Inherently wrong actions?

[Acim]

The other day, without asking, I put my arm around my wife, and told her I loved her. She didn't seemed to mind. It seemed to me that it pleased her.

I see it as fine, in my book of relative morality. But it doesn't explain why it is in essence okay to believe an unspoken consent type rule exists.

I honestly see some (arguably most) adults using same logic with regards to kids and drawing different lines. I think most have the same lines in mind of where it becomes not okay. But it is really based on what adults think, and what amounts to relative morality. Essentially justifying that it is okay to touch kids, without their consent, as if an unspoken consent exists because they appear to enjoy it.

 

[Sonofason]

Do you enjoy lying?



I agree, that would be the case if it is not inherently wrong. I am unaware of instances where a child was actually raped where it was the right thing to do. But have also put forth deeper considerations for the discussion seeing that some adults in this thread wanna not let this go. We'll see how well you hold up to those considerations. Here's hoping you can refrain from lying. Christ won't be too pleased with such deceit as your only guide.

So you cannot provide a case where the raping of a child was the right thing to do, yet you are incapable of admitting that rape is inherently wrong. Why?

 

[Acim]

Rape is inherently wrong, and so I have deceived no one.

But you have when you assumed some in this thread (namely me) see it as okay.

I do see it as forgivable, but in all cases where I am aware of it having actually occurred as relatively wrong.

 

[Sonofason]

I see it as fine, in my book of relative morality. But it doesn't explain why it is in essence okay to believe an unspoken consent type rule exists.

I honestly see some (arguably most) adults using same logic with regards to kids and drawing different lines. I think most have the same lines in mind of where it becomes not okay. But it is really based on what adults think, and what amounts to relative morality. Essentially justifying that it is okay to touch kids, without their consent, as if an unspoken consent exists because they appear to enjoy it.

Yeah if you're a rapist.

 

[Sonofason]

Statutory rape is not necessarily rape.
They are defined differently.

One involves consent oftentimes, and the other never does involve consent.

Having sex or molesting someone without their consent is inherently wrong.
Statutory rape is not necessarily inherently wrong, but often times is wrong relative to a society or individual's cultural or personal beliefs.

 

[Sonofason]

Many young girls in our society have been raped according to the definition of statutory rape, however, those girls often do not feel as though they were violated. That is because they were not violated according to their own personal views. But if it is against the will of the person being violated, it is always wrong, under all conditions, and for all time.

 

[Acim]

So you cannot provide a case where the raping of a child was the right thing to do, yet you are incapable of admitting that rape is inherently wrong. Why?

Because of philosophical (closer to legal) issues I have with understanding consent, and how that plays out with human sexuality. I do think it is plausible that some people desire it, but don't understand what that desire actually entails. As I brought up earlier, I've discussed 'rape fantasies' with people before. Some wish to downplay that to 'rape play' as if that is all they are conveying. I disagree with that assertion in terms of 'all they are conveying.' The 'rape fantasy' is just one of I think dozens of things that make me question the consent issue. I'd be pleased just to stick with adult sexual relations to make this point.

But also because of spiritual issues I have with understanding consent, and how that can transcend lifetimes such that Divine Judgment could be playing out certain things that appear to us as "way out of line" but could possibly be something that was essentially asked for as way of 'repaying a debt' from long ago. And a way to position forgiveness in a Divine order type of way.

But also because I truly do see all actions as inherently neutral. This is also spiritual for me. I don't see God/Christ judging actions (any of them) in way we might. From Christ perspective, I see any perceived negative action as immediate call to Love to uphold forgiveness (of the spiritual being, brother or sister) and downplay what is, in reality, ineffectual against the reality of God's Creation. From Creator God's perspective, I fully believe that all actions are akin to how we perceive our actions in night dreams, and even that isn't exactly fair. But is akin to that. Whereby we fully understand it as illusion of Mind and not something that actually occurred (within God's Reality, aka Heaven / Kingdom).

 

[Acim]

Yeah if you're a rapist.

So hugging a kid would mean all adults that do this are rapists?

 

[Sonofason]

Because of philosophical (closer to legal) issues I have with understanding consent, and how that plays out with human sexuality. I do think it is plausible that some people desire it, but don't understand what that desire actually entails. As I brought up earlier, I've discussed 'rape fantasies' with people before. Some wish to downplay that to 'rape play' as if that is all they are conveying. I disagree with that assertion in terms of 'all they are conveying.' The 'rape fantasy' is just one of I think dozens of things that make me question the consent issue. I'd be pleased just to stick with adult sexual relations to make this point.

