're talking about nonconsensual sex and involuntary servitude, whether it's defined as marriage or slavery. That avoids any accidental equivocation by redefining marriage to include kidnapped and unwilling brides, but then slipping back into analogies with modern marriage.

...but you're also trying to show that it is wrong.

Yes.

The bad part isn't that someone called them a sex slave when they were forced to have sex and sweep things or mill barley, it's that they were taken as prisoners of war and forced to have sex.

It seems that you don't want to let go of the moral aspect of sexual slavery.

Reread the OP; the discussion was about the morality of prisoners of war taken for sexual purposes in the first place.

We can still say that there is some wrong with the passage but I wouldn't call that "sex slavery" but rather I would call it "forced marriages".

Sure. So, for the record, are "forced marriages" of prisoners of war an example of moral, divine wisdom or of "violent and warlike" behavior, as asserted by the OP?

As an aside, while it's not the first time I've seen that argument, it's the first time from someone that identifies as an agnostic.

I follow logic and evidence whereever it leads. It seems almost as if you're implying that apologists are always wrong or that non-believers are always right.

No. I'm not saying that all apologists make that argument. I'm saying that prior to this conversation, the only people I've ever seen make it are apologists.

Slaughtering the parents doesn't show that sex slavery is involved.

No, it shows that forced sex with prisoners of war is involved.

All marriages in that time period were without the consent of the woman, so essentially all women were forced or married without consent.

Wouldn't a real god have nipped that kind of thing in the bud? Or at least wouldn't a good, wise god have done that?

Perhaps we shouldn't even use the term "force" unless the women expressed that they did not want to marry as opposed to saying nothing and entering into it passively.

Yes. Some involuntary marriages are less violent and rapey than others. It could always be worse.

When we get to the NT, like 1 Corinthians 7:5, then there is some mention of mutual consent for sex and how husbands should treat wives with love and care.

Which is what one might expect with roughly eight hundred years of human progress.

That's based on an argument from silence. Just because the OT Jews didn't bring such topics up, that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.

An argument from silence? The argument I'm making is based on the contrast between what was literally recorded in the Old and New Testaments. What do you think the argument from silence is?

How about "nonconsensual sex and involuntary servitude are always bad" for an objective standard?

I don't view that as being an objective standard. To show that any moral standard is objective would take getting into ontology and epistemology.

So, your only point was that in the absence of some compelling philosophical framework in which it's evil to take people by force for the purpose of sexual exploitation as a property of the universe at large, you refuse to condemn the Bible for it?

Are you sure you're an agnostic?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm not sure if you have a logical and/or objective basis for your disagreement. There is a difference between using someone just for sex and carrying on a full blown relationship (i.e. marriage) with them.

There often is, but if you include "arranged marriage" arranged by a captor with a captive, then the definition no longer necessarily includes a "full blown relationship," at least as modern people use the phrase. It can and probably often did (Stockholm syndrome is a thing, after all), but such relationships also developed as a part of slavery, no matter how narrowly you shrink the definition. I think that obviates the rest of your arguments about what we call it.

Sure, we can say that a prisoner of war would amount to being a slave. But there's certainly no mention of using these women just for sex as that would've been prohibited by Jewish law.

You're raising an issue about these people being slaves, but I wonder how else were the Jews suppose to treat prisoners? Would you call it unjustified to place someone in prison for a lifetime when it's for something they did wrong? If so, then America is still practicing a lot of slavery given that a large number of its minority races are locked up.

Another disagreement we may be having is on what we're trying to prove here. It seems that not only are you trying to show that sex slavery is involved...

Nope. I'm willing to accept your definitions for this discussion, remember? We're talking about nonconsensual sex and involuntary servitude, whether it's defined as marriage or slavery.

It's possible to shift from one state to another. These girl started out as slaves, but the ended up as wives. You're trying to paint a picture as if these girls would've had reason to resist, but I doubt that given the culture. First, their survival is a factor since the only means of support for women (esp. young girls) were their parents or it was marriage. That was the structure back then. You really can't choose, when there are little to no other options. Secondly, some of these girls could have come to understand that their parents were in the wrong. I mean if I was a police officer and I had to shoot and kill a bank robber, but then I discovered that he had a nice looking daughter (over 18, of course), well?! Why not?!

Either way, even if their parents weren't killed, they would've eventually been given away to someone in marriage.

