• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Consent Argument

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Wrong. What?
It's not about what is right to me. If it were, I would be doing like all the heathens - doing whatever feels good to me.
That's not the way I operate.
I believe the creator has the right to set the standards of what is good and bad... as the universal sovereign.
I didn't make myself, so I trust the manufacturer knows best how his design is supposed to function in the best way possible. Therefore, I am guided by God's instruction manual.


First of all, I have not been dancing, since I answered you. I have not heard you once address anything in relation to the fact that the term adult is not restricted to your view of it. You dance away from that.
However, I'll bring it up again.


You worked hard enough move away from the OP, and you are working even harder to avoid the core issue. I don't need to work hard on your strawman. I can save my energy. So can you.


That's what the OP was about? How did you arrive at that?
Looks to me like the strawman just smirked. My ethics. Your ethics. That's it?


What makes any act moral, or immoral? Who decides that?
Who decides for example, that it is immoral to kill someone who murders another?



I think they call that a loaded question.
How do you know it doesn't harm anyone else? Do you know it doesn't? Why do you believe it's moral?

I think they call that a loaded question.
How do you know it doesn't harm anyone else? Do you know it doesn't? Why do you believe it's moral?

No, it's not a loaded question. A loaded question would be: When did you stop beating your wife?
I simply asked a question: What is immoral about two adults engaging in consensual sex?

How do I KNOW that it doesn't harm anyone? The same way I determine if any of my other actions might harm someone. That's like asking how do I know that eating a banana doesn't harm anyone else? If I or anyone else can't think of a single way that my eating a banana harms someone else, then I conclude that me eating a banana isn't harmful to anyone.

The same goes for consensual sex between adults. Since no one - including you - can explain to me why adults engaging in consensual sex is immoral, I've concluded that it is not.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Good morning.

One of the relevant things in issues like this is the one of Context. Another relevant thing is; Who is the one doing the evaluation and why?

Our biological and our intellectual natures are not necessarily the same thing. Someone may be psychologically biased to a type of behaviours or attitudes and intellectually biased to another similar or contradictory behaviours or attitudes.

Where this is the case, internal conflicts are likely to occur as the behaviours and attitudes clash.

An example of this is where a same sex relationship is desired by the biological mind but the intellectual mind finds it to be unacceptable.

Another example is someone who is biologically biased towards crime and is intellectually biased towards upholding the Law.

How to resolve this conflict depends upon many factors including where and how the pressure to resolve this issue comes from. Those with vested interest or who want to promote a particular outcome can be particularly biased on these occassions.

I think if you believe something to be right and you do it; then you should be willing to accept, however unfair it may be in reality, that someone may not agree with you for a whole host of other reasons.

Hi there!

I think it goes without saying that people disagree with each other. I accept that quite readily. What I don't accept are people attempting to curtail behaviors of others that they think their god doesn't like, but they can't demonstrate any actual harm done by that act.

If you believe something to be wrong and you see other people do it, you should be willing to accept, however wrong you think it might be, that they have a right to do that thing until you can rationally demonstrate why they shouldn't be permitted to do so.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Because those instructions were often ignored... even today, it has resulted in harm to societies all around the globe - every part of the world, actually.
I already explained to you the negative consequences of God's instructions regarding sexuality, especially with regards to the LGBT community. God's instructions were incompetent in that regard.

All the harm that you stated earlier by not following these instructions is negated through the use of contraception, so if the whole world used contraception then that negates your argument.

Also, God's track record when it comes to rules isn't good. In the OT God endorsed slavery, genocide, killing of homosexuals, killing of apostates etc, and there is no way it can be explained away by saying that it was OK because of the times they lived in.

So criticising people for not believing in a God whose rules have been proven to be undesirable and flawed begs the question as to why we should follow him in the first place.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I think that the big problem in this discussion is that there are certain theists who do not want to openly admit that the reason behind God's (there religions actually) laws is irrelevant to them, but that they only care about following them for some future benefit. Hence why they cannot deal properly with the questions and points made, as they cannot dare to question the validity of their beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that the big problem in this discussion is that there are certain theists who do not want to openly admit that the reason behind God's (there religions actually) laws is irrelevant to them, but only care about following them for some future benefit. Hence why they cannot deal properly with the questions and points made, as they cannot dare to question the validity of their beliefs.

Bingo.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So criticising people for not believing in a God whose rules have been proven to be undesirable and flawed begs the question as to why we should follow him in the first place.
I am not criticizing anyone for not believing in that God. Belief has to be a choice, that is why we all have free will to choose.

