Ever Notice

[stvdv]

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.

When writing my reply I was thinking "what a humble many this is" with his quote "Still learning to be wise". But second thought was "Aussie .. possible?"

You seem to know a lot about "Human History" and how violent it was. I prefer to stick to Masters who "really know" and they tell "Kali Yuga" is the worst.

 

[SomeRandom]

When writing my reply I was thinking "what a humble many this is" with his quote "Still learning to be wise". But second thought was "Aussie .. possible?"

You seem to know a lot about "Human History" and how violent it was. I prefer to stick to Masters who "really know" and they tell "Kali Yuga" is the worst.

You realize we can actually like measure violence in the world, albeit roughly, right? It's not exactly rocket science, mate. I'm an idiot so I too defer to masters who also "really know" and Kali Yuga is looking remarkably tame in comparison. So perhaps that era is yet to come, I dunno. Besides one cannot just offhandedly dismiss evil as just "Kali Yuga." That's irresponsible, the easy way out, if you will. And pretty sure people have been saying that for generations, if my elders are to be believed.
It's the same as all the generations upon generations of Christians lamenting about the end times. It starts to lose its punch after the 50th time, you know?

 

[stvdv]

Besides one cannot just offhandedly dismiss evil as just "Kali Yuga."

With this I fully agree. When I mentioned Kali Yuga it did not enter my mind to `dismiss evil as just "Kali Yuga."`
Now you explain this, I understand your reply. I just replied to another thread the same as you did to mine
"Original sin theory" easily creates people who do not take responsibility for their own mistakes

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Uhh, yes we can actually. This has been thoroughly studied in both the medical and mental health fields for literally decades. We can measure it even!
A child might physically mature at a differing rate than their peers but we know that is a different thing entirely than psychological or emotional development. Pretty sure education has been structured according to such understandings for like half a century at the very least.
The fact is a child at 9 or 12 cannot actually understand all of the implications or indeed the consequences of a sexual relationship. Nor do they know enough about what constitutes a sexual relationships to give informed consent.

I mean it's one thing to claim ignorance of this 100 years ago, that's fair enough. But I'm pretty sure practically everyone and their mum knows about the ins and outs of human development by now though.

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.

If a child "seduces" someone, chances are that someone is a pedophile and such a phrasing is inaccurate. Any "normal" adult will immediately either run a mile out of sheer disgust or seek professional help for said child, since that is a huge red flag that's well known to signal that sexual abuse has already taken place. Children learn by mimicking behavior, but generally without context until someone legitimately teaches them. Seeking out abuse is also a well known sign of a sexually abused child, since orgasms generally occur during abuse, the child not fulling understanding why it occurs, will seek that experience out. That's not really a sign of consent, that's a child's simple understanding of pleasure vs pain. That's like saying a child should be allowed to drive a car because they know that crashing is bad. Or allowed to drink alcohol because they know it makes them happy and giddy. Development is far more complicated than simply getting hairier and/or developing cleavage.

Some of these girls have become professional prostitutes and porn stars.

Whilst I'm all for people doing as they please, that is also considered something of an lingering after affect of sexually abused children. Simply doing what they know or thinking of themselves as mere sex objects because that's what the abuse taught them.
(That's not to say that every sex worker was abused or has self esteem issues, of course.)

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

The youngest pregnancy in the world involved a 5 year old child, with the parents thinking it was a tumor. So I don't know if biology is necessarily the best indicator for developing sexual relationships.

 

[Brickjectivity]

He looks thin. Finally we get to see the true shape of his head.

I'm so glad you caught that. And yes I am, because you are not thinking about it. Think about it . . .

1. in ancient lands around the writers of the Bible pederasty and catamites were morally acceptable. Common. Accepted. As was homosexuality.

2. Both of them were considered illegal and immoral by the Bible writers.

3. Homosexuality was illegal and immoral 50 years ago in America.

So how would you argue that homosexuality should be acceptable and pederasty shouldn't? Keep in mind, 50 years ago you would have thought homosexuality was immoral and 4,000 years ago you wouldn't have thought so unless you adhered to the laws of Moses..

Catamites yes not morally acceptable. Specific forms of sex forbidden for Jews and also circumcision requirements. Primarily no seed is to be wasted, but accidents are atoned for. Homosexuality itself I think not specifically mentioned until the NT which seems to suggest not just seed but time may not be wasted.

