Bringers of the Light Yeah, I think our work here is done. But I'm still gonna go for a bit of overkill on them.
I noticed in your beloved and all knowing (lol) AHA FAQ there was a comment about how it's the person's right to vote for a theocratic system if they wish and we shouldn't stand in the way of that (although the actual wording was a lot more naive). This is correct. You have every right to vote for a theocratic system in which laws are based on biblical morality. But if you really value your right to vote then let me issue this warning: you can vote FOR a theocracy but not UNDER one. The very nature of a theocracy rejects the concept of change to the political system (due to the fact it is based on religion and not contemporary moral trends) which means there is no need for the people to have their say. If you truly value your right to have your say about how your country is run, then a theocracy is NOT for you.
Abolish Human Abortion \\the bible frequently says things to the effect of the phrase 'women are to be seen and not heard'\\
Where? Quote it.
\\1 Tim 2:11\\
What is the context of that verse?
\\ But if you really value your right to vote then let me issue this warning: you can vote FOR a theocracy but not UNDER one.\\
And what's your argument that voting is a good in and of itself?
\\there is no need for the people to have their say.\\
What if the people are usually getting it wrong? Wouldn't it be better if they didn't contribute "their say"?
\\If you truly value your right to have your say about how your country is run, then a theocracy is NOT for you.\\
It's also not for you if you're a shallow thinker like you seem to be.
Lisa What if the people are usually getting it wrong? Wouldn't it be better if they didn't contribute "their say"? - could say the same thing about to to be honest.
Bringers of the Light "What is the context of that verse?"
Who knows? It was written millennia ago and no original texts exist. It has been translated and retranslated so many times that nobody can say for sure what the context is.
"And what's your argument that voting is a good in and of itself?"
I believe in the freedom of the people to have their say in how their country is run and by whom. If you don't believe in voting then don't vote. It's no skin off my nose, but you seem to value your right to vote.
"What if the people are usually getting it wrong? Wouldn't it be better if they didn't contribute "their say"?"
Then you support authoritarianism? Add Hitler and Fascist comparisons to the list of comparisons you can no longer use in this argument.
"It's also not for you if you're a shallow thinker like you seem to be."
I think you misspelt free.
If you believe in a theocracy that's fine, but instead of inflicting it on people who DON'T believe in theocracy, why don't you just move to one. Iran's got a pretty good one going. They're nice and authoritarian over there from what I hear.
Now, have you made your decision about whether you're arguing from a scientific or religious standpoint yet?
Abolish Human Abortion \\Who knows? \\
So you weren't being truthful about knowing that the Bible says what you said it says. RIght?
\\ It was written millennia ago and no original texts exist. \\
Rhology \\Who knows? \\
So you weren't being truthful about knowing that the Bible says what you said it says. RIght?
\\ It was written millennia ago and no original texts exist. \\
So? Thousands of copies exist. Are you familiar with how textual criticism works? I am. I want to see if you are.
\\ It has been translated and retranslated \\
This is my first clue you're ignorant of textual criticism. It has been translated from the original language to the target language many times b/c there are many translations. But it's NOT as if it went from Greek > Latin > Old French > Old German > Swahili > Dutch and finally > English.
No, the NT has gone
Greek > Latin
Greek > French
Greek > Swahili
Greek > English
Etc.
\\I believe in the freedom of the people to have their say in how their country is run and by whom.\\
I know that's your *opinion*, but I asked for an *argument*.
\\If you don't believe in voting then don't vote.\\
Maybe I vote b/c it's the best thing available to me at the moment. You've presented a silly system for making choices, and thus given bad advice.
\\you seem to value your right to vote.\\
Excuse me, but you don't know anything about me. Please ASK when you don't know things.
\\Then you support authoritarianism? \\
As a matter of fact, yes - the only perfect and thus the best system of government is a theocracy with Jesus at its head. This will be in place someday, but it's not quite yet.
\\Add Hitler and Fascist comparisons to the list of comparisons you can no longer use in this argument.\\
Why? Jesus is not an evil ruler who has no regard for truth or good.
\\ instead of inflicting it on people who DON'T believe in theocracy, why don't you just move to one. Iran's got a pretty good one going.\\
This is just blathering b/c you have no idea where I'm coming from. No bringer of light at all, you. You're extremely lost in extreme darkness but you don't care that you're ignorant; you like to just bang around saying whatever.
\\ have you made your decision about whether you're arguing from a scientific or religious standpoint yet?\\
I'll need an argument that this choice is necessary.
Bringers of the Light "So you weren't being truthful about knowing that the Bible says what you said it says. RIght?"
Yes I was, but I admit that I don't know the context, and neither do you.
"This is my first clue you're ignorant of textual criticism. It has been translated from the original language to the target language many times b/c there are many translations. But it's NOT as if it went from Greek > Latin > Old French > Old German > Swahili > Dutch and finally > English.
No, the NT has gone
Greek > Latin
Greek > French
Greek > Swahili
Greek > English
Etc."