God's rules have not been proven to be flawed, although they are undesirable to many people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do, even it it is not good for them or for society.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I think that the big problem in this discussion is that there are certain theists who do not want to openly admit that the reason behind God's (there religions actually) laws is irrelevant to them, but that they only care about following them for some future benefit. Hence why they cannot deal properly with the questions and points made, as they cannot dare to question the validity of their beliefs.
That certainly does not apply to me because the reason behind God's laws is irrelevant to me, and I do not only care about following them for some future benefit to myself. Moreover, I can deal properly with the questions and points made. I just do not want to take the time because it would fall on deaf ears.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I think that may be the key point in this discussion.
You believe in a universal sovereign. (And it happens to be the one leading your club.) You assume to have the right to declare laws on behalf of that sovereign. You possibly even want to overthrow the constitution to get rid of religious freedom (and should therefore be on a government watch list.)
I assume to have the right to declare laws on behalf of that sovereign? How so? Did I write the scriptures?
"overthrow the constitution to get rid of religious freedom" ...What? I'll assume you are joking. Right?

At least that is what I (and I guess others here) hear when someone talks about "universal sovereigns".
Oh the system will be thrown out, yes... but it won't be by me. The thing is, the nations are powerless to stop what is coming. It prophecy.
(1 Kings 22:19) I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left.
(Revelation 5:11) And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . .
1102016062_univ_cnt_2_xl.jpg

That doesn't look like a human army to me.
This is actually the account in the Bible, where the attendant of Elijah was allowed to see Jehovah's angelic army.
In time, the nations too will be allowed to see that army, as it arrives.
Then they will have to know that Jehovah is God of armies.
Unfortunately for them, no Government on earth can keep that army on a watch list. Even if they could though, how would that save them. (Daniel 2:44, 45 ; Revelation 19:14-18)
(Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. . . .

To soften that view, can we agree that
1. You have the constitutional right to not engage in homosexual intercourse.
2. Your church has the right to tell its members that they should not engage in homosexual intercourse if they want to stay on the good side of your agreed upon diety.
3. People not in your congregation have the right to their own religious or non-religious morality.
4. Let's all hold to the rights of everyone as set by secular law.
Yes. we can definitely agree on these. I hope you did not get the idea that I didn't
I'm now wondering if you understand the focus of the OP. Hmm.


I suspect that if you actually talked to those 'heathens', they don't act like what you think.
Thanks for volunteering.

And that is a basic point of disagreement. Even if there was a creator (which I don't think there is), that creator would NOT have the right to set standards. If that creation has conscious, feeling individuals, then the creator does NOT have the right to torture them. It does NOT have the right to set of a cruel system which makes their lives miserable.
He would have the right, just as all of us have rights. The difference would be that no one could put him in jail, and he could easily just out everyone else's lights.
However, the God of the Bible does not torture anyone. According to the scriptures, that's not part of God's nature.
(Job 34:10-12) 10 So listen to me, you men of understanding: It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, For the Almighty to do wrong! 11 For he will reward a man according to what he does And bring upon him the consequences of his ways. 12For a certainty, God does not act wickedly; The Almighty does not pervert justice.
(Jeremiah 7:31)

This gets to a very basic issue: from where does morality come? Is it dictated by some being? Or does it follow from compassion and caring?

If the creator is evil, I don't think there is any burden to follow him/her/it. If the creator is good, it should be easy to justify the rules promoted by that creator. Either way, it is compassion and caring that determine morality, NOT the desires of some creator. At least, that's how I see it.

So, if a creator says that homosexuality is immoral without saying *why* it is immoral, there is no requirement to follow the dictates of that creator. If the immorality *can* be justified by showing the actual harm and that harm is greater than the harm of oppression, then the rules should be followed by rational beings. But then, they would be.
Interesting.
I have heard people say, it is compassionate to put people out of their misery, and since the world is so miserable for them, killing them is the solution.
So we even have different views on what is compassion, and caring.
I understand what it means to be compassionate. You understand what it means to be compassionate, and yet they have varying degrees of differences.
How then can it be "compassion and caring that determine morality" if people have a problem determining what is involved in being compassionate and caring?
Maybe the ones who don't understand it the way we do are immoral?

