Sex and demons

[Kenny]

Joseph Smith?
Marshall Applewhite?
Ken Hamm?
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
David Koresh?
Sun Myung Moon?
Dalai Lama?
Any of dozens of Iranian Ayatollahs?
The Pope (which one)?

Oh, wait -- was that a trick question?

how was it shown? was there a demonstration?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

how was it shown? was there a demonstration?

You were referring to @Skwim's statement that "everything should be presumed to be ethical until shown otherwise." You responded with "shown by whom?"

But how does that matter? It can be shown in any of millions of ways as humans interact with one another. By a spouse who points out that he or she has been mistreated, by the kid in the schoolyard who says, "you shouldn't do that to people," by seeing the hurt on a child's face when you've taken their toy or called their mother some horrible name. By yourself merely by stating that you've been hurt by what someone else has done -- and if the hurt is legitimate (that is, not caused by yourself objecting to something you have no business objecting to), then that's legit, too.

Or even, dare I say it, by knowing in your heart that stoning that girl to death for giving in to a very real human urge is wrong, wrong, wrong! Yes, your own heart can tell what is ethical or not -- if you learn to listen to it, and not Mr. busy-body preacher-man.

But your question makes quite clear that you weren't looking for any of those sorts of answers -- you want somebody to make explicit the "outside arbiter" that decides -- on all of our behalfs -- what is right and wrong.

And I suggested a list -- and wrote it in such a way as to suggest that I think your position doesn't hold water.

 

[Kenny]

You were referring to @Skwim's statement that "everything should be presumed to be ethical until shown otherwise." You responded with "shown by whom?"

Correct.

And you gave me a list of human beings. did you want to be the arbiter?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Correct.

And you gave me a list of human beings. did you want to be the arbiter?

Only about things that I do, or that affect me, or about which I can observe affect others -- and about which I know something.

Unfortunately, due to some failure of introduction or other, I don't know anybody other than human beings. You think you do, but I've seen no actual evidence of that. Certainly none that suggests that you have access to deeper wisdom than I do, since I find many of the things you say to be quite unwise.

 

[Kenny]

Only about things that I do, or that affect me, or about which I can observe affect others -- and about which I know something.

Unfortunately, due to some failure of introduction or other, I don't know anybody other than human beings. You think you do, but I've seen no actual evidence of that.

Ok... so we have established that we don't know. So, how does that invalidate my answer?

"presumed OK" until otherwise shown" isn't very specific.

I will rob a bank until someone shows me it is wrong. Since I presumed it was OK, do I get a "do not go to jail" card?

Certainly none that suggests that you have access to deeper wisdom than I do, since I find many of the things you say to be quite unwise.

That is a great demonstration of how arbitrary things are. Here you want to be the arbiter of who is wise and who isn't.

Did I say I was wiser than you?

 

[Skwim]

Shown by whom?

Shown by anyone you put your trust in. Which should be moi.

.

.

 

[Kenny]

Shown by anyone you put your trust in. Which should be moi.

.

.

funny AND friendly! But you can only give one frubal

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok... so we have established that we don't know. So, how does that invalidate my answer?

"presumed OK" until otherwise shown" isn't very specific.

I will rob a bank until someone shows me it is wrong. Since I presumed it was OK, do I get a "do not go to jail" card?

So, unless you are told by some external body that robbing a bank is wrong, you are not capable of knowing that on your own? Is that really what you are saying? Would you feel that it was wrong if somebody robbed you? If that's the case, can you identify what exactly is wrong about it? Maybe, like it hurt you, it caused financial damage to you? And from that, you cannot figure out that doing the same things to others is also likely to be wrong?

That is a great demonstration of how arbitrary things are. Here you want to be the arbiter of who is wise and who isn't.

Arbitrary, Ken? Not hardly, if you simply think. It doesn't take a bloody genius to work out "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you." Every religion on earth, and a whole lot of others without religion, can manage that. I wonder why for you it is "arbitrary?"

Did I say I was wiser than you?

I hope not, because I would then have to ask harder questions.

 

[Kenny]

So, unless you are told by some external body that robbing a bank is wrong, you are not capable of knowing that on your own? Is that really what you are saying? Would you feel that it was wrong if somebody robbed you? If that's the case, can you identify what exactly is wrong about it? Maybe, like it hurt you, it caused financial damage to you? And from that, you cannot figure out that doing the same things to others is also likely to be wrong?

I know we are certainly deviating from the original post, from what Skwim posted and what the OP is about, but to follow your lead:

You are speaking as if it is a given (when, in reality, you are talking within our culture).

But talk to a tribe of cannibals and ask them if it is OK to eat someone from another tribe. Apparently, and obviously, they wouldn't agree with you or your statement of "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you". They certainly had no conscientious objection to making you their dinner.