But also because of spiritual issues I have with understanding consent, and how that can transcend lifetimes such that Divine Judgment could be playing out certain things that appear to us as "way out of line" but could possibly be something that was essentially asked for as way of 'repaying a debt' from long ago. And a way to position forgiveness in a Divine order type of way.

But also because I truly do see all actions as inherently neutral. This is also spiritual for me. I don't see God/Christ judging actions (any of them) in way we might. From Christ perspective, I see any perceived negative action as immediate call to Love to uphold forgiveness (of the spiritual being, brother or sister) and downplay what is, in reality, ineffectual against the reality of God's Creation. From Creator God's perspective, I fully believe that all actions are akin to how we perceive our actions in night dreams, and even that isn't exactly fair. But is akin to that. Whereby we fully understand it as illusion of Mind and not something that actually occurred (within God's Reality, aka Heaven / Kingdom).

If you are consenting to a situation that appears to outsiders as being rape, it is not rape.

 

[Sonofason]

So hugging a kid would mean all adults that do this are rapists?

Hugging a child is not rape. It is certainly a violation of their bodies if they do not consent to the hugging, but it is not rape in my opinion.

 

[Acim]

Statutory rape is not necessarily rape.
They are defined differently.

One involves consent oftentimes, and the other never does involve consent.

Do you think an 8 year old can consent to sexual relations (of any kind)?

Having sex or molesting someone without their consent is inherently wrong.

Because I think I have looser definitions of 'sex' than most, I don't see it as inherently wrong. And because of issues I have around consent, I'll likely always reference it as relatively wrong in a discussion such as this. But outside of a discussion such as this, I would say attempts to have sexual intercourse (penetration) with anyone without their explicit consent is wrong. Yet, because you brought up the whole unspoken consent thing that does occur with people who are 'in love' it does have me second guess that. I'd stipulate that as soon as there is fairly clear indication of "no I don't want to do this now with you" then that would be wrong to continue on as if "I can get you in the mood." To me, even that is a bit debatable. All this is less debatable for me if one party is using brute force to get the other person to submit.

Statutory rape is not necessarily inherently wrong, but often times is wrong relative to a society or individual's cultural or personal beliefs.

That actually seems like huge step for you to assert this. I see it as you saying statutory rape is relatively wrong. Though given question I asked above, I'm thinking you believe with a certain age (and under) it is inherently wrong. While with another age of minors, it may be just relatively wrong, since the consent could be 'reasonably given.'

 

[Sonofason]

There are cases when people violate other people's bodies unintentionally.

Because of philosophical (closer to legal) issues I have with understanding consent, and how that plays out with human sexuality. I do think it is plausible that some people desire it, but don't understand what that desire actually entails. As I brought up earlier, I've discussed 'rape fantasies' with people before. Some wish to downplay that to 'rape play' as if that is all they are conveying. I disagree with that assertion in terms of 'all they are conveying.' The 'rape fantasy' is just one of I think dozens of things that make me question the consent issue. I'd be pleased just to stick with adult sexual relations to make this point.

But also because of spiritual issues I have with understanding consent, and how that can transcend lifetimes such that Divine Judgment could be playing out certain things that appear to us as "way out of line" but could possibly be something that was essentially asked for as way of 'repaying a debt' from long ago. And a way to position forgiveness in a Divine order type of way.

But also because I truly do see all actions as inherently neutral. This is also spiritual for me. I don't see God/Christ judging actions (any of them) in way we might. From Christ perspective, I see any perceived negative action as immediate call to Love to uphold forgiveness (of the spiritual being, brother or sister) and downplay what is, in reality, ineffectual against the reality of God's Creation. From Creator God's perspective, I fully believe that all actions are akin to how we perceive our actions in night dreams, and even that isn't exactly fair. But is akin to that. Whereby we fully understand it as illusion of Mind and not something that actually occurred (within God's Reality, aka Heaven / Kingdom).

Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[Acim]

Hugging a child is not rape. It is certainly a violation of their bodies if they do not consent to the hugging, but it is not rape in my opinion.

Good to hear. I agree.

But if you click the arrow that links to previous quotes, then you're comment of "Yeah if you're a rapist" would be seen as how you say, out of line. For the idea of hugging a child is what I was conveying.

 

[Acim]

Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying here.

You asked why. I provided reasons why. And felt I explained it fairly well. If you have questions on specific words or phrases, feel free to ask.

 

[Sonofason]

Do you think an 8 year old can consent to sexual relations (of any kind)?