When, in fact, much of it was originally written in Hebrew? And I think you'll find it went more like this:
Oral Tradition > Hebrew > Greek > Latin > French > English > English > English etc. (oversimplified version, but you get the idea)
"I know that's your *opinion*, but I asked for an *argument*."
If you can argue based on what you believe then so can I.
"Maybe I vote b/c it's the best thing available to me at the moment. You've presented a silly system for making choices, and thus given bad advice."
No, I'm giving good advice, if you vote in an authoritarian system, you'll hate it. It's human nature to hate strict authority.
"Excuse me, but you don't know anything about me. Please ASK when you don't know things."
I can say the same about you. Fine, do you value your right to vote?
"As a matter of fact, yes - the only perfect and thus the best system of government is a theocracy with Jesus at its head. This will be in place someday, but it's not quite yet."
But Jesus wouldn't be at the head, self-serving politicians would be at the head interpreting biblical teachings in order to get their way. If you don't like it when I use things out of context, what will you do if leaders of your precious theocracy do it? At least with me you can argue, if you argue with them you're likely to be punished. I want you to name a single authoritarian state that didn't use violence to keep people in line.
"Why? Jesus is not an evil ruler who has no regard for truth or good."
Precisely. He was a common good-natured man who hated authority. If you read your bible properly he stood for the rights of the people, not against them.
"This is just blathering b/c you have no idea where I'm coming from. No bringer of light at all, you. You're extremely lost in extreme darkness but you don't care that you're ignorant; you like to just bang around saying whatever."
No, it's just a personal insult, because I think authoritarianism is disgusting and should be stopped.
"I'll need an argument that this choice is necessary."
The two are mutually exclusive. You either don't approve of it because God says so, which means science has no bearing on your argument because all you're going to do is find the evidence that matches your conclusion, or you don't approve of it because it's dangerous, which means you came to that conclusion independently of your religion, and which means you'd have to accept any reputable information that would change you viewpoint.
You really are a sick person. I bet you want to ban same sex marriage as well.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland All I can say is that you guys are a bunch of amoral, hating, bible-thumping hypocrites who don't read the bible very hard, maybe only the bits you can use to try and convert the heathens. There will always be places where women's rights superceed what some retarded little book written by hundreds of men over thousands of years says, and if abortion is outlawed again then people will still have them, but people will start to die from them again because instead of being practiced in safe, sterile, knowledgable envornoments they will be performed with coathangers. You hateful, spiteful people will never win.
Saturday at 9:20pm · · 2
Abolish Human Abortion Please prove that I don't know the context.
\\When, in fact, much of it was originally written in Hebrew? And I think you'll find it went more like this:
Oral Tradition > Hebrew > Greek > Latin > French > English > English > English etc. \\
The OT was in Hebrew, yes. To simplify I was referring to the NT, which is Greek.
And you're wrong about what you said. Sorry. YOu're ignorant.
\\If you can argue based on what you believe then so can I.\\
This is a meaningless sentence.
\\It's human nature to hate strict authority.\\
IT's also human nature to believe in the divine. So... try again.
\\do you value your right to vote?\\
Yes,
Abolish Human Abortion \\
But Jesus wouldn't be at the head,\\
He WILL be. I"m referring to the Eschaton.
\\I want you to name a single authoritarian state that didn't use violence to keep people in line.\\
If I were expressing a desire for an authoritarian state to be ruled over by sinful men, you might have a point. Since I'm not, you don't.
\\Precisely. He was a common good-natured man who hated authority.\\
1) You seem to claim to know the context of the Bible now. Which is it?
2) And in fact you're wrong about this. He many many times expressly said that He was submitted to the will of the Father, Who is the final authority. YOu're ignorant of Jesus' teaching.
Abolish Human Abortion \\If you read your bible properly he stood for the rights of the people, not against them.\\
I suppose so. SO what?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland You have no right to vote, even if you value your vote. Won't god chose the next leader? Oh no that's right, he can't, he either doesn't exist or doesn't have the power.
Abolish Human Abortion \\You either don't approve of it because God says so, which means science has no bearing on your argument\
If you mean that human reason is not my final authority, that's true.
But CORRECT science PROPERLY done will confirm what God says.
Bringers of the Light "But CORRECT science PROPERLY done will confirm what God says."
If we do science any other way it will abandon the scientific method and therefore will cease to be science
Renee Deinonychus McClelland But orrectly done science goes against what 'god' says to be true time and time again. SO all your arguments are invalid.
Abolish Human Abortion \\all you're going to do is find the evidence that matches your conclusion\\
You mean like never seeing evidence for something like Intelligent Design b/c that conclusion is actually unacceptable to your naturalistic framework? You're so predictable, and so biased.
Bringers of the Light why do we have appendices and tailbones if we were intelligently designed?
Saturday at 9:30pm · · 1
Abolish Human Abortion \\You really are a sick person. I bet you want to ban same sex marriage as well.\\
I once was spiritually dead, actually, and Jesus raised me to life. I'm thankful that He saw fit to have mercy on me, because I have sinned against Him SO many times!
