1. 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!

Featured The Consent Argument

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by nPeace, Nov 21, 2020.

  1. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,902
    Ratings:
    +3,594
    Religion:
    atheist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,256
    Ratings:
    +11,257
    Religion:
    RFism
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,878
    Ratings:
    +2,754
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,878
    Ratings:
    +2,754
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    #164 Israel Khan, Nov 24, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,256
    Ratings:
    +11,257
    Religion:
    RFism
    Bingo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,676
    Ratings:
    +8,908
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
  7. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,676
    Ratings:
    +8,908
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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?

    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. . .
    [​IMG]
    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. . . .

    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.


    Thanks for volunteering.

    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)

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    21,760
    Ratings:
    +26,502
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.

    That is not true, but you are entitled to believe what you wish

    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.
     
    #170 nPeace, Nov 24, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    What faulty reasoning.

    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?

    Yup. Thanks.

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

    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.

    I did. I don't believe you want to see.
     
  12. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,256
    Ratings:
    +11,257
    Religion:
    RFism
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Goodbye.
     
  14. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,256
    Ratings:
    +11,257
    Religion:
    RFism
    Bye! When you want a serious moral discussion, let me know.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Why? So that you can see what you want, and ignore the rest... Why would I do a thing like that... unless I just have nothing better to do, which isn't the case.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,256
    Ratings:
    +11,257
    Religion:
    RFism
    :rolleyes: You're projecting again.

    Take care.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    21,760
    Ratings:
    +26,502
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Really? What, specifically, is faulty about it?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.’

    (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.

    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.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    21,760
    Ratings:
    +26,502
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And by saying that about acts that are harmless, that declaration makes Jehovah evil.

    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.

    Show such a genetic effect.

    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.

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

    Which I find quite telling.

    And I answered you. But you ignored the answer.

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


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

    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You lost me. I never said God tortured anyone.
    You got the idea that he did, and called it fact.

    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.

    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 LUCA.

    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

    Like what? The things you claim, which are not in the Bible, or the things you don't agree with?

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

    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.

    They harmed others, so good. Immortality does not equal to harm. That crutch is imaginary, and useless.

    No, it is not. That's your opinion.

    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.
     
Loading...