...but you're also trying to show that it is wrong.

Yes.

Well my theory is doing that could lead some to paint a negative picture of the events, more negative than need be. So far, that's what I see going on here. The same way you are trying to imply that I'm stretching this to make it seem like its an ordinary marriage, I also believe that you're stretching this to make it seem as if it's sexual slavery. The answer most likely lies in between, and someone who is not looking to paint the Bible in a good or bad light (both are biased perspectives) would be more inclined to find it.

It seems that you don't want to let go of the moral aspect of sexual slavery.

Reread the OP; the discussion was about the morality of prisoners of war taken for sexual purposes in the first place.

Not quite. That was used as one example to support the view that biblical standards are less than divine. If you want to show that it's less than divine then you should at least get the details in your examples correct.

We can still say that there is some wrong with the passage but I wouldn't call that "sex slavery" but rather I would call it "forced marriages".

Sure. So, for the record, are "forced marriages" of prisoners of war an example of moral, divine wisdom or of "violent and warlike" behavior, as asserted by the OP?

Personally, I would say the behavior is more towards violent and warlike. But I have two problems with your view: One I don't completely agree with your characterizations of marriages and sex being forced because I see that as you stretching the details to fit sexual slavery. Secondly, I can't agree with your moral judgements, when it comes to your expectations of what "divine wisdom" and "morality" would look like. You're offering your opinion with a lot of ideological baggage, but you've offered nothing beyond that.

I follow logic and evidence whereever it leads. It seems almost as if you're implying that apologists are always wrong or that non-believers are always right.

No. I'm not saying that all apologists make that argument. I'm saying that prior to this conversation, the only people I've ever seen make it are apologists.

That doesn't tell me anything about the validity of their points nor mine.

Slaughtering the parents doesn't show that sex slavery is involved.

No, it shows that forced sex with prisoners of war is involved.

Saying it was "forced" is speculation. The saying that "beggars can't be choosers" fits right in here. When you have an environment where there are no good support options for women, they have no choice on who to marry, then would you expect much resistance or her having to be violently forced? Perhaps you're thinking as a Western woman would (they have more options), but that is bad to apply to the Bible given it's a different culture and environment.

Not only that but I brought up other scenarios, like these girls coming to accept that their parents may have been justifiably killed.

All marriages in that time period were without the consent of the woman, so essentially all women were forced or married without consent.

Wouldn't a real god have nipped that kind of thing in the bud? Or at least wouldn't a good, wise god have done that?

Well, again, it would depend on the environment. When women have little to no options, then I can't say that arranged marriages should be banned. Women back then wouldn't have had the luxury of staying single until they found their "Mr. Right".

Personally, I think a case can be made for arranged marriages given what we know about relationships today. Many may assume that consensual marriages where you pick your partner is a good thing, but we often find that people make bad choices. Many are naive and only go by looks. But, I would have no problem having an expert or some good selection process be the deciding factor for a partner. In fact, arranged marriages might help ensure that no one is left single.

That's based on an argument from silence. Just because the OT Jews didn't bring such topics up, that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.

An argument from silence? The argument I'm making is based on the contrast between what was literally recorded in the Old and New Testaments. What do you think the argument from silence is?

You're thinking that just because it's not recorded, then it wasn't known about or already in practice. That is not the case. Evidence that they would not have known or practiced that would be something along that lines of the OT writers prescribing not to love your wife, and not making mutual decisions on some things.

I don't view that as being an objective standard. To show that any moral standard is objective would take getting into ontology and epistemology.

So, your only point was that in the absence of some compelling philosophical framework in which it's evil to take people by force for the purpose of sexual exploitation as a property of the universe at large, you refuse to condemn the Bible for it?

Well keep in mind that we're in an intellectual context here. In a debate, I would not condemn the Bible based off of "opinion". You have not shown that your moral judgements are anything more than a product of YOUR sociocultural conditioning, esp. in light of having much more resources, options, technology, etc.

Now if we're talking about a practical context, where it's necessary to act to survive (such as our offline life), then that's the only scenario where I'd be willing to use my moral opinion as fact, and act to protect it, by either stopping someone or some country from committing what I believe to be atrocities.

Ideally, our intellect should totally inform our practical lives, but some times that is not always possible. Sometimes it's possible to an extent. But in a debate, it's always possible.