Who wants to ban same sex marriage? The current controversies have revolved around perverting the true nature of marriage.
Do you want to change the definition of marriage to allow someone to marry:
-his 7 year old daughter?
-his horse?
-two of his chairs?
-three of his sisters?
I bet you'll say you don't want that. I wonder if you'll call yourself a sick person.
-Rhology
Bringers of the Light "You're so predictable, and so biased."
That's rich coming from the person who uses only one sided arguments to back up their claims. In science, you weigh up both sides of an argument, not just one side.
Saturday at 9:32pm · · 1
Abolish Human Abortion Appendices and tailbones - we have them either b/c we were created with them or b/c we were created with something sorta like them and since the Fall of Man they became troublesome for many people.
Abolish Human Abortion \\If we do science any other way it will abandon the scientific method and therefore will cease to be science\\
Proved my point which defeats your statement. THanks!
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Gay people are consenting people. Seven year olds are incapable of consenting and trying to force something like marriage on them would ruin their lives (but you guys are ok with that huh), horses are incapable of consenting, chairs are incapable of consenting, and incest is extremely bad for the human race. You guys actu don't have moral codes do you.
Saturday at 9:34pm · · 1
Bringers of the Light "perverting the true nature of marriage"
Christianity didn't invent, nor does it own marriage.
"Do you want to change the definition of marriage to allow someone to marry:
-his 7 year old daughter?
-his horse?
-two of his chairs?
-three of his sisters?"
No, nobody wants that, that's a strawman right there.
Abolish Human Abortion \\But orrectly done science goes against what 'god' says to be true time and time again.\\
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Let me ask you a very fundamental question. How do you know what you know?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland The scientific method (SCIENCE) is an algorithm or steps you go through to either gain evidence for something or against it. That is all. If we try to inolve religion, it no longer becomes evidence.
Saturday at 9:35pm · · 1
Abolish Human Abortion Not NOBODY wants that. Are you saying you're unwilling to grant those loving relationships the status of marriage? Why are you so biased?
Bringers of the Light No, renee, they don't have moral codes, they don't need 'em, they have Jebus to tell them what to do.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Because lo consenting adults and children or horses who don't know what's going on are two different things. You know, you HAVE a brain, don't you?
Bringers of the Light "Not NOBODY wants that. Are you saying you're unwilling to grant those loving relationships the status of marriage? Why are you so biased?"
Incest, paedophilia and bestiality are not loving relationships. This is a strawman. If two consenting adults who are not related love each other why can't they marry?
Rhology Renee,
Why are you so consent-centric? Who are you to impose your consent-centrism on loving horse--man relationships?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Theot ral code would be the one our brain gives us, honed by millions of years of keeping our friends and relatives safe that our familly's genes mght survive. this is altruism, and is a strong instinct in most higher animals. Basically we have a need to look after each other.
Rhology ANd why are you so biased against intergenerational love? The 7-yo says "Yes I want to marry my uncle. I love him." SOunds like consent to me.
Rhology Renee,
HOw do you know that our brain gave us the proper moral code?
Is any behavior that aids in survival by definition moral?
Bringers of the Light I'd delete that comment if I were you, before I screencap it and post it all over facebook
Renee Deinonychus McClelland To answer your qn (I just saw it) I know what I know because information that has been backed by evidence (science) has been handed down to me and my brain has analysed it. The brain then retraces the synapses created in the brain by absorbing that knowledge to consolidate it into a memory.
Rhology Unlike perhaps others you've talked to, I say what I mean and mean what I say. Post my stuff far and wide. Just make sure you're intellectually honest about it and post the context as well.
Making fun of it will most probably show that you don't even understand what I'm saying, which doesn't speak well of your intellectual capacity.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Childen are not sexually developed until about the age of 13, and their brains are not developed fully until 25. I have no idea what your point is.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland And hy am I so consent centric? Without sent it's rape. And I'll bet you wouldn't want to be raped.
Bringers of the Light you asked me to prove that paedophilia wasn't loving, which implies that you actually need evidence. most people don't need proof that paedophilia is wrong...
Rhology REnee,
How do you know that info was correctly handed down to you? HOw do you know your brain properly analysed it? How do you know your eyes saw it correctly and that your brain correctly interpreted the signals it received from your eyes?
How do you know your memory is intact?
CHildren have the necessary parts to engage in sex. If a man wants a child lover, are you going to impose your morality on him and tell him it's not OK? If so, on what basis?
Rhology I'm not most people. I like to ask the hard questions.
YOu seem to think that evidence is necessary for knowing. YOu seem to know pedophilia is bad. So I"m asking you for evidence. I don't think you can be consistent here.