OK, you can choose whatever book you want to follow. But that doesn't mean you get to say the choices others make are immoral. If *you* don't want to do them, that is your business. But, if someone else wants to do something your doesn't like, then they can do so as long as it doesn't harm others. If you want to impose your system on others, you have to give a good reason for doing so.
I don't know where in this thread you got the idea that I want to impose anything. Perhaps you got an idea and went with it, but it certainly is nothing to do with me.
What I am interested in is, for one thing this... "as long as it doesn't harm", as it's part of the argument.
When you don't know what harm is done, you cannot determine that something does no harm. So that last clause throws your argument in the trash. Unless... you can prove that it does not harm others.
It does. I showed this before.
So the trash bin wins.

And, again, each society chooses at what stage a person is considered an adult. Traditional Biblical society said it was at age 13. But you seem to think that is too young to engage in sex in spite of Biblical precedent.
Perhaps you did not understand what I said. I think you should read my post carefully.
If you did read it carefully, I don't think you would reasonably make that contrast.
Considering that conditions change over time, there are reasons why laws or processes change.
For example, God allowed incest for a time. It was not allowed later.

Your right to swing your arm stops at my face. It really is that simple.

An act is immoral if it causes unnecessary harm to another.
There you go using another term that's relative and contextual. Unnecessary, based on what, or whom?
Harm may be necessary. Determining when it is necessary is based on the circumstances.
Take for example war.
Using your reasoning, and or use of these terms so loosely, to support your argument, all war veterans are immoral....and the people who pull the trigger of any gun, including law enforcement.
If you are not saying that, then I don't understand. You'll need to try again.

If you are saying war, and shooting criminals are necessary, then causing harm to someone, is not the determining factor of what is immoral.
So using the phrase - I call it an imaginary crutch, "if it does not cause harm", is really no help to the heathen.

Unless you can show specific harm, then there is no reason to restrict an act.

I believe gay sex is moral for exactly the same reason I believe straight sex is moral and in the same situations: it is an expression of love and caring between people, strengthening the bond between them. Or, alternatively, it is a mutually beneficial interaction where stress is released and a human connection is made.
I don't think people can't see the harm. I think they don't want to see it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
He would have the right, just as all of us have rights. The difference would be that no one could put him in jail, and he could easily just out everyone else's lights.
However, the God of the Bible does not torture anyone. According to the scriptures, that's not part of God's nature.

Which just goes to show that the Bible is fiction. The fact is that people *are* tortured because of the supposed dictates of the Biblical deity.

(Job 34:10-12) 10 So listen to me, you men of understanding: It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, For the Almighty to do wrong! 11 For he will reward a man according to what he does And bring upon him the consequences of his ways. 12For a certainty, God does not act wickedly; The Almighty does not pervert justice.
(Jeremiah 7:31)

All this shows is that either the Bible is wrong about the morality of God or that it is wrong about the existence of God at all. According to the Bible itself, God has many times encouraged murder, slavery, and other atrocities. That makes the Biblical God evil, I would say.

Interesting.
I have heard people say, it is compassionate to put people out of their misery, and since the world is so miserable for them, killing them is the solution.
So we even have different views on what is compassion, and caring.
I understand what it means to be compassionate. You understand what it means to be compassionate, and yet they have varying degrees of differences.
How then can it be "compassion and caring that determine morality" if people have a problem determining what is involved in being compassionate and caring?
Maybe the ones who don't understand it the way we do are immoral?

It is precisely the fact that we consider different things to be compassionate that leads us to different moral conclusions. This is ultimately why much of morality is a matter of opinion and not of fact.

I don't know where in this thread you got the idea that I want to impose anything. Perhaps you got an idea and went with it, but it certainly is nothing to do with me.
What I am interested in is, for one thing this... "as long as it doesn't harm", as it's part of the argument.
When you don't know what harm is done, you cannot determine that something does no harm. So that last clause throws your argument in the trash. Unless... you can prove that it does not harm others.
It does. I showed this before.
So the trash bin wins.

The default is to allow people freedom of action unless it can be shown that action would cause harm. You are attempting to say something is immoral even if no harm has been demonstrated.

Perhaps you did not understand what I said. I think you should read my post carefully.
If you did read it carefully, I don't think you would reasonably make that contrast.
Considering that conditions change over time, there are reasons why laws or processes change.
For example, God allowed incest for a time. It was not allowed later.

So you think that morality changes over time? In that case, perhaps homosexuality is now moral?