Its really simple - please do try to follow:

Sexual exploitation - of anyone but especially of children is immoral - and even more especially (IMO) if it is "justified" or "sanctioned" or "condoned" or "swept under the carpet" for religious reasons*.

Consensual sexual activity between adults is not.

There - that wasn't so difficult to fathom was it?

Its a modern standard many are pushing for since longevity is much improved and death in childbirth reduced to low percentage. We now know things like identity formation is still ongoing in children. They are not merely small physically but mentally incomplete.

Also, scriptures are a product of the time they were written. The Quran particularly is a product of a time and place. Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia discusses the relationship of the Jewish tribes of the time and the Muslims.

Also, to me it's no more violent than the OT battles and the part of the OT where a man's virgin daughter was offered to a mob to rape. Judges 19:24 Look, let me bring out my virgin daughter and the man's concubine, and you can use them and do with them as you wish. But do not do such a vile thing to this man."

With respect, not really comparable, since Judges is assumed to be sketches of life without morality while the koran is assumed to be about how to live. I would use a different example like the conquest of Canaan if I thought it to be a literal description, but even that does not seem to be the case.

I don't think that most people realize that the Bible wasn't written for us. Not for the people in these times, but to the people in the time and place that it was written.

Yeah. It makes sense in its time and culture.

Good points, though I don't really see much value in the constitution or international law these days. Those things are easily overlooked. The constitution hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on since 1871,

Hmm. I like to think that the paper constitution is symbolic and symbolizes us who are the real substance of it. Maybe the paper just cannot keep up with us.

It reads just like the Old Testament in your Bible. Slay all the infidels, don't make slaves of then, kill their women, children and cattle, except for virgins you want to marry and rape, God sends bears to rip children to shreds for making fun of the baldness of a prophet, and so forth. Sounds pretty similar.

Literal reading of the Bible is not required, but a literal reading of the Koran is. False equivalency. The Bible is a library, but the Koran is a single book which declares itself to be nonfiction and authoritative. No book in the bible defines itself thus.

 

[Estro Felino]

He looks thin. Finally we get to see the true shape of his head.
.

I saw him shirtless on twitter...
Ja...I like

 

[atanu]

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?

The most violent holy book to me is the Mahabharata where Avatar Krishna tells Arjuna that he must slaughter his relatives. Mahabharata - Wikipedia is one reference which states

Before the battle, Arjuna noticing that the opposing army includes his own kith and kin, including his great grandfather Bhishma and his teacher Drona, has grave doubts about the fight and falls into despair.At this time,Krishna reminds him of duty as a Kshatriya to fight for his just cause in the famous Bhagavad Gita section of the epic.

Though initially sticking to chivalrous notions of warfare, both sides soon adopt dishonourable tactics. At the end of the 18-day battle, only the Pandavas, Satyaki, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Kritavarma, Yuyutsu and Krishna survive.

I agree with Sun rise. Apparently Mahabharata is very violent. Some people however point out that it is about the war of good and bad in our being, where the body is kurukhetra—the warfield wherein ultimate joy and freedom is to be attained. Kuruketra (body-mind) should be a place of joy, which has become painful because of 100 evil tendencies, engendered by ignorance of separate existence. Intellect and senses guided by wisdom (God) must fight it out and re-establish the joy.

To me all scriptures are about salvation, liberation, moksha —- about freedom from the ignorance of ego sense that makes one believe in one’s individuality and acts to uphold that falsity by all means.

In our waking and dream states we encounter violent situations because of this very fundamental ignorance and our actions.

Bible, IMO, teaches of common “I am” in all conscious beings. NT teaches surrender to one son of God. Islam is about surrender. Holy Quran teaches emphatically that all nations and beings are one soul. Differences are seen because of hatred in mind.

I hope people will read scriptures fully and see how the teachings about one-ness and love sublate the war situations completely.
...
And then there is another level. This world is a mere stage where dream plays get enacted. Getting stuck in a painful dream character and forgetting that it is play is very very painful. So, how does one get out?

...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, you're not right. How many Christians and Jews strap themselves to suicide bombers and blow themselves up along with dozens of innocent civilians? What religion was responsible for 9/11? Hint hint: it's not Judaism or Christianity.