Our society, here in the United States have reached a consensus that an 8 year old can not give consent to sexual relations. They physically are capable of giving their consent, but society will not recognize that consent. Other societies might choose other ages for consent. I think its pretty sick to consider an 8 year old child capable of giving consent.

Because I think I have looser definitions of 'sex' than most, I don't see it as inherently wrong. And because of issues I have around consent, I'll likely always reference it as relatively wrong in a discussion such as this. But outside of a discussion such as this, I would say attempts to have sexual intercourse (penetration) with anyone without their explicit consent is wrong. Yet, because you brought up the whole unspoken consent thing that does occur with people who are 'in love' it does have me second guess that. I'd stipulate that as soon as there is fairly clear indication of "no I don't want to do this now with you" then that would be wrong to continue on as if "I can get you in the mood." To me, even that is a bit debatable. All this is less debatable for me if one party is using brute force to get the other person to submit.

I agree.

That actually seems like huge step for you to assert this. I see it as you saying statutory rape is relatively wrong. Though given question I asked above, I'm thinking you believe with a certain age (and under) it is inherently wrong. While with another age of minors, it may be just relatively wrong, since the consent could be 'reasonably given.'

Of course statutory rape is relatively wrong, but only because it includes consent. Without consent, rape is always wrong. With consent the wrongness of it is relative to a society or individual's cultural and/or personal beliefs.

 

[Sonofason]

You asked why. I provided reasons why. And felt I explained it fairly well. If you have questions on specific words or phrases, feel free to ask.

I'll read it again.

 

[Sonofason]

Because of philosophical (closer to legal) issues I have with understanding consent, and how that plays out with human sexuality. I do think it is plausible that some people desire it, but don't understand what that desire actually entails. As I brought up earlier, I've discussed 'rape fantasies' with people before. Some wish to downplay that to 'rape play' as if that is all they are conveying. I disagree with that assertion in terms of 'all they are conveying.' The 'rape fantasy' is just one of I think dozens of things that make me question the consent issue. I'd be pleased just to stick with adult sexual relations to make this point.

But also because of spiritual issues I have with understanding consent, and how that can transcend lifetimes such that Divine Judgment could be playing out certain things that appear to us as "way out of line" but could possibly be something that was essentially asked for as way of 'repaying a debt' from long ago. And a way to position forgiveness in a Divine order type of way.

But also because I truly do see all actions as inherently neutral. This is also spiritual for me. I don't see God/Christ judging actions (any of them) in way we might. From Christ perspective, I see any perceived negative action as immediate call to Love to uphold forgiveness (of the spiritual being, brother or sister) and downplay what is, in reality, ineffectual against the reality of God's Creation. From Creator God's perspective, I fully believe that all actions are akin to how we perceive our actions in night dreams, and even that isn't exactly fair. But is akin to that. Whereby we fully understand it as illusion of Mind and not something that actually occurred (within God's Reality, aka Heaven / Kingdom).

Some people are sick. And some people are completely demented, and/or evil. People have all sorts of fantasies, and that surely confuses the issue. Is it wrong for evil people to have evil desires and thoughts? Who cares? Rather, what would you expect them to have?

As to those who would desire to be raped, that is, desire to be raped without their consent? I think it is disturbing and sick. I think such minds have been overcome with evil. So yes even for them, it would be inherently wrong to rape them. And it is equally wrong that they would want to be raped. Pure evil.

Not something I like to think about, not at all.

 

[Sonofason]

Good to hear. I agree.

But if you click the arrow that links to previous quotes, then you're comment of "Yeah if you're a rapist" would be seen as how you say, out of line. For the idea of hugging a child is what I was conveying.

You had said, "I honestly see some (arguably most) adults using same logic with regards to kids and drawing different lines. I think most have the same lines in mind of where it becomes not okay. But it is really based on what adults think, and what amounts to relative morality. Essentially justifying that it is okay to touch kids, without their consent, as if an unspoken consent exists because they appear to enjoy it."

There was nothing written about hugging in this comment you wrote. And so I took it to mean improper touching.

 

[Sonofason]

I am wondering...considering that you do not believe that there is anything that is inherently wrong, I am supposing that you do not believe that there is anything inherently evil?
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=evil

I'll have to continue this tomorrow. It's late.
And by the way, with regard to B) of post 395, I actually do care very much.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The thing is, 'wrong' and 'evil' are subjectively defined. They have to be unless you have infinite knowledge of the universe.

Anyone here have infinite knowledge of the universe?

Hmmm?