There you go using another term that's relative and contextual. Unnecessary, based on what, or whom?
Harm may be necessary. Determining when it is necessary is based on the circumstances.
Take for example war.
Using your reasoning, and or use of these terms so loosely, to support your argument, all war veterans are immoral....and the people who pull the trigger of any gun, including law enforcement.
If you are not saying that, then I don't understand. You'll need to try again.

If you are saying war, and shooting criminals are necessary, then causing harm to someone, is not the determining factor of what is immoral.
So using the phrase - I call it an imaginary crutch, "if it does not cause harm", is really no help to the heathen.

I don't think people can't see the harm. I think they don't want to see it.

Please let us know what the harm is, then. I see no harm at all. In fact, I see many benefits. Unless you can show there is harm enough to overcome those benefits, there is no reason to call these actions immoral.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Let's not. Let's have you actually answer the question I asked.



No, I am not. You broadened the subject to what makes acts moral or immoral broadly speaking, sexual or otherwise. I asked you a question about an act I assume both of us would agree is immoral. I could've asked it about murder, or some other egregious act we'd both agree on. The question remains, if the Creator asks you to do something, does his asking make that thing moral, or is he constrained to only command things which are themselves moral to begin with? Asking about an act that is broadly considered immoral drives the point. If God asks you to commit murder, does that make it moral, because God asked? Or would God not ask that, because it's immoral? If the latter, the question is, for the 20th time, why is that thing immoral?



No, let's raise scenarios, nPeace. In any moral quandary you raise, and indeed they are fascinating and complicated and shaded with grey, one glaring point remains: your god is morally useless to solve them. Theism doesn't get us one inch closer to a resolution of any such rock-and-a-hard-place moral questions. If you claim your god wants us to torture someone, we still need to ask what makes that command moral, under what circumstances, etc. Otherwise you're just making a bald claim that whatever your god says goes, with no evidence, no matter how morally repugnant the command is.

So again, invoking your god does not help you rationally address what is moral or not.



And that goes for what your god allegedly thinks as well. Until we actually do the work of morally reasoning, we don't know.



Again, if the creator "makes a law," we still have to ask the fundamental question of what makes his laws moral. This is the basic Euthyphro dilemma that no theist has been able to adequately address since the ancient Greeks were around. And you, evidently, are no different.



You have access to precisely zero of Jesus direct words or actions. All you have are books written decades later by other people of what Jesus allegedly did or said.
I don't have to hear or see someone directly to know what they said and did.
I know the people who lived and died left traces of what they did and said - the Assyrians; the Hittites; Herod; Herodotus, Caesar; Jesus the Christ; the apostles of Christ; Thucydides; Martin Luther King; John Wesley; John Wycliffe; Josephus; Plato.... and the list goes on.
Anyone who makes the argument that because we have not directly heard someone but only have writings, do not know what the person said has taken it upon themselves to dismiss perhaps 80% of history.
They can do that if they like, but it erases history only for them, and not most of mankind.
Your worldview is entirely your. It's not mine.

Those are all written by humans. Not your god. Like countless other faiths claiming to speak for the divine.

If anyone knows what God thinks, they've given zero evidence to date that they do. You could start. :shrug:
That is not true, but you are entitled to believe what you wish

What makes a family, a family? If a couple adopts a child, are they a family?

As before, the importance of "the family" (however you're defining that) stands or falls independently of whether a deity "originated" it.

All claims, no evidence.

Thank you for posting this. Note that it does not actually show how many of those young people contracted any sort of STI, or had an unwanted pregnancy, etc. from their premarital sexual encounters. Note also that the study showed that condom usage was inconsistent.

Now you're aware that all of these "consequences" you mention are not consistent, right? Rates of STIs, unwanted pregnancies, and so on, fluctuate over time based on things like contraception usage, number of sexual partners, and so on.

And you're also aware that those things happen to heterosexual married couples, right?

So if a heterosexual married couple has an unwanted pregnancy, is that evidence that their relationship is inherently sinful and against God's "plan?"

And if an unmarried couple has sex, and does not contract an STI or have an unwanted pregnancy, would you admit no harm was done? Or at least that you have no evidence it was?

If your answer to either of those questions is no, then this isn't about STIs and unwanted pregnancies. That's smoke and mirrors. You are still convinced of some "harm" being done when people have sex without saying I Do first. But it's a harm you have yet to actually demonstrate. So can you?

The thing is, we can get into as much details as you like about the "repercussions" of what you think "immorality" is. And indeed, I agree that sex involves risks and can harm. Even straight married sex involves risks and can harm. The bottom line though, is that the adults in my scenario have no STIs, they have no unwanted pregnancy. They use contraception effectively. Why is their sexual behavior immoral?