It wasn't Islam, either. It wasn't any religion responsible for 9/11. It was a bunch of geopolitical factors, going back as far as NAZI Germany, if not further, which had virtually nothing to do with ANY religion. If you want it to happen again, though, deliberately misconstruing the causal agents is a good way.

Also, if you want to force a religious overview on such things, which "religion" was responsible for all the civilian deaths on the Middle East following 9/11? Hmmm? "Oh, but that's different..."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It wasn't Islam, either. It wasn't any religion responsible for 9/11. It was a bunch of geopolitical factors, going back as far as NAZI Germany, if not further, which had virtually nothing to do with ANY religion. If you want it to happen again, though, deliberately misconstruing the causal agents is a good way.

Also, if you want to force a religious overview on such things, which "religion" was responsible for all the civilian deaths on the Middle East following 9/11? Hmmm? "Oh, but that's different..."

It was geopolitical factors AND religion.

 

[nPeace]

Uhh, yes we can actually. This has been thoroughly studied in both the medical and mental health fields for literally decades. We can measure it even!
A child might physically mature at a differing rate than their peers but we know that is a different thing entirely than psychological or emotional development. Pretty sure education has been structured according to such understandings for like half a century at the very least.
The fact is a child at 9 or 12 cannot actually understand all of the implications or indeed the consequences of a sexual relationship. Nor do they know enough about what constitutes a sexual relationships to give informed consent.

I mean it's one thing to claim ignorance of this 100 years ago, that's fair enough. But I'm pretty sure practically everyone and their mum knows about the ins and outs of human development by now though.


If a child "seduces" someone, chances are that someone is a pedophile and such a phrasing is inaccurate. Any "normal" adult will immediately either run a mile out of sheer disgust or seek professional help for said child, since that is a huge red flag that's well known to signal that sexual abuse has already taken place. Children learn by mimicking behavior, but generally without context until someone legitimately teaches them. Seeking out abuse is also a well known sign of a sexually abused child, since orgasms generally occur during abuse, the child not fulling understanding why it occurs, will seek that experience out. That's not really a sign of consent, that's a child's simple understanding of pleasure vs pain. That's like saying a child should be allowed to drive a car because they know that crashing is bad. Or allowed to drink alcohol because they know it makes them happy and giddy. Development is far more complicated than simply getting hairier and/or developing cleavage.



Whilst I'm all for people doing as they please, that is also considered something of an lingering after affect of sexually abused children. Simply doing what they know or thinking of themselves as mere sex objects because that's what the abuse taught them.
(That's not to say that every sex worker was abused or has self esteem issues, of course.)



The youngest pregnancy in the world involved a 5 year old child, with the parents thinking it was a tumor. So I don't know if biology is necessarily the best indicator for developing sexual relationships.

Can you give me some evidence that would establish what you say as fact? Thanks.

We live in a changing world - a fast changing world. What was normal in the past, is no longer normal.

When I was a boy about 5, 6, we - boys and girls, were doing things we ought not. We were experimenting I suppose. Till this day I cannot tell you where I got the inclination to do these things. I know it had nothing to do with abuse, and I feel sure that was not the case with the girls either.

At age 13, I experienced girls as young as 10, 11, having intercourse with groups of boys. They early exposure to and experience with sex, I believe, led them on these escapades.

Abuse is not always involved.
I personally know of someone who was exposed to things of a sexual nature from an early age, and sought out companionship with an adult. Of course, I believe this would not have happened if the parents were more involved in the child's life, and I think this is one of the main reasons why so many young ones find themselves in these situations.

If you are calling this abuse, or if you are saying that a child being exposed to sexual images early in life - especially when it has little parental guidance, i can understand that, but I don't recall being exposed to pornography. I don't recall being abused, and I have very loving parents, so I cannot blame it on abuse.
The truth is the world is a perverted mess, and this is what young people have to grow up in.

If a child has a parent that is a prostitute, she may not be abused by the parent, she may just be an observant child, and she may even be a "smart" child (they are a lot of those. some even know more about the computer than their parents, and know the ins, and outs, of how to hide their activity, how to bypass security etc. Some are fast learners. some are tricky, and some are bored stiff, and want excitement). Children experiment and learn from experience.

The problem imo, is the world in which we live.
When the world promoted vice, our children learn vice, and vice is more excited that football, because it is very pleasurable.