Rhology SO what if I wouldn't want to be raped? If I steal from someone I wouldn't want to be caught. Desire has nothing to do with it. Don't be so shallow. THINK.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Here's the thing: I don't. I don't know I'm not living in one big troll matrix. We all trust our brains to give us the right interpretation of information and memory, which I guess was why talking to a burning bush was ok for the bible. Memory happens to be one of the most unreliable processes the brain does, every rememberance being a 'close enough' reproduction. If a man wants a child lover, I would prevent him from ruining that child's life by locking him up away from kids, because all any sane person could want is for every child to have an amazing and happy life.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Me? Think? What kind of hypocrite are you?? I've been thinking for myself my whole life, I don't have to follow a guidebook!
Renee Deinonychus McClelland My reasoning behind what I know and why pedos are bad is because all this makes sense to my frontal lobe.
Bringers of the Light "YOu seem to know pedophilia is bad. So I"m asking you for evidence." Children who are the victims of paedophiles usually experience PTSD, have difficulty trusting others and often commit suicide as the get older.
In short, paedophilia is NOT beneficial for the survival of the species, therefore it can be considered immoral. Morality must be based on the survival of the species, not the survival of Iron Age fairytales.
Saturday at 9:52pm · · 1
Renee Deinonychus McClelland So then, if desire has nothing to do with it, your desire for every foetus to live is totally irrelevant to how you should behave.
Rhology SO Renee, you have faith in your brain.
But there are people in this world who are wrong about what they think they are, right? Ie, that theyare Napoleon Bonaparte, or Jesus.
How do you know you're not one of them?
Rhology How do you know a man loving a child would ruin teh child's life? YOu sound like such a bigot right now!
Rhology Ah, these things "make sense" to your brain. But the OPPOSITE makes sense to the pedophile. WHich of you is correct and how can we know?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland I have faith in my brain so long as it's not telling me a burning bush is talking to me and so long as people deem me mentally fit to be on the streets. The very second I get put away I will write you a letter saying you can disregard MY comments, but it just so happens that many many other people share my views.
Rhology HOw do you have any idea what is good for the species' survival?
Massive promiscuity is GOOD for the survival of the species. So is rape.
SO I guess by YOUR definition these things are morally good, yes?
Bringers of the Light "Ah, these things "make sense" to your brain. But the OPPOSITE makes sense to the pedophile. WHich of you is correct and how can we know?" advocating paedophilia, even if only for the sake of argument, is extremely messed up...
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Societyoes by majority, which is why pedos and rapists are shunned. They ake people feel bad, kill themselves, and are a minority. Next.
Bringers of the Light "How do you know a man loving a child would ruin teh child's life? YOu sound like such a bigot right now!" something called EVIDENCE
Rhology So you have faith in your brain except when you don't? What does that mean?
SO you can be considered rational as long as a majority dont' lock you up? Majority decides who is rational?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland I agree promiscuity is good for the human race, some of us don't feel like it but I'm not going to stop anyone from having genetically diverse babies
Renee Deinonychus McClelland If you go back and maybe read and take in what is being said, you have a better chance of understanding.
Rhology \\advocating paedophilia, even if only for the sake of argument, is extremely messed up...\\
I"m sorry to hear you're unfamiliar with the concept of a thought experiment. Another reason not to take you nearly as seriously as you take yourself.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Yes majority DOES decide who is rational! Which is why christianity doesn't get a second glance in the USA and atheism is presumed in Sweden.
Rhology \\Societyoes by majority, which is why pedos and rapists are shunned\\
Atheists are also often shunned. THanks for yet another self-defeating argument.
Rhology \\majority DOES decide who is rational!\\
So if the majority decided that
1) CHristianity is true
2) All atheists must be executed
that would be rational, yes? THat's what you just said.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland I have no idea why anyone takes you guys seriously, are you hearing yourselves? Do you have an education? Or do you not beleive in education?
Rhology \I agree promiscuity is good for the human race\\
Thanks for the admission.
What about rape?
Also, how do you know what "good" is? Don't say "survival" - you need to ARGUE that survival is good.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland That hasbeen rational in the past and I suspect is rational to many people in the USA now.
Rhology \\Do you have an education? Or do you not beleive in education?\\
Who I am is of no importance. I have asked serious questions; I'll thank you to answer them.
Bringers of the Light Alright, let's have a bit of a recap, so far you've advocated the following things:
- Bigotry
- Paedophilia
- Incest
- Authoritarianism
I've never heard of a single benefit any of these things have had on society. Morally speaking you're not really doing well are you...
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Survival i good because it means we survive. It does not mean good for the planet or whatever. If you had been paying attention, I explained rape...
Rhology \\That hasbeen rational in the past and I suspect is rational to many people in the USA now.\\
What if the majority believed in rape? Would that become rational?
WHat about good? Would it then be good to rape?
Rhology \\Survival i good because it means we survive.\\
This is a tautology, not an argument. I asked for an ARGUMENT.
"GOd exists because He exists." I guess I can say that, right?
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Do you want a gold star? Rape was once the norm, but it didn't mean people didn't want to end their lives because they were raped. I can't think of one situation where rape is good. You people are trully, trully sick in the head.
