Fair enough. For me, the situations are equivalent. The knowledge of what is supposed to be 'best for me' is not to be determined by someone else, even a deity.
-
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
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Fair enough. For me, the situations are equivalent. The knowledge of what is supposed to be 'best for me' is not to be determined by someone else, even a deity.
It is very hard to see why you don't understand the consequences of your assertions. How can it be that a timeless God is writing for "different times in history?" An omniscient deity knows nothing abut history --- all time is simply "what is."
As to why scriptures of different religions would differ, it can only be that the HUMANS who wrote them differed. If "God" wrote them, they would not differ in any meaningful way.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I guess you do not understand what I was trying to convey. God being outside of time is irrelevant because humans exist in time, and since the scriptures are written to and for humans they are time-oriented, and they have to be pertinent to the times in which they were written and the times to which they are are applicable.
For example, Old Testament scriptures were written for people who lived 4000 years ago and that is why they do not apply to people living today. The spiritual teachings are timeless and do not need to change, but the message that the world needs to hear today is not the same as the message that was needed 4000 years ago because the world is much different now. Also, the social teachings and laws need to change with the times.
“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy? In like manner, every time the Prophets of God have illumined the world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies of the age in which they appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Since you are an atheist how could it be determined by a deity you do not believe exists?
But hypothetically speaking, if you believed in a deity, wouldn't you believed that the deity would know what is best for you?
How could it be otherwise if the deity was All-Knowing?
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Is a deities existence dependent upon the belief that it exists?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Absolutely not. A deity either exists or not and it would exist if it existed if not one person believed in it.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Please Note!
If you are not here to debate the OP, or you just want to attack the poster, or make disparaging remarks, please refrain from posting in this thread.
If however, you cannot help yourself, as it makes you feel good about yourself, and you want to feel even better to receive a pat on the back from your buddies, it's a free world. Go right ahead and knock yourself out.
On the other hand I hope you are above that, and can support your side of the argument, with something more than a pea shooter.
By the way, if any of this makes youjust go to the bathroom, and stay out the kitchen... please.
The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
To put it in another way - the way it come over to me.... Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.
Is this view reasonable, ethical, and sound, or is it just a poor excuse, and a weak argument?
I want to show how it's the latter.
1.
Talking about children at the age of puberty. If two children ages 10-15 wants to engage in sexual intercourse, either with children their age, or an adult, is that considered right?
The answer varies apparently. Some say yes, Some say no, but it depends on where one lives.
For example...
In some countries the age of consent is at 9 years old, some 10, 11... (the argument that they are not adults is irrelevant, since this is not consistent, but changes over time).
Adult - Wikipedia.
Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult additionally has meanings associated with social and legal concepts. In contrast to a "minor", a legal adult is a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient, and responsible. The typical age of attaining legal adulthood is 18, although definition may vary by legal rights and country.
Human adulthood encompasses psychological adult development. Definitions of adulthood are often inconsistent and contradictory; a person may be biologically an adult, and have adult behavior but still be treated as a child if they are under the legal age of majority. Conversely, one may legally be an adult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that may define an adult character.
List of countries by age of consent - Wikipedia
View attachment 45531
Why is something not automatically right, because those involved consent?
It is because there are factors involved. 1) There are laws prohibiting it. 2) There are underlying principles governing those laws (For example... taking into consideration the development of the child - both mentally and physically). 3) It's a moral issue.
Consent does not mean right, in this case, It only means it is accepted by some.
2.
Two adults, wants to engage in sexual intercourse.
Is it right because they are both adults, and consent?
The answer again varies. Some say yes. some say no.
However, again, it depends on some factors - including where one lives.
For example...
If they are of the same sex, it is a violation of law, in at least 70 countries... and or of different sexes it is against the law of some cultures and communities.
Adultery is extramarital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds. Although the sexual activities that constitute adultery vary, as well as the social, religious, and legal consequences, the concept exists in many cultures and is similar in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. A single act of sexual intercourse is generally sufficient to constitute adultery, and a more long-term sexual relationship is sometimes referred to as an affair.
Some of these acts are punishable with death - 13 countries where being gay is legally punishable by death
Both same sex intercourse, and extramarital intercourse are against the laws of God, according to the Bible, and those who hold to Bible principles. (Mark 7:20-23 ; Matthew 15:19, 20 ; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)... as well as others.
View attachment 45532
There is also the law of marriage.
