You weren’t just making that point. You were asking some-one to acknowledge that child marriage could be considered morally defensible under a hypothetical set of beliefs that they do not hold.
But you are refusing to acknowledge that child marriage could be considered morally defensible under a hypothetical set of beliefs that you do not hold.
Not only have you refused to do what you requested some-one else do, you are denying that you made the request.
The behaviour you claim is morally indefensible was by someone who accepted God and teleology.
Will you admit that if you accept God and teleology it becomes possible and permissible under the right circumstances and in the right social landscape, or are you going to continue being hypocritical?
On the contrary, I argued that within a materialist framework—and the consequent rejection of objective morality—pedophilia could, in principle, be considered defensible if it were to become widely accepted by society on a subjective basis.
The issue is that I do not believe God can command or declare good anything intrinsically evil—anything that contradicts what is good for human nature. Muhammad may have believed that what he was doing was right, but that does not make it any less of a delusion. On the contrary, I see no way for a moral relativist to condemn pedophilia as an objectively evil act. They can only say, ‘It strongly contradicts my moral framework, which has been shaped by the spirit of the age—an age that teaches that ending the life of a child after 24 weeks, as in the Netherlands, may be considered permissible and morally defensible, while pedophilia is always to be condemned.’”
If I were to accept a caricature of God as the true God, then the answer would be yes
So you’re going to continue denying what you wrote earlier, and continue being hypocritical.
Your flat refusal to even consider how your ‘arguments’ may look from any perspective other than your own, religious or non-religious, while simultaneously demanding others consider your perspective, coupled with your repeated insistence that your beliefs are true but the beliefs of others are mere caricatures, illustrates perfectly the closed-minded smug arrogant hypocrisy that guarantees you will never produce a convincing argument in favour of your religion.
I have argued that, under a materialist framework, pedophilia cannot be objectively condemned as an evil act.
I hold that any belief system asserting that God can command or deem as good actions contrary to human nature does not truly refer to God. If I were to believe in those things then of course I would justify them; i just explained why I think it’s absurd to hold that God can deem as good things that go against the good of human nature. I am not a relativist.
It was never my intention—not because I think convincing arguments cannot be made, but because it would ultimately be unproductive, as Luke 16:31 teaches. There is already plenty of evidence for those willing to look.