Indeed children copy adult behaviors, no big surprise there. That doesn't demonstrate that all extramarital sex, or all same-sex sex, is immoral though. Many people engage in sex outside marriage, or gay sex, and are not harmed in any demonstrable way. In the case of gay people, the harm done to them by religious institutions who convince them their sexuality is evil, unnatural, etc. and that they should repress or change their orientation needs no recitation (I hope). Yet I'd wager that you support such teachings.

The thing is, you are trying to come up with a rationalization for the absolutist sexual ethics of your religion, when you don't have the evidence to back it up. So your retort is that the harm may be unseen. But of course, anyone can say that about anything. Being a JW is harming you, nPeace! You just don't see the harm! But you will! One day!

Does that convince you? It shouldn't. So why would anyone else be convinced by your claim that their sex life is hurting them, but they just don't see how? The time to believe something is when you have evidence for it.

More claims, no evidence. I just told you that reciting Bible verses is not evidence. I care about the evidence (or more likely, lack thereof) behind what the Bible verses say.
You asked me why God views immoral sex as wrong. You got your answer... with evidence.
Enough said on that strawman.
This is why I was going to heed
Matthew 7:6 and not provide this information, because I knew from past experiences what would transpire. We make mistakes, but we learn from them.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Which just goes to show that the Bible is fiction. The fact is that people *are* tortured because of the supposed dictates of the Biblical deity.
What faulty reasoning.

All this shows is that either the Bible is wrong about the morality of God or that it is wrong about the existence of God at all. According to the Bible itself, God has many times encouraged murder, slavery, and other atrocities. That makes the Biblical God evil, I would say.
God has never encouraged murder, nor murdered anyone, but the way you twisted it is interesting.
Why is slavery immoral? What other atrocities has God committed?

It is precisely the fact that we consider different things to be compassionate that leads us to different moral conclusions. This is ultimately why much of morality is a matter of opinion and not of fact.
Yup. Thanks.

The default is to allow people freedom of action unless it can be shown that action would cause harm. You are attempting to say something is immoral even if no harm has been demonstrated.
You have not provided any basis for accepting that immoral = harm caused. Grabbing at straws is not proof of claims, or ideas.

So you think that morality changes over time? In that case, perhaps homosexuality is now moral?
Did I say morality changes over time? No. Can I make this bigger... No.
This is where understanding matters.
When someone is young, the treatment they receive is based on consideration for their makeup, needs, etc.
When they are much older, their makeup and needs change, and so does the treatment
Morality has not changed. The treatment of the situation did.

Please let us know what the harm is, then. I see no harm at all. In fact, I see many benefits. Unless you can show there is harm enough to overcome those benefits, there is no reason to call these actions immoral.
I did. I don't believe you want to see.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't have to hear or see someone directly to know what the said and did.
I know the people who lived and died left traces of what the did and said - the Assyrians; the Hittites; Herod; Herodotus, Caesar; Jesus the Christ; the apostles of Christ; Thucydides; Martin Luther King; John Wesley; John Wycliffe; Josephus; Plato.... and the list goes on.
Anyone who makes the argument that because we have not directly heard someone but only have writings, do not know what the person said has taken it upon themselves to dismiss perhaps 80% of history.

Nonsense. I mean, really. MLK? We literally have video and audio recordings of him. You know that, right? A few of the other folks on your list, we have their direct writings. Others, we don't have direct writings of, but what we are asked to believe about them from second and third hand sources isn't implausible magical stuff like curing blindness with spit-mud, walking on water, instantly ending a storm with a word, magically multiplying a tiny amount of food to feed thousands of people, or rising from the dead after being crucified and then floating up into the clouds. That's the stuff of mythology. As you yourself likely recognize when it comes to any other myths other than your favorites.

So when you look back in history, we look not only at the sources of information and how reliable and direct they are, but also assess the plausibility of the claims themselves. Christianity fails miserably on both counts.

You asked me why God views immortal sex as wrong. You got your answer... with evidence.

No. I didn't.

What I got was evidence that sometimes people who have sex get STIs and have unwanted pregnancies. I did not get evidence that every single sexual act outside heterosexual monogamy is immoral.

You haven’t substantively interacted with my reply at all.


This is why I was going to heed
Matthew 7:6 and not provide this information, because I knew from past experiences what would transpire. We make mistakes, but we learn from them.