Rhology \\so far you've advocated the following things:
- Bigotry
- Paedophilia
- Incest
- Authoritarianism
\\
I haven't advocated any except a specific type of the last one. YOu're not reading carefully. WHat a foolish thing you've said.
\\I've never heard of a single benefit any of these things have had on society.\\
Pedophilia allows more children, which aids in the species survival. Duh. NOw, please let me know why it's wrong, according to YOUR worldview.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Ok, how do I condescend to a level where you might understand? 'god exists because god exists'. Rejected due to insufficient evidence. 'survival is good because it means we survive'. Everything we do is geared to survival of our genetic material. I don't know how to make it clearer.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Ok. you guys are not only too unintelligent to understand what I'm trying to say, you're advocating raping children.
Bringers of the Light "Pedophilia allows more children, which aids in the species survival" that is an advocation for paedophilia by anyone's standards. If I were you I'd stop using this argument now, or at least stae very clearly that you think paedophilia is wrong.
Rhology \\Everything we do is geared to survival of our genetic material.\\
That's not true, for one thing. Altruistic behavior and self-sacrifice is not.
Also, I didn't ask whether we act to aid survival. I asked what is GOOD.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Pedophilia does not allow more children, children are not able to reproduce. It just makes suicidal children. Real thing.
Rhology \\you're advocating raping children.\\
You're rapidly proving yourself incapable of engaging this topic with any intelligence.
Rhology \\"Pedophilia allows more children, which aids in the species survival" that is an advocation for paedophilia by anyone's standards. \\
Yes, and I'm asking ACCORDING TO YOUR WORLDVIEW. YOU were the one who said that good = survival-aiding. THat's not my definition; it's YOURS. So why is what I said wrong if YOUR worldview is true?
Rhology On my worldview, on Christianity, yes, pedophilia is most definitely wrong. B/c God said so.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland What is good: allowing other people to feel good, for a start. Altruism, AS I HAVE STATED, allows our familly's genetic material to survive, because the instinct is geared towards our close familly members (WHO CARRY OUR DNA), but includes our friends because the brain does not particularly discern between one kind person and another, assuming they are both blood. You should be glad to have ANY friends
Rhology \\Pedophilia does not allow more children, children are not able to reproduce. It just makes suicidal children. Real thing.\
Sorry, you're ignorant of history.
Bringers of the Light "That's not true, for one thing. Altruistic behavior and self-sacrifice is not.
Also, I didn't ask whether we act to aid survival. I asked what is GOOD."
To sacrifice oneself to protect others IS beneficial to survival.
If we are not hindering survival we are doing what is good.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Oh good! You doleive pedophilia is wrong, I don't care why, I'm just glad you think that.
Rhology \\To sacrifice oneself to protect others IS beneficial to survival.\\
No it's not, because YOU'RE DEAD. Again, duh.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland You are not listening to my world view, I have been trying to explain it for about an hour
Rhology Actually, I'm listening very closely and asking you questions based on your worldview. You seem not to have grasped that yet.
Bringers of the Light "On my worldview, on Christianity, yes, pedophilia is most definitely wrong. B/c God said so."
That is not morality. You are saying that if God appeared to you and told you paedophilia was ok you'd advocate it. Morality is knowing what is wrong without having to be told.
Saturday at 10:16pm · · 1
Bringers of the Light "No it's not, because YOU'RE DEAD. Again, duh."
I'm talking about survival of the species. One who is concerned only with their own survival is NOT in any way a good person. They are self-serving and parasitic.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland
Oh my. You call ME unintelligent. You CAN read other books beside the bible you know. I'm halfway through a university degree, so I mustn't be as dumb as you think I am. Maybe YOU'RE doing something wrong??! I have washing to do, and I want to talk to someone who won't make me cry for the future of my species. I'll just take this intellectual victory and leave you to get back in touch with reality. Arguing with you guys is like playing chess with a pidgeon
Rhology \\You are saying that if God appeared to you and told you paedophilia was ok you'd advocate it. \\
THat's kind of like saying "if God told you circles were square, would you believe it?" It's an unanswerable question.
\\Morality is knowing what is wrong without having to be told.\\
That's just an assertion. Please prove this is true.
\\One who is concerned only with their own survival is NOT in any way a good person. They are self-serving and parasitic.\\
If he survives, he can father more offspring. Look, you need to realise how foolish you're looking at this point.
Rhology OK Renee, thanks for talking to me. I don't think you're dumb, but you cannot be consistent with your stated worldview because it is false. The Bible says that you are dead in sins and it makes you foolish. I pray you will repent - Jesus can redeem you as well as your intellect.
Renee Deinonychus McClelland Ok good. I'll live my life in sin and when I die, if there is a god and he is mad, you win.
Bringers of the Light Alright, based on my worldview, this is why I think paedophilia is wrong and homosexuality isn't...
Let's say there's a 7 year old girl who is raped. She cannot become pregnant as she is not developed enough to carry children. She grows up severely traumatised by what has happened and can never get close to another human being because she is unable to trust anyone. She is therefore unable to have sex, which means she cannot reproduce. No more children will come of it. She will more than likely have a breakdown and end up medicated and possibly even locked up. No good for anyone.