Are you sure you're an agnostic?

Totally!

[Athetotheist]

I mean if I was a police officer and I had to shoot and kill a bank robber, but then I discovered that he had a nice looking daughter (over 18, of course), well?! Why not?!

Why not......what?
She would definitely have her own choice in the modern world, and you shouldn't presume that she would just fall for you.

Now if we're talking about a practical context, where it's necessary to act to survive (such as our offline life), then that's the only scenario where I'd be willing to use my moral opinion as fact, and act to protect it, by either stopping someone or some country from committing what I believe to be atrocities.

Ideally, our intellect should totally inform our practical lives, but some times that is not always possible. Sometimes it's possible to an extent. But in a debate, it's always possible.

If you take the position that invading a girl's city, slaughtering her family and forcibly* marrying her off to one of the attackers (Deuteronomy 20:10-15) can be justified by invoking the culture of the time, just what would you consider an atrocity? It seems to me that such an "intellectual" position is a logically fallacious ad populum approach which would render one incapable of formulating a value judgement on anything which any society does.

*(Yes, forcibly----the whole situation is being forced onto her.)

[Haven]

It doesn't imply the Earth was already created after Genesis 1:1.

This sentence is a little unclear perhaps you can rephrase. Do you mean that the text does not allow for the earth to be in existence prior to the events described in Genesis 1 verses 2 through 31? If so, see above.

If not perhaps you can better explain the point you are attempting to make in your own words if possible.

Sorry, that was my fault for not making it clear. I meant to say "before" Genesis 1:1.

In other words, I believe the text precludes the Earth existing prior to verses 2-31. Verse one is simply a topic sentence, giving the reader a general overview of the subject to be discussed. The language used, and similar passages from other Biblical and contemporaneous texts, shows that verse 1 is not meant to refer to some previous event, but is only meant as an overview. This is the general position of Biblical scholarship as well.

[JehovahsWitness]

It doesn't imply the Earth was already created after Genesis 1:1.

This sentence is a little unclear perhaps you can rephrase. Do you mean that the text does not allow for the earth to be in existence prior to the events described in Genesis 1 verses 2 through 31? If so, see above.

If not perhaps you can better explain the point you are attempting to make in your own words if possible.

Sorry, that was my fault for not making it clear. I meant to say "before" Genesis 1:1.

In other words, I believe the text precludes the Earth existing prior to verses 2-31. Verse one is simply a topic sentence, giving the reader a general overview of the subject to be discussed. The language used, and similar passages from other Biblical and contemporaneous texts, shows that verse 1 is not meant to refer to some previous event, but is only meant as an overview. This is the general position of Biblical scholarship as well.

Then you have simply repeated yourself.

If you are in a mind to debate then you will need to present some counter arguments to the points I made in response HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1032401#p1032401

A counter agrumment would involve quoting or referencing the point made and offering some kind of rationale as to why that specific point might not be considered accurate, convincing and/or true.



JW

[Haven]

It's reasonable to say that these girls were saved for relations with men (esp. since young boys were not spared), but I wouldn't go as far as saying they were used as child sex slaves. The Law specifically forbids fornication or sex outside of a marital arrangement so that would rule out sex slavery.

Forced marriage of children to grown men from a conquering army, who just brutally murdered their entire families, is for all intents and purposes child sex slavery. The girls did not have the capacity to consent due to age and were not even given a choice to refuse such abusive and exploitative "relationships."

I also see the text you're referring to as being a mix of both description and prescription. Not everything in the Bible is made for instruction, teaching, or prescribing. Some information is just detail on ordinary events without any consideration for something religious or spiritual. Perhaps, in this case Moses was wrong in providing some sort of concession to allow some to live as opposed to killing everyone.

Numbers 31 specifically mentions a command from God to carry out this atrocity.

[AgnosticBoy]

Why not......what?
She would definitely have her own choice in the modern world, and you shouldn't presume that she would just fall for you.

The larger point I was trying to make is that many would think she wouldn't want me because I killed her father. But it is very possible for her to accept me if she's able to come to terms with my actions, especially when I can show that my actions were justified or morally good.

Now if we're talking about a practical context, where it's necessary to act to survive (such as our offline life), then that's the only scenario where I'd be willing to use my moral opinion as fact, and act to protect it, by either stopping someone or some country from committing what I believe to be atrocities.

