Ever Notice

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What about a consenting 9-13 year old? What makes that morally wrong?

9-13 year olds can't give legal consent.

 

[nPeace]

9-13 year olds can't give legal consent.

I'm not speaking about legality by law, otherwise we have to include what's legal from God's point of view - God's law.
I am speaking about a moral issue. Is it moral, or is it not? What makes it morally wrong?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not speaking about legality by law, otherwise we have to include what's legal from God's point of view - God's law.
I am speaking about a moral issue. Is it moral, or is it not? What makes it morally wrong?

The moral belief that 9-13 year olds cannot give consent.

 

[nPeace]

The moral belief that 9-13 year olds cannot give consent.

Pardon me? Is that a question or statement, and how am I to understand it?

 

[stvdv]

What about a consenting 9-13 year old? What makes that morally wrong?

The impact when you have sex is immense on our emotional body and our mental body.
Not all kids are ready for that when only 9-13 years of age.
I think the physical body of a 9-13 year old is generally not ready to have a baby.
What's the Youngest Age at Which a Woman Can Give Birth?

So the above makes me conclude it is not smart to have babies that young

Morally wrong is for me doing an action that harms someone physically, emotionally, mentally
So when someone who is older, having enough moral knowledge, has sex with a "consenting 9 year old" I consider that morally wrong

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Pardon me? Is that a question or statement, and how am I to understand it?

It's an answer to your question.

 

[nPeace]

The impact when you have sex is immense on our emotional body and our mental body.
Not all kids are ready for that when only 9-13 years of age.
I think the physical body of a 9-13 year old is generally not ready to have a baby.
What's the Youngest Age at Which a Woman Can Give Birth?

So the above makes me conclude it is not smart to have babies that young

Morally wrong is for me doing an action that harms someone physically, emotionally, mentally
So when someone who is older, having enough moral knowledge, has sex with a "consenting 9 year old" I consider that morally wrong

Using you line of argument.
If it is only morally wrong when one is

doing an action that harms someone physically, emotionally, mentally

then it is not morally wrong for a consenting 9 year old to have sex with anyone, because one cannot determine that the child is harmed physically, emotionally, or mentally, and they may not be.

For example, girls as young as 9 have seduced men, had consensual intercourse with several males, all at once in some cases, and invited these escapades repeatedly.
Some of these girls have become professional prostitutes and porn stars.

Some girls have developed more in body than age, and delivering a baby in some cases is no different from an adult's delivery.

So we really have gone nowhere other than persons determining what morality is by their own opinions. According to your argument, there would be no moral issue unless the child is at least 5 or 6.

 

[nPeace]

It's an answer to your question.

Translating...

The moral belief that 9-13 year olds cannot give consent.

Your belief is that 9-13 year olds cannot give consent, therefore it is immoral.

Fact.
9-13 year olds do give consent.

Therefore, it is not immoral according to your belief?

 

[stvdv]

Using you line of argument.
If it is only morally wrong when one is
then it is not morally wrong for a consenting 9 year old to have sex with anyone, because one cannot determine that the child is harmed physically, emotionally, or mentally, and they may not be.

For example, girls as young as 9 have seduced men, had consensual intercourse with several males, all at once in some cases, and invited these escapades repeatedly.
Some of these girls have become professional prostitutes and porn stars.

Some girls have developed more in body than age, and delivering a baby in some cases is no different from an adult's delivery.

So we really have gone nowhere other than persons determining what morality is by their own opinions. According to your argument, there would be no moral issue unless the child is at least 5 or 6.

You missed the bold word generally I wrote (being age 9). In the link I gave is mentioned that generally the body is not ready when so young, of course there are exceptions to the rule. That is why I said "generally".

When you know a little bit about the emotional and mental bodies of humans, you know that they are not ready at age 9.

So I disagree "we have gone nowhere". Maybe you have gone nowhere. I have gone somewhere.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh course they are peaceful in there own lands when every believer amongst themselves are Islamic. When mixed with other people it can get violent.

Most people are indeed peaceful under most circunstances.

That is to be expected. Human beings are just not very likely to thrive without cooperation, after all.

 

[nPeace]

You missed the bold word generally I wrote (being age 9). In the link I gave is mentioned that generally the body is not ready when so young, of course there are exceptions to the rule. That is why I said "generally".

When you know a little bit about the emotional and mentally bodies of humans, you know that they are not ready at age 9.

So I disagree "we have gone nowhere". Maybe you have gone nowhere. I have gone somewhere.

I understand you.
Can a 9 year old be affected emotionally and mentally, the same way an 18 year old can? Can you explain the difference, if any?

 

[stvdv]

I understand you.
Can a 9 year old be affected emotionally and mentally, the same way an 18 year old can? Can you explain the difference, if any?

Yes I can.

 

[nPeace]

Yes I can.

Would you please.

 

[Windwalker]

Why do you keep saying "Build that wall"? Are you putting a political spin on your brand of Christianity?

It's those who call themselves Christian that are all for that. I find it, well, absolutely confusing in the light of the teachings of Christ.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You heard me. Painfully obvious to anyone with any sense. I've completely abandoned the possibility of there being a conspiracy theory forum added here, but suffice it to say. Christians, not Muslims did 911.

And yet, like most conspiracy theorists, you don't provide any evidence to support your claim.

 

[we-live-now]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

One should reconsider reading the "reinterpretation" of the Bible in "A Course in Miracles". It sure speaks to me in the most loving way and it (supposedly) reinterprets much of the Bible. It says the Bible is the Ego's (fallen man's) attempt to understand God.

www.stobblehouse.com/text/ACIM.pdf

 

[we-live-now]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

One should reconsider reading the "reinterpretation" of the Bible in "A Course in Miracles". It sure speaks to me in the most loving way and it (supposedly) reinterprets much of the Bible. It says the Bible is the Ego's (fallen man's) attempt to understand God.

www.stobblehouse.com/text/ACIM.pdf

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Translating...


Your belief is that 9-13 year olds cannot give consent, therefore it is immoral.

Fact.
9-13 year olds do give consent.

Therefore, it is not immoral according to your belief?

It is a fairly standard belief that 9-13 year olds can't give informed, uncoerced consent about serious matters. That's why we don't let them sign contracts.

 

[stvdv]

I dunno. I have noticed that most of the religions on earth which teach peace (ostensibly practically all of them) are always at the heart of many violent issues occurring in the world. If religion is about the pursuit of God or spiritual enlightenment or what have you, why is it that it seemingly tears the world apart?
Sure many adherents of all faiths probably just wish to live peacefully and go about their business. But there's always that one guy taking things too far.

But the answer is quite simple. Religion is about the pursuit of God or Spiritual enlightenment. That it tears the world apart MEANS it is just a pursuit, they did not get it yet.

I wish it were that one guy. Many, many take things too far. And even many, many more take it too far in thought, but don't dare to speak or act on it. This is called Kali Yuga.

 

[SomeRandom]

But the answer is quite simple. Religion is about the pursuit of God or Spiritual enlightenment. That it tears the world apart MEANS it is just a pursuit, they did not get it yet.

I wish it were that one guy. Many, many take things too far. And even many, many more take it too far in thought, but don't dare to speak or act on it. This is called Kali Yuga.

Oh kindly stop with the Kali Yuga stuff. The modern era is probably the least violent time in Human history, which should tell you something. So I don't think it's accurate, we're just more aware of world events thanks to modern communications and technology.
And pursuit or not, it's a powerful tool for controlling the proletariat, one must admit.