Now let's say there's two 20 year old men, they are both very much in love with one another and wish to make a commitment to one another by getting married. They are happy. It is good for them.
That is the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Rhology I don't care about winning. My future destiny is secure in Jesus. I pray that YOU will win. The only way is to have Jesus' forgiveness and the gift of eternal life.
Rhology \She grows up severely traumatised by what has happened and can never get close to another human being because she is unable to trust anyone.\\
According to YOUR worldview, she is not aiding in the species survival. If she can't "get close" to anyone, shouldn't other responsible homo sapiens rape her so she can contribute her share of children?
\\
Now let's say there's two 20 year old men, they are both very much in love with one another and wish to make a commitment to one another by getting married. They are happy. It is good for them.\\
You haven't shown it's good FOR THEM. You're getting away from your original definition of what good is, which makes me suspect you're playing a tap-dance game.
And it's certainly not good for the species survival. THat union will not produce any children and thus will not perpetuate the species.
Bringers of the Light "That's just an assertion. Please prove this is true."
Nobody told me not to kill you, but I still know it is wrong. If God told you to kill me, you'd probably do it. Which of us is moral and which is just subservient?
"THat's kind of like saying "if God told you circles were square, would you believe it?" It's an unanswerable question."
Well it shouldn't be, the answer should be 'no, I'd still think it was wrong', otherwise it is not a moral decision.
"If he survives, he can father more offspring. Look, you need to realise how foolish you're looking at this point."
Yes, but I'm talking about the GREATER survival of the species, as in over generations. You are still thinking within one generation. He can father more children, but if he is only concerned with his own life and his own genetic line he will instil these values into his children and over generations this one aggressive family will wipe out all others and the gene pool will become weaker as it becomes less diverse.
Rhology \\Nobody told me not to kill you, but I still know it is wrong. \\
HOw do you know it is wrong?
\\If God told you to kill me, you'd probably do it. \\
This is probably true, yes.
\\Which of us is moral and which is just subservient?\\
I don't propose there's a distinction. YOU should answer the question, please.
Rhology \\the answer should be 'no, I'd still think it was wrong', otherwise it is not a moral decision.\\
PROVE IT IS WRONG.
Rhology \\this one aggressive family will wipe out all others and the gene pool will become weaker as it becomes less diverse.\
NOt if they don't kill, but just rape and spread their genetic material all over. You're thinking far too CHristian here. Be consistent.
Rhology OK I'm out, it's bed time.
It is sad that you two think you have rational positions, but such is sin.
Bringers of the Light "According to YOUR worldview, she is not aiding in the species survival. If she can't "get close" to anyone, shouldn't other responsible homo sapiens rape her so she can contribute her share of children?"
Here's a few reason's that's flawed thinking.
-She is not responsible for her molestation and should not be punished for it
-Rape victims are more likely to have miscarriages
-Rape victims are more likely to be neglectful mothers
-If she is raped again, don't you think that'd potentially cause suicide?
"You haven't shown it's good FOR THEM. You're getting away from your original definition of what good is, which makes me suspect you're playing a tap-dance game.
And it's certainly not good for the species survival. THat union will not produce any children and thus will not perpetuate the species."
Perpetuation of the species is just ONE aspect of survival of the species. Considering we have peaked as a species it is also no longer necessary.
Now all that is necessary is for us to stop trying to kill one another, which means that everyone needs to be happy. Homosexuals have not chosen their sexuality, it is biological, which means that in order to be happy they must be allowed to have homosexual relationships.
But if you REALLY want to argue about the perpetuation of the species, studies have shown that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children, which explains the perpetuation of the genes that govern sexual identity.
"HOw do you know it is wrong?"
Because if I thought it wasn't wrong I'd be a horrible person.
"This is probably true, yes."
So, you are admitting that you are unable to judge right and wrong for yourself.
"I don't propose there's a distinction. YOU should answer the question, please."
I am moral, I don't do good things for any kind of reward, I do them because I am a good person. You are subservient, you do 'good' things because you are told to and because you believe you will be rewarded after you die.
"PROVE IT IS WRONG."
The point isn't right and wrong here. The point is it isn't part of your morals if you would willingly change your opinion if you were suddenly told it was right. This is why you can't compare yourself to slavery abolitionists. They were told that slavery was condoned by the bible, yet they stuck to their morals. YOu on the other hand, base your morals on what you are told.
It is not even necessary to prove that paedophilia is wrong, because we both believe this.
"NOt if they don't kill, but just rape and spread their genetic material all over. You're thinking far too CHristian here. Be consistent."
No, because if they spread their genetic material around then it has the same effect. Everyone they come in contact with will bear their genetic material, therefore, they are still destroying genetic diversity.