If one of the parties is married, how is it right for that person to adulterate the marriage bed? How is it morally right to be unfaithful to one's mate - breaking the marriage vow (which isn't much of a vow in some cases, anyways, in my opinion)?
The wife or husband who cherishes the oneness of the family, is hurt.
So the argument that two consenting adults are not doing anything wrong, or not hurting anyone, is nothing more than a lie - a lie told to self, and others.
Conclusion
Considering all these factors... the conclusion is, the consent argument, is a subjective opinion which is presented as a reasonable and sensible 19th century intelligent understanding. However the facts show different.
It is simply an argument made to excuse one's choice of conduct, and is built on the lie that no one is hurt, and that whatever one chooses to accept is right.
One certainly has the right to choose, but that does not mean their choice is right.
Anyone with enough guts to contend?
Mutual consent is OK unless there are the below factors involved:
1. Being coerced into consent
2. Getting someone to consent to something while omitting important relevant facts
3. Capitalizing on someone's emotional vulnerabilities so that they consent when in fact they aren't ion the position to think the agreement through.
4. Capitalizing on someone's mental illness so that they consent
5. Getting someone who hasn't fully developed to make consent about serious life altering issues, i.e. children
Now applying these points to your points:
1. Children are not psychologically ready or sexually mature enough to make decisions to have sex, especially with adults. Deciding what age is Ok is the tricky discussion. This is in line with my 5th point. But We should then also decide when it should be legal for children to make other serious decisions such as joining religions and organisations since those are life altering. Certainly, to get children to join groups for the rest of their lives is a serious matter and they shouldn't be allowed to join when they are too young.
2. Adult sexual intercourse. If adults are consenting without being subjected to the criteria in my points then that is OK. Adultery would be wrong if the other spouse is ignorant of the matter, because marriage is a contract and someone committing adultery would be violating the contract with the spouse. If both marriage partners consent to an open marriage then that would be fine. Likewise, if two people get married and the one expects the other to be kind to them, but then they become physically abusive, then the other partner has the right to leave the marriage because they violated the contract. This is in line with my second point because the victim did not consent to the marriage knowing that the other spouse would be abusive.
I would add another point: Religions, businesses and other groups often violate these points of consent because they often capitalise on people's vulnerabilities. A good example would be preaching to a person who has lost a loved one because they preacher is taking advantage of the person's emotional vulnerability, creating a gateway for that person to make decisions when they aren't in the right emotional space. This would fall under undue influence, in which a group is nudging a vulnerable person into believing something when they are not in the right mental space. Then they become emotionally attached to the belief and there is a snowball effect that makes the vulnerable person attached to the group. This would also be considered unethical.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Then how would one being an atheist change what said deity does or does not know about said atheist?
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Funnily enough, these same people who compare homosexuality to paedophilia willfully ignore the obvious link between sexual repression and paedophilia, rape and other sexual violations. Many religious groups, if not all, who sexually repress their followers have paedophile and rape issues within their groups, especially perpetrated by those they place in positions of authority.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Interesting point. One thing that I will point out is that we know that there is a link between sexual repression and sexual crimes, such as committing pedophilia and rape. The problem here is that sexual repression is often instituted by books that claim are speaking on behalf of God. So, if the true God authored these books, then he either clearly does not know how human sexuality works or he blatantly doesn't care much about sexual offense. Many of the sexual acts he considers crimes are perpetuated directly because of the laws he put in place.
"Age of consent" touches on various disciplines (religion, law, and local norms and mores, which can change with time).
Until the last 200 years (or less), many cultures, including the Jewish culture, arranged marriages. Jews have bar mitzvahs to establish that at the age of 13, a boy becomes a man (apparently with fringe benefits). Marriages were arranged much earlier than that. Some were arranged at birth, and the kids had absolutely no say in the matter. It was all about social status and money.
The movie Fiddler On The Roof was about a little girl deciding for herself to marry her love.... a handsome young newbie tailor who just bought a sewing machine, rather than the smelly old (and rich) butcher. This isn't about stereotyping Jews as money grubbing, but, it is about the practice of arranging marriages.
Hillbillies figure that if a girl reaches 18 she's an old maid...doomed to a spinster's life.
So, we know that the bible allowed for under-aged marriages, since that was the practice back then, and even arranged back then.
The world has changed a lot. No longer are you expected to take over a farm when you are a young teen. You are expected to fit into a high-tech society which demands college educations.