Ideally, our intellect should totally inform our practical lives, but some times that is not always possible. Sometimes it's possible to an extent. But in a debate, it's always possible.

If you take the position that invading a girl's city, slaughtering her family and forcibly* marrying her off to one of the attackers (Deuteronomy 20:10-15) can be justified by invoking the culture of the time, just what would you consider an atrocity?

My objective here is only to show that there was no forcible sex (or even sex slavery) nor even forced marriages given the culture. The moral judgements are largely not worth arguing over because there is little to no objective basis to argue from.

It seems to me that such an "intellectual" position is a logically fallacious ad populum approach which would render one incapable of formulating a value judgement on anything which any society does.

The reality is that we have limitations to our knowledge. I want to be able to know everything using scientific standards but that is not possible or it's not apparent how we could apply that to morality. Ignoring these limitations or simply making a standard that doesn't require an objective basis won't make your value judgements logical nor objective.

On a related note, I wish skeptics were willing to consider how their ideologically-driven skeptical standards would render one incapable of accepting anything in the Bible or any miracle as a historical fact.

*(Yes, forcibly----the whole situation is being forced onto her.)

Eventhough, the situation is forced upon her, that doesn't mean the marriage is forced upon her. The situation just leads to the girl having no support. That's it. That doesn't automatically translate to her not wanting support. Perhaps many would presume that the girl would not want to marry her captor because a) he took her captive and killed her parents and b) she's wants to choose someone else. Both points are unlikely and I'll explain why.

While reason "A", is possible, but it was considered in that Moses gave the captive women a month's time to come to terms with the situation as explained in Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

And keep in mind, there is an option to letting her go, and that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). If someone is able to leave, then that takes away from the point of a "forced" marriage or slavery.

While reason "B" is possible, but girls weren't selective with their mates back then. Marriage was largely a means of support. Here's a good summary of that point that is based on Stephanie Coontz's essays, The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love:

The notion of love as the main reason to get married to someone is a relatively modern development. For most of recorded history love was not a consideration. If it existed between husband and wife it was considered a fortunate byproduct. But more often, partners in love were considered a danger to the success of the enterprise.

The idea of marriage primarily as a business arrangement seems antithetical to most of us today. There is little doubt that love is the driving force for marketing the institution and enticing new subscribers to sign on the dotted line.

Source: The strange history of marrying for love.

So in conclusion, it's not hard to believe that a captive girl in the Ancient Near East would marry her captor when you consider that she would not be selective (since women didn't get a choice on who to marry), she needs support, and she is given time to come to terms with it.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's reasonable to say that these girls were saved for relations with men (esp. since young boys were not spared), but I wouldn't go as far as saying they were used as child sex slaves. The Law specifically forbids fornication or sex outside of a marital arrangement so that would rule out sex slavery.

Forced marriage of children to grown men from a conquering army, who just brutally murdered their entire families, is for all intents and purposes child sex slavery. The girls did not have the capacity to consent due to age and were not even given a choice to refuse such abusive and exploitative "relationships."

My initial reaction to reading these stories was similar to yours. But then i realized that my judgements were based on my own socio-cultural conditioning. Otherwise, why didn't the people back then react the same way as us?

Now when you say that the girls did not have the capacity to consent, I presume that you're going by a 'legal' standard, and I'm willing to bet that it's the one that applies to your culture or country. But keep in mind that legality is relative in that varies or can differ based on the laws, your country, etc. If something is allowed under your laws then it can't be illegal. If one country says the age of consent is 15 and another says 18, well who is right? Simply going by what YOUR culture says, which is what I see your reasoning amounting to, is not a logical nor objective way to determine that.

When it comes to the Bible, I would think the age of consent for marriage would at least be based on someone being able to carry out the functions of marriage. For instance, procreation is a function of marriage, and a physical requirement for that is puberty. So on average, that would have to be a female that's 12 or older. Now if some guy is trying to marry a toddler or someone around that age, then that would be a problem.

[Athetotheist]

After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Translation: Hold her captive until you wear down her will and then she's all yours.

14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

And keep in mind, there is an option to letting her go

If you are not pleased with her----his option, not hers.

and that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord

The girl in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't get that break, does she?

To me, the whole depends-on-the-culture defense still seems like just a "Might Makes Right" argument.