Calling me a pig may make you feel good, but it doesn't make your argument(s) any less terrible.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Nonsense. I mean, really. MLK? We literally have video and audio recordings of him. You know that, right? A few of the other folks on your list, we have their direct writings. Others, we don't have direct writings of, but what we are asked to believe about them from second and third hand sources isn't implausible magical stuff like curing blindness with spit-mud, walking on water, instantly ending a storm with a word, magically multiplying a tiny amount of food to feed thousands of people, or rising from the dead after being crucified and then floating up into the clouds. That's the stuff of mythology. As you yourself likely recognize when it comes to any other myths other than your favorites.

So when you look back in history, we look not only at the sources of information and how reliable and direct they are, but also assess the plausibility of the claims themselves. Christianity fails miserably on both counts.



No. I didn't.

What I got was evidence that sometimes people who have sex get STIs and have unwanted pregnancies. I did not get evidence that every single sexual act outside heterosexual monogamy is immoral.

You haven’t substantively interacted with my reply at all.




Calling me a pig may make you feel good, but it doesn't make your argument(s) any less terrible.
Goodbye.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What faulty reasoning.

Really? What, specifically, is faulty about it?

God has never encouraged murder, nor murdered anyone, but the way you twisted it is interesting.
Why is slavery immoral? What other atrocities has God committed?

he literally encouraged genocide of the Canaanites. That included putting innocents to death.

If you can't see why slavery is immoral, then discussing morality is going to be pointless.

Once again, compassion and caring shows that one person owning another is immoral.

You have not provided any basis for accepting that immoral = harm caused. Grabbing at straws is not proof of claims, or ideas.

More specifically, morality is about how people interact with each other. Those things are declared immoral that harm another without a better good to compensate. it is always a balance of competing interests.

Did I say morality changes over time? No. Can I make this bigger... No.
This is where understanding matters.
When someone is young, the treatment they receive is based on consideration for their makeup, needs, etc.
When they are much older, their makeup and needs change, and so does the treatment
Morality has not changed. The treatment of the situation did.

Which means that you are saying that the punishment depends on the circumstances. That the degree to which something is wrong depends on why and when it happens.

I did. I don't believe you want to see.

You mentioned unplanned pregnancies and STDs. Those can both be dealt with today. Is that the only harm you can point to? And do you realize that both of these are aspects of sex in marriage as well? So it in no way distinguishes married sex from sex outside of marriage or with those of the same sex.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Really? What, specifically, is faulty about it?
Every word you said is faulty reasoning.
Which just goes to show that the Bible is fiction.
People are tortured because of the supposed dictates of the Biblical deity?

I said nothing that could allow a person to reasonably come to those conclusions.
You created some idea from God knows where, and called it a fact. Faulty reasoning.

he literally encouraged genocide of the Canaanites. That included putting innocents to death.
If one reads the Bible carefully, and remove any biased worldview, but have an open mind, these false ideas would not exist. One would also understand that God was executing judgment upon the wicked, and cleansing the land of uncleanness.
(Leviticus 18:22-30)
22 “‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman.
It is a detestable act
.
23 “‘A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it.
It is a violation of what is natural.

24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean.
25Therefore, the land is unclean, and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out. 26But you yourselves must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, and you must not do any of these detestable things, whether a native or a foreigner who is residing among you.
27For all these detestable things were done by the men who lived in the land before you, and now the land is unclean. 28 Then the land will not have to vomit you out for defiling it in the same way that it will vomit out the nations that were before you.
29If anyone does any of these detestable things, all those doing them must be cut off from among their people.
30You must keep your obligation to me by not practicing any of the detestable customs that were carried on before you, so that you do not make yourselves unclean by them. I am Jehovah your God.’

(Deuteronomy 20:17, 18) 17 Instead, you should devote them completely to destruction, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, just as Jehovah your God has commanded you; 18so that they may not teach you to follow all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods, causing you to sin against Jehovah your God.

(Leviticus 20:13) “‘If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

Any king has the right to execute the grossly wicked, if they deem them worthy of death.
Any king has the right to cleanse the land under which he rules.
The earth belongs to Jehovah - the universal king.
(Exodus 19:5) Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. . .

Were they innocent? There was none.
It was so bad that Jehovah said, "Devote everything to destruction, including the animals."