Women have the choice of dropping out of college to raise kids, or have kids late in life. Some don't wait, and whether their parents want it or not, they decide to have kids.
Often young parents (age 14) don't have jobs or financial means to raise kids. This means that grandma (and if there is a grandpa) will have to take on the role of parents once more, and pay to feed, house, clothe, and take care of grandchildren, as if they were their own kids. It's a decision of young teens, but it's a responsibility of their parents.
Kids mature earlier now, and are sexually active at much younger ages. It is like holding back the tide to keep them from indulging in sex.
Many Christian sects believe that offering condoms is condoning pre-teen sex, though it is obvious that they prevent many (but not all) pregnancies and many STDs (like AIDS).
Sex education is necessary, as well, since many think that "early withdrawal" prevents pregnancy, without realizing that the slow ooze is enough to impregnate. Young kids, who are not taught, don't realize that rashes could kill and maim and transmit to others. Girls don't have the common sense that their man might tell them anything to have sex (for example, promise marriage), only to find that they had no intention of marrying.
My 35 year old neighbor pushed hard narcotics to 12 year old girls, impregnated many who were too stoned to object, and some who objected during intercourse (rape). He then got his whole family to chase them away when they showed up pregnant, claiming that they would have them arrested for drug addiction and have their babies taken away. They had no means of support and no homes (their parents were forced to kick them onto the streets). His uncle pushed hard narcotics to under-aged minors (free at first), then charged a lot when they were hooked, then pimped them on the streets. Usually, prostitutes are not the problem, but the drug pushers who force them into that lifestyle are the problem.
You'd think that the police would arrest drug pushers who abuse kids, but the police will not take action if neighbors file complaints, they will only complain if the pregnant kids do. The pregnant kids are often too scared to deal with all that violence.
The rapist made money when a parent noticed that her daughter was being raped, so she hired a private investigator to find out about him. The result was an offer of $10,000 to leave her daughter alone, which he gladly took (then continued raping). She then sold her house, and moved away, taking her raped daughter with her.
Often the rapist would borrow money from their rape victims (promising marriage), then abscond with the money. Perhaps a hundred little girls were raped in this manner, and would often show up sobbing on my sidewalk.
One pregnant teen asked Joey to marry her, as promised, so Joey kicked her in the belly (he said that was his way of getting an abortion), but it didn't work. It messed up the baby (causing premature birth, and maimed the baby for life....mentally retarded, and nearly blind).
It is obvious that the laws in the United States are seriously flawed, and people are hurt as a result.
Until the last 200 years (or less), many cultures, including the Jewish culture, arranged marriages. Jews have bar mitzvahs to establish that at the age of 13, a boy becomes a man (apparently with fringe benefits). Marriages were arranged much earlier than that. Some were arranged at birth, and the kids had absolutely no say in the matter. It was all about social status and money.
The movie Fiddler On The Roof was about a little girl deciding for herself to marry her love.... a handsome young newbie tailor who just bought a sewing machine, rather than the smelly old (and rich) butcher. This isn't about stereotyping Jews as money grubbing, but, it is about the practice of arranging marriages.
Hillbillies figure that if a girl reaches 18 she's an old maid...doomed to a spinster's life.
So, we know that the bible allowed for under-aged marriages, since that was the practice back then, and even arranged back then.
The world has changed a lot. No longer are you expected to take over a farm when you are a young teen. You are expected to fit into a high-tech society which demands college educations.
Women have the choice of dropping out of college to raise kids, or have kids late in life. Some don't wait, and whether their parents want it or not, they decide to have kids.
Often young parents (age 14) don't have jobs or financial means to raise kids. This means that grandma (and if there is a grandpa) will have to take on the role of parents once more, and pay to feed, house, clothe, and take care of grandchildren, as if they were their own kids. It's a decision of young teens, but it's a responsibility of their parents.
Kids mature earlier now, and are sexually active at much younger ages. It is like holding back the tide to keep them from indulging in sex.
Many Christian sects believe that offering condoms is condoning pre-teen sex, though it is obvious that they prevent many (but not all) pregnancies and many STDs (like AIDS).
Sex education is necessary, as well, since many think that "early withdrawal" prevents pregnancy, without realizing that the slow ooze is enough to impregnate. Young kids, who are not taught, don't realize that rashes could kill and maim and transmit to others. Girls don't have the common sense that their man might tell them anything to have sex (for example, promise marriage), only to find that they had no intention of marrying.