I can see you asking for evidence for my dismissal of your bullshit claims. In lieu of evidence, allow me to offer the following quote from Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Rhology \\-She is not responsible for her molestation and should not be punished for it\\
1) Now you're introducing ANOTHER part of your moral view. You don't seem like you know what you really believe. Why didn't you say that at the beginning?
2) How is this punishment?
3) so what if she's not responsible? Where does your moral worldview have anything to say about that?
\\-Rape victims are more likely to have miscarriages\\
No problem. If propagating the species is the moral foundational rule, just impregnate her again.
\\-Rape victims are more likely to be neglectful mothers\\
This grows stronger, more resilient people who will be more likely to survive.
\\-If she is raped again, don't you think that'd potentially cause suicide?\\
I don't know. Maybe she would, but I mean, as long as we're just making up stuff, maybe she'll become a mass murderer too.
Remember, I'm pressing you on these because of YOUR worldview. My own worldview is nothing like yours.
\\Perpetuation of the species is just ONE aspect of survival of the species. \\
Then why didn't you say that earlier?
You're all over the place, moving the goalposts, making ad hoc qualifications. I don't think you really know what you believe.
\\Now all that is necessary is for us to stop trying to kill one another,\\
Says who? You? Who are you to tell us what we should and shouldn't do?
\\which means that everyone needs to be happy.\\
Or maybe an overarching authoritarian figure needs to crackdown on that activity. I mean, since we're making stuff up.
\\Homosexuals have not chosen their sexuality, it is biological\\
1) Prove it.
2) Even if that were true, it doesn't matter - a homosexual chooses every single time s/he engages in a sex act.
Homosexuals are not robots.
\\which means that in order to be happy they must be allowed to have homosexual relationships.\\
Wow, who knew that sexual activity is a prerequisite for happiness?
Got any evidence for this assertion?
\\"HOw do you know it is wrong?"
Because if I thought it wasn't wrong I'd be a horrible person.\\
So you don't know. Noted.
\\"This is probably true, yes."
So, you are admitting that you are unable to judge right and wrong for yourself.\\
Please write out the logical process by which you came to this conclusion from what I said.
\\I do them because I am a good person.\\
How do you know you're a good person?
\\The point is it isn't part of your morals if you would willingly change your opinion if you were suddenly told it was right.\\
I was just responding to your hypothetical, but if you knew your Bible, you'd know that it's not a change. My moral worldview reduces basically to "What God says is right." If God told me that I should kill someone, that would be right. Not a change at all. You only think it's a change b/c you're ignorant.
\\This is why you can't compare yourself to slavery abolitionists. They were told that slavery was condoned by the bible, yet they stuck to their morals.\\
They were told such, yes, but they knew that those who told them that were wrong.
If you were a deeper thinker, you might realise that not everyone who SAYS they are properly representing an authority or document ARE IN REALITY properly representing it.
The former abolitionists realised this, however, as we do.
\\It is not even necessary to prove that paedophilia is wrong, because we both believe this.\\
I asked you WHY it's wrong, and you haven't given me a good answer yet.
Right now what it would seem you're telling me is that it's your bare opinion.
Well, it's my *opinion* that God exists. I guess since our opinions are what make reality in your little world, God does exist.
\\No, because if they spread their genetic material around then it has the same effect\\
exactly.
\\Everyone they come in contact with will bear their genetic material, therefore, they are still destroying genetic diversity.\\
Genetic diversity is hardly a factor in perpetutating the human species. Think.
\\I can see you asking for evidence for my dismissal of your bullshit claims. In lieu of evidence, allow me to offer the following quote from Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."\\
Since you offered no evidence and didn't even offer any decent argumentation, consider your claims dismissed, then. Thanks for playing!
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Obscuring the light
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Let's say that a woman goes in for her regular gynecological exam, and the doctor decides to artificially inseminate her during the exam without her consent. As a result, she becomes pregnant. When the procedure is complete, he informs her of what he's done.
Has the doctor done anything wrong to the woman? Or did the doctor do good by creating a new instance of human life?
He did wrong by impregnating her against her consent.
So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against her consent?
So was it wrong for God to impregnate Mary against her consent?
This assumes that Mary was not wiling to be the mother of Christ, which is contradicted by the text of Scripture:
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” (Luke 1:38)
Ok. That's reasonable.
But how do we know it's wrong to impregnate women without their consent? Does the bible explicitly forbid it? Or is it an obvious extension of something it forbids?
By impregnating someone, could you even say that you've harmed them or violated them in any way? Isn't it a gift?
The normative means of impregnating a woman is sexual intercourse, and God has expressly commanded that such relations occur only in the confines of the marital bond.
Thus impregnating a women sans consent would be tantamount to rape.
If you're speaking of a person kidnapping a woman and impregnating her via a hypodermic needle or something, we don't even need to parse whether it's OK to impregnate; kidnapping and corporal assault with a pointy weapon are most certainly not justifiable. Nor would such an action be a gift nor constitute a "lack of harm". Kidnapping and assault are certainly harmful.
Hi Rho,
Thanks for the response.