This is also why certain animals became detestable for eating.
When Noah came out of the ark, God told him he could eat any animal. No laws were given on not eating certain animals. It was only after God led the nation of Israel out of Egypt, that he instructed the not to eat certain animals.
This helps us to see that the earth was so saturated with people practicing detestable things, the animals were highly diseased. We can say, there was a spurt in genetic defect.

Of course, those who practice detestable things would have considered God evil, but what does that have to do with the king. The king makes rules based on what is right and just.
The Bible says, "for with Jehovah our God there is no injustice, no partiality, no bribe-taking". (2 Chronicles 19:7). .

The connection between these detestable practices and worship to demons was made evident. (Deuteronomy 18:9-13)
(Deuteronomy 20:18) . . .all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods. . .

A diseased banana tree, contaminates all the others, and needs to be burned, along with any offspring.
This is likewise how Jehovah has acted, and will act in the future.

I see nothing immoral about that.

If you can't see why slavery is immoral, then discussing morality is going to be pointless.
I asked a simple question. You only need to tell me what's immoral about it, since you agreed that what's moral differs between individuals and societies.
Or do you want me to think and believe like you, and if I don't, then I am beneath you and looked down upon?
Isn't that what you are accusing me of?
Therefore, if you don't see what's immoral about homosexual practices, it's pointless discussing morality.
I'll remember this.

Prison-Image-700x320.jpg

JxdKXzkKvgzNMBK-800x450-noPad.jpg

fugitivefromachaingang_6309.jpg


Once again, compassion and caring shows that one person owning another is immoral.
So it's immoral to take prisoners, and keep them locked up, depriving them of freedom.

More specifically, morality is about how people interact with each other. Those things are declared immoral that harm another without a better good to compensate. it is always a balance of competing interests.
That how you determine morality... how people interact with each other?
I wish I could do a survey and see how many people agree with that... but I can't.
Opinion acknowledged.

Which means that you are saying that the punishment depends on the circumstances. That the degree to which something is wrong depends on why and when it happens.
Something can be morally right, but circumstances may alter how it is treated, or what measures may need to be put in place... if that's what you are saying.

You mentioned unplanned pregnancies and STDs. Those can both be dealt with today. Is that the only harm you can point to? And do you realize that both of these are aspects of sex in marriage as well? So it in no way distinguishes married sex from sex outside of marriage or with those of the same sex.
That's what you chose to pick out... like cherry picking.
Like I said, people don't want to see. They pick out what they want to see.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Every word you said is faulty reasoning.
Which just goes to show that the Bible is fiction.
People are tortured because of the supposed dictates of the Biblical deity?

I said nothing that could allow a person to reasonably come to those conclusions.
You created some idea from God knows where, and called it a fact. Faulty reasoning.


If one reads the Bible carefully, and remove any biased worldview, but have an open mind, these false ideas would not exist. One would also understand that God was executing judgment upon the wicked, and cleansing the land of uncleanness.
(Leviticus 18:22-30)
22 “‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman.
It is a detestable act
.
23 “‘A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it.
It is a violation of what is natural.

24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean.
25Therefore, the land is unclean, and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out. 26But you yourselves must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, and you must not do any of these detestable things, whether a native or a foreigner who is residing among you.
27For all these detestable things were done by the men who lived in the land before you, and now the land is unclean. 28 Then the land will not have to vomit you out for defiling it in the same way that it will vomit out the nations that were before you.
29If anyone does any of these detestable things, all those doing them must be cut off from among their people.
30You must keep your obligation to me by not practicing any of the detestable customs that were carried on before you, so that you do not make yourselves unclean by them. I am Jehovah your God.’

And by saying that about acts that are harmless, that declaration makes Jehovah evil.

(Deuteronomy 20:17, 18) 17 Instead, you should devote them completely to destruction, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, just as Jehovah your God has commanded you; 18so that they may not teach you to follow all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods, causing you to sin against Jehovah your God.

(Leviticus 20:13) “‘If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

Any king has the right to execute the grossly wicked, if they deem them worthy of death.
Any king has the right to cleanse the land under which he rules.
The earth belongs to Jehovah - the universal king.
(Exodus 19:5) Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. . .

Were they innocent? There was none.
It was so bad that Jehovah said, "Devote everything to destruction, including the animals."

And in promoting genocide, including the killing of innocent children, Jehovah shows himself to be evil. By declaring even the animals needed to be killed, Jehovah showed himself to be inhumane and cruel.