My 35 year old neighbor pushed hard narcotics to 12 year old girls, impregnated many who were too stoned to object, and some who objected during intercourse (rape). He then got his whole family to chase them away when they showed up pregnant, claiming that they would have them arrested for drug addiction and have their babies taken away. They had no means of support and no homes (their parents were forced to kick them onto the streets). His uncle pushed hard narcotics to under-aged minors (free at first), then charged a lot when they were hooked, then pimped them on the streets. Usually, prostitutes are not the problem, but the drug pushers who force them into that lifestyle are the problem.
You'd think that the police would arrest drug pushers who abuse kids, but the police will not take action if neighbors file complaints, they will only complain if the pregnant kids do. The pregnant kids are often too scared to deal with all that violence.
The rapist made money when a parent noticed that her daughter was being raped, so she hired a private investigator to find out about him. The result was an offer of $10,000 to leave her daughter alone, which he gladly took (then continued raping). She then sold her house, and moved away, taking her raped daughter with her.
Often the rapist would borrow money from their rape victims (promising marriage), then abscond with the money. Perhaps a hundred little girls were raped in this manner, and would often show up sobbing on my sidewalk.
One pregnant teen asked Joey to marry her, as promised, so Joey kicked her in the belly (he said that was his way of getting an abortion), but it didn't work. It messed up the baby (causing premature birth, and maimed the baby for life....mentally retarded, and nearly blind).
It is obvious that the laws in the United States are seriously flawed, and people are hurt as a result.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I read a study where the teens should not get pregnant. It was based on the study of birthing ability and their anatomy. I am no expert on this, and if I could find the study I will share it here.
I suppose, this is the reason or at least a good reason.
Goddess Kit
Active Member
It is understandable that a people of an earlier time period would consider puberty to be the onset of adulthood. In fact, many cultures even have celebrations to mark entering puberty (Jewish Bar Mitzvah) or a perceived and set age for adulthood (Spanish Quinceañera).
As humans progress as a society, it is also understandable that certain customs will change. After all, I have found that young people were more responsible in the past at young ages than they are today. Age of consent was less a problem in the past due to their responsibility, while today there are more dangers and teenagers not fully understanding of what it means to take on responsibility.
And then there are adults who don't even act like adults. But that's another discussion.
As humans progress as a society, it is also understandable that certain customs will change. After all, I have found that young people were more responsible in the past at young ages than they are today. Age of consent was less a problem in the past due to their responsibility, while today there are more dangers and teenagers not fully understanding of what it means to take on responsibility.
And then there are adults who don't even act like adults. But that's another discussion.
Not necessarily. And, even if it did, I wouldn't consider it relevant for what I choose to do.
Not all deities are all-knowing. Some deities are creator deities. Some are morality-givers. There is no reason to assume one has all of the properties.
PureX
Veteran Member
Adults give sexual consent, and may then get abused and harmed, anyway. The idea that "informed consent" is some sort of legal antidote to possible sexual abuse is foolish regardless of the ages of those involved. It's why rapist ALWAYS claim consent to try and dismiss the possibility of deliberate harm being attributed to them. And it's why we as a society should not accept "consent" as a form of legal immunity for abusive and harmful behavior toward others.
Goddess Kit
Active Member
There'd probably have to be a Black Mirror technological way of keeping consent in check and ensuring individuals don't abuse their sexual drives.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Well, that's a given. It's not unusual for abusers and criminals to skirt the law and attempt to justify their actions that are illegal and unjustifiable. Such as a sober person having sex with someone who is intoxicated. Rightfully so, that is classified as rape in many jurisdictions because consent cannot be properly given or established regardless of what may be claimed.
Consent just isn't a word you can throw out and make everything OK. It doesn't work like that.
PureX
Veteran Member
And the reason is because "consent", in real life, is dubious at best. What we think we are consenting to going into a situation may well not be what we get, once we're there. Meaning that 'consent' must be able to be rescinded at any time, for nearly any reason. And this isn't even addressing the reality of 'coerced consent', yet.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's not dubious at all when you understand it. And clearly you don't, because properly consent can be withdrawn. If withdrawing consent is not permitted then the consent given is considered violated. And, yes, this is a legal argument. If you consent and later withdraw, it must be honored or you can pursue criminal charges. And its not for nearly reason, it is for any and all reasons. If you withdraw consent because a speck of dust landed on your right hamd rather than left it must be honored. It's a very bizarre reason but that's how it works.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Can you restate that...? You lost me.