So when we say it is okay, for example, for two men to be married to each other, or two women, and have children, expect that the children will be taught by their <choke> "parents".
Do not be fooled into thinking that men and women were sitting down waiting for the state to legalize this abomination. Men and women have been raising their children in these kinds of environments for years. Children imitate what the see. Do you consider that abuse?

Would you call it abuse, if someone raised their children with their values, even if they do not touch the child in a sexual way?
A child will make a choice, if they feel that it is good, or it is expected, or they want to please their parents, so that choice may well be to follow their parents lifestyle.

Can a child make an informed decision?
Imo, Yes.
Any child with intelligence that is taught, can make an informed decision. It depends on how well the child is taught, and the child IQ.
So can any child give informed consent?
Informed Consent for Minors in Research Studies

Can all adults make an informed decision?
Imo, No.
All adults do not have the same Intellectual ability. Some don't work as they should. Some are illiterate. There are many factors that can affect ones ability to make an informed decision.
So can all adults give informed consent?

So this bring me to the point I am making.
If morality is based on age, then there is no morality, since age is not the only factor in determining that one can give informed consent.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Some adults can't sign contracts. Can they give informed consent?

 

[Windwalker]

Literal reading of the Bible is not required, but a literal reading of the Koran is. False equivalency. The Bible is a library, but the Koran is a single book which declares itself to be nonfiction and authoritative. No book in the bible defines itself thus.

Is that really true? Aside from those who are literalists, just because of how their brains are currently wired, cannot read poetry and understand it, demanding it must be factual or it has no meaning. But you have those in both religions whose brain is not wired thusly and can understand abstractions and metaphors more readily. They are more symbolic thinkers, rather than flat-fact thinkers. And they read both the Bible and the Koran metaphorically in their respective religions.

In both cases, in both religions, I'd say there are those who are literalists who find ample support their mindset. Even though the Bible is a collection, stitched together by religious quilt-makers, in quite a few of the books isolated unto themselves it reads very much like, "You'd better believe this is God telling you the facts, or you'll end up destroyed like these heathen over there who didn't believe the prophet either." So I'm not sure how we see this as a false equivalence?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It was geopolitical factors AND religion.

Either way, it certainly wasn't an entire religion.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Some adults can't sign contracts. Can they give informed consent?

Depends on why they can't sign contracts. If it's because they have the mental capacity of a 9-13 year old, many would argue that they cannot.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Either way, it certainly wasn't an entire religion.

True, it wasn't an "entire" religion. I never said all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism. That would be a preposterous statement. But, the religion of Islam is responsible for a large quantity of terrorist attacks. It's a simple statistical fact that Islamists are the most violent of all religious groups. You can blame geopolitical, historical, and cultural factors as well, and they are certainly part of it, but, the fact remains that the majority of these attacks are committed in the name of Islam.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

True, it wasn't an "entire" religion. I never said all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism. That would be a preposterous statement. But, the religion of Islam is responsible for a large quantity of terrorist attacks. It's a simple statistical fact that Islamists are the most violent of all religious groups. You can blame geopolitical, historical, and cultural factors as well, and they are certainly part of it, but, the fact remains that the majority of these attacks are committed in the name of Islam.

You certainly appear to be blaming an entire religion

What religion was responsible for 9/11? Hint hint: it's not Judaism or Christianity.

As to what religion these attacks are committed in the name of, that's a different story. But an Islamic terrorist acting "in the name of Islam" is no more representative of the religion than, say, an abortion clinic bomber acting "in the name of" Christianity

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You certainly appear to be blaming an entire religion

I blame the religion but not the entire religion, meaning that I blame the religion of Islam itself, but not all who practice it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I blame the religion but not the entire religion, meaning that I blame the religion of Islam itself, but not all who practice it.

well, stop it. See my edit.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As to what religion these attacks are committed in the name of, that's a different story. But an Islamic terrorist acting "in the name of Islam" is no more representative of the religion than, say, an abortion clinic bomber acting "in the name of" Christianity

All religions have violent nut jobs, but statistically, Islam has the highest quantity of them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

All religions have violent nut jobs, but statistically, Islam has the highest quantity of them.

I don't think that's true. Plenty of violent Christian or Jewish nutjobs in various militaries. Sikhs, too. If you mean violent non-state actors, well, maybe... if you're limiting yourself to the last 20 years. And even then that pertains exclusively to Muslim majority countries. Truth is you have to set some extremely contrived parameters to make Islam any more connected to violence than any other religion.