This is also why certain animals became detestable for eating.
When Noah came out of the ark, God told him he could eat any animal. No laws were given on not eating certain animals. It was only after God led the nation of Israel out of Egypt, that he instructed the not to eat certain animals.
This helps us to see that the earth was so saturated with people practicing detestable things, the animals were highly diseased. We can say, there was a spurt in genetic defect.

Show such a genetic effect.

Of course, those who practice detestable things would have considered God evil, but what does that have to do with the king. The king makes rules based on what is right and just.
The Bible says, "for with Jehovah our God there is no injustice, no partiality, no bribe-taking". (2 Chronicles 19:7). .

A king has no right to commit immoral deeds. There is no right to torture and kill whole populations. This is one reason why kingships, in general, are evil.

The connection between these detestable practices and worship to demons was made evident. (Deuteronomy 18:9-13)
(Deuteronomy 20:18) . . .all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods. . .

And what about all the detestable practices done for the Biblical God?

A diseased banana tree, contaminates all the others, and needs to be burned, along with any offspring.
This is likewise how Jehovah has acted, and will act in the future.

I see nothing immoral about that.

Which I find quite telling.

I asked a simple question. You only need to tell me what's immoral about it, since you agreed that what's moral differs between individuals and societies.
And I answered you. But you ignored the answer.

Or do you want me to think and believe like you, and if I don't, then I am beneath you and looked down upon?
Isn't that what you are accusing me of?
Therefore, if you don't see what's immoral about homosexual practices, it's pointless discussing morality.
I'll remember this.

So it's immoral to take prisoners, and keep them locked up, depriving them of freedom.

If they have done actual harm to others, no. If they have not, then yes, it is wrong.


That how you determine morality... how people interact with each other?
I wish I could do a survey and see how many people agree with that... but I can't.
Opinion acknowledged.

That is exactly what morality is all about: how to treat others in a way that promotes a healthy a functioning society.

omething can be morally right, but circumstances may alter how it is treated, or what measures may need to be put in place... if that's what you are saying.

That's what you chose to pick out... like cherry picking.
Like I said, people don't want to see. They pick out what they want to see.

OK, make it explicit what you see the harm of gay sex to be. Not just those things that it shares with married sex or heterosexual sex. What is specifically wrong with two men having sex? or two women, for that matter?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And by saying that about acts that are harmless, that declaration makes Jehovah evil.
You lost me. I never said God tortured anyone.
You got the idea that he did, and called it fact.

And in promoting genocide, including the killing of innocent children, Jehovah shows himself to be evil.
So you agree that abortion is evil. Killing innocent babies.
The children God killed were not innocent, as I quoted from scripture. Not sure you read it.

By declaring even the animals needed to be killed, Jehovah showed himself to be inhumane and cruel.
Therefore, "putting down" any animal is immoral
Again, the cleansing of the land was necessary. That's not inhumane and cruel. It acting for the good of humanity living in that land.

Show such a genetic effect.
Show LUCA.

A king has no right to commit immoral deeds. There is no right to torture and kill whole populations. This is one reason why kingships, in general, are evil.
The Bible said nothing about torture. I suggest if you are here making up stories that are not written, we end this conversation. I am not interested in discussing anything with someone who is going to just make up things.
If you claim God tortured anything, then please provide the scriptures that says he did.
Otherwise, it's a lie.

If a king decides to pop the neck of a murderer or chop his head off, it is not immoral just because you think so. Romans 13:1-4

And what about all the detestable practices done for the Biblical God?
Like what? The things you claim, which are not in the Bible, or the things you don't agree with?

Which I find quite telling.
I find this and other conversations with you, telling. So what's new.

And I answered you. But you ignored the answer.
I ignored none of your post. I think this is the last time I am speaking to you. It's not moral to tell lies... especially on others.
If one consents to tell lies to themselves, that's their prerogative. To tell lies on others, is doing others harm. It's not the harm done, that makes the act immoral. It's the principle of love, that deems it immoral.
This is the root cause of immorality - lack of love... not love from the heathen perspective.

If they have done actual harm to others, no. If they have not, then yes, it is wrong.
They harmed others, so good. Immortality does not equal to harm. That crutch is imaginary, and useless.

That is exactly what morality is all about: how to treat others in a way that promotes a healthy a functioning society.
No, it is not. That's your opinion.

OK, make it explicit what you see the harm of gay sex to be. Not just those things that it shares with married sex or heterosexual sex. What is specifically wrong with two men having sex? or two women, for that matter?
If you are reading the posts, you will see the harm mentioned. If you don't see it, I cannot help you. You won't see it.
 
Top