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. My point is simply that the "who" is arbitrary unless you have an a standard that changes not.

Arbitrary, Ken? Not hardly, if you simply think. It doesn't take a bloody genius to work out "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you." Every religion on earth, and a whole lot of others without religion, can manage that. I wonder why for you it is "arbitrary?"

Because "YOU" said I had made "unwise" statement which placed "YOU" are the arbiter of who/what is wise and who/what isn't.

so.... unless you want to do the backstroke....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know we are certainly deviating from the original post, from what Skwim posted and what the OP is about, but to follow your lead:

You are speaking as if it is a given (when, in reality, you are talking within our culture).

But talk to a tribe of cannibals and ask them if it is OK to eat someone from another tribe. Apparently, and obviously, they wouldn't agree with you or your statement of "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you". They certainly had no conscientious objection to making you their dinner.

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. My point is simply that the "who" is arbitrary unless you have an a standard that changes not.

I think it rather silly to bring up a fairly rare example, and pretend we're talking norms. And in any case, war is generally recognized as something seemingly okay, as we've even gone to the effort -- through much of recorded history -- of establishing the rules by which we play that game. So, hard for me to wonder why someone who thinks killing in warfare is okay, but not to eat the resulting flesh. After all, say Flanders and Swan in "The Reluctant Cannibal" song, "if the JuJu had meant us not to eat people, he wouldn't have made us of meat!"

Now, just so you understand, I'm not a war buff, either. I don't like the notion of killing people just because I think I should own their land, or rule their people, or whatever.

However, if I'm not mistaken, war was generally okayed by the Bible, as well -- and often enough, even encouraged by God for the sole purpose of taking a people's territory away from them and making it your own. So this brings back to your original question (about whether something should be considered ethical until shown not to be): "Shown by whom?" And that establishes that you believe that it is necessary for some external "whom" to decide for you what you think is ethical. So I was wondering, since I don't believe in your God (or his wars to conquer Canaan), to whom should I go? Or do you think that, because I'm an atheist, I can, indeed, work it out for myself, even if some religious types can't?

 

[Kenny]

I think it rather silly to bring up a fairly rare example, and pretend we're talking norms. And in any case, war is generally recognized as something seemingly okay, as we've even gone to the effort -- through much of recorded history -- of establishing the rules by which we play that game. So, hard for me to wonder why someone who thinks killing in warfare is okay, but not to eat the resulting flesh. After all, say Flanders and Swan in "The Reluctant Cannibal" song, "if the JuJu had meant us not to eat people, he wouldn't have made us of meat!"

Now, just so you understand, I'm not a war buff, either. I don't like the notion of killing people just because I think I should own their land, or rule their people, or whatever.

However, if I'm not mistaken, war was generally okayed by the Bible, as well -- and often enough, even encouraged by God for the sole purpose of taking a people's territory away from them and making it your own. So this brings back to your original question (about whether something should be considered ethical until shown not to be): "Shown by whom?" And that establishes that you believe that it is necessary for some external "whom" to decide for you what you think is ethical. So I was wondering, since I don't believe in your God (or his wars to conquer Canaan), to whom should I go? Or do you think that, because I'm an atheist, I can, indeed, work it out for myself, even if some religious types can't?

I'm sorry EH, you are just all over the place.

I no longer even know the thread-thought you are wishing to pursue.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, I've heard of this stuff before. People are weird. I personally feel that people having sexual relations outside of that with a real, living human being (sex dolls where the people think they have a "relationship" with the doll, people having sexual relationships with animals and so on) points to that person having a psychological problem that prevents them from forming a healthy relationship with a human being and there are many. Honestly I think it's rather dumb and ignore it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm sorry EH, you are just all over the place.

I no longer even know the thread-thought you are wishing to pursue.

It's very easy to follow. I'll start a new thread, and you can -- if you feel like it -- see if you can follow. Ken, I have tried assiduously with you, over several years now, to get you to think a little bit more deeply about some of the things you say so glibly. It's a worth-while effort, trust me. Anyway, I'll start a thread before the day is over, and you'll know it's there because I'll reference you in it.

 

[Kenny]

to get you to think a little bit more deeply about some of the things you say so glibly

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A ghost may want sex but if they'll never say they love you because they know you can see right through them...just sayin'.

I dated a ghost, but it did not work out. Oui jas drift apart.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am pretty sure that relationships that do not exist are not subject to ethical issues. Though, the Bible does mention lustful intent towards another as committing an act of adultery, I do not agree with that notion. To what extent is lustful intent. Is mere attraction enough? Who knows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am pretty sure that relationships that do not exist are not subject to ethical issues. Though, the Bible does mention lustful intent towards another as committing an act of adultery, I do not agree with that notion. To what extent is lustful intent. Is mere attraction enough? Who knows.

In any event, that passage refers to feelings for actual people and not fantasy people.