I laid out the OB/GYN patient scenario carefully in my first comment to prevent the discussion from being side-tracked with issues of kidnapping or assault.
Given that you consider artificial insemination without consent to be "rape", would you consider artificial insemination with consent to be "fornication"?
Consider this scenario: Husband and Wife with fertility problems use Husband's brother's sperm to get pregnant. During the IUI procedure, is the doctor fornicating with Wife? Or is Husband's brother fornicating with her?
If you don't consider artificial insemination with consent to be fornication, then how can the presence of consent change a non-sexual act into a sexual one?
I laid out the OB/GYN patient scenario carefully in my first comment to prevent the discussion from being side-tracked with issues of kidnapping or assault.
Ah, indeed. Sorry about that.
Given that you consider artificial insemination without consent to be "rape", would you consider artificial insemination with consent to be "fornication"?
Hmm, that's a fine question. Probably couldn't say it is fornication, no. I disagree with that course of action for a few reasons, but I don't think I could defend calling it fornication.
Consider this scenario: Husband and Wife with fertility problems use Husband's brother's sperm to get pregnant.
I advise them to adopt. Just saying.
If you don't consider artificial insemination with consent to be fornication, then how can the presence of consent change a non-sexual act into a sexual one?
Yeah, that's also a good question. I can't think of a way to defend my original contention of rape, so I'll have to concede you that one.
It's not kidnapping in your scenario, either.
I'd still call it assault. Quasi-sexual assault? Semi-sexual assault?
So it seems that you agree that a woman's consent as to whether or not she becomes pregnant is something morally valuable. It matters. To undermine that consent is to do something wrong.
My impression of your work with "Abolish Human Abortion" is that you disregard this moral concern when it comes to the issue of abortion. Abortion is murder--it's that simple, right?
But the reason why people struggle with this question and why they don't see it in the black and white terms that you do is precisely because we simultaneously value human life and a woman's right to decide if she's going to be pregnant. When these two values come into conflict, it's difficult to know what's right.
With my little thought experiment, I hoped to illustrate that the technological advances in medicine like fertility treatment and the morning-after pill, and abortion raise ethical issues for which the bible does not provide clear cut guidance.
After all, the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion. Its prohibition of murder along with some inference is what leads you to your conclusion. But there are reasonable alternate inferences to be made.
For example, in Leviticus 27:6, no value is assigned to infants under a month of age. And in Exodus 21:22-23, if a man causes a miscarriage he is punished less severely than if he kills an adult. I've read some self-serving modern interpretations of this last passage, but they strain credulity.
And so we're left to ourselves to choose what to value more: unborn human life or a woman's right to decide if she is going to be pregnant. Weighing these against each other should be the focus of the debate. Instead, "Abolish Human Abortion" and initiatives employing similar rhetoric want to make it seem as though the issue is clear cut and was decided long ago in scripture. I find that approach highly unproductive.
Abortion is murder--it's that simple, right?
Pretty much, yes.
we simultaneously value human life and a woman's right to decide if she's going to be pregnant.
You fail to properly prioritise them, though. That's the problem.
Prohibition of abortion limits a woman’s rights to life and liberty in no meaningful sense. If a law prohibiting a woman from hiring an abortionist to kill her unborn child limits her rights to life and liberty, then a law prohibiting a woman from hiring a hit man to kill her husband also limits her right to life and liberty. In both cases, the laws would prohibit a woman from hiring someone to kill another human being. The only difference between the two cases is the location of the individual that the woman wants to kill.
By this same token, legalized abortion is unconstitutional. It inhibits the unborn child’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When these two values come into conflict, it's difficult to know what's right.
No, I'm sorry, but it's really not.
technological advances in medicine like fertility treatment and the morning-after pill, and abortion raise ethical issues for which the bible does not provide clear cut guidance.
Well, hold on a moment. Just b/c I'd never thought this esoteric and pretty unrealistic thought experiment all the way through in my spare time doesn't mean the Bible doesn't provide clear cut guidance. You haven't made that case yet.
the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion
Yes, it does.
Exodus 21:22, for example. John the Baptist, a fetus of like 1 month, leaping in his mother's womb. Psalm 139. "Do not murder."
. And in Exodus 21:22-23, if a man causes a miscarriage he is punished less severely than if he kills an adult.
That's incorrect.
Lev 27:6
B/c in that time, people making difficult vows could be placed into slavery if they defaulted on the loan/vow. An able-bodied male who can work hard is obviously worth more than a child slave (a child could become a slave if his father defaulted to such an extent that the family would go into slavery; ie, indentured servitude).
Economic value is only one measure of worth, and it's certainly not an excuse to murder anyone.
I've read some self-serving modern interpretations of this last passage, but they strain credulity.
I'd be interested in your critique of our FAQ item, then.
we're left to ourselves to choose what to value more: unborn human life or a woman's right to decide if she is going to be pregnant
If that's the case, there is literally no value to anything and no reason to choose one or the other or both or neither.
There are no moral duties, not even to believe or seek truth. Atheism is meh.
Post a Comment