Interspecies Marriage

[1robin]

Videos could easily resolve the issue. If an animal is seen to have willing sex with a human that should be proof enough (and there are such videos).

This post scared the heck out of me. I clicked a link of a response to my post and yours is the one that was centered in the screen. I was thinking what could I possibly have said that made what you said necessary. I was relieved to find it was someone else you were responding to, but while I am here.

1. You are right it is impossible to determine whether the animal consented.
2. However consent is not the meaningful issue here. It could be that bestiality would produce a virus worse than any yet known, and given our modern recent downhill slide in sexual morality that virus would wipe most of us out in a generation. The point being there are many reasons why bestiality could be wrong, and I think consent a minor one of the set.

 

[Erebus]

I'd be up for interspecies marriage if the other species in question were hot alien dudes. On a quest to find fertile females that are sexually compatible. That they would dote on and revere. To help repopulate their species. That has lost the vast majority of their women due to some tragic unfortunate catastrophe. Uh...yeah, that sounds okay for interspecies marriage.

It's all fun and games until you see what they've got downstairs.

 

[1robin]

This proof has already been done by many. There is more than just two theories of morality.

The proof of what? You mean you asked for proof of humans marrying bizarre entities has been shown to be true by many others, or did you mean something else.

But, you do bring up a good point. God was invented in part to give authority to people's subjective morality or laws. Otherwise people would have no reason to respect the law save whatever power the current earthly authority had over them.

Ok, first this is a philosophical kindergarten mistake. You made a claim to absolute truth. Therefore by the rules of philosophy and logic you must post the absolute proof that you claim is true. Not only did you not even attempt to supply evidence for your revision of history but you can't supply it even if you wanted to. It is impossible to prove what you claim about thousands of God's throughout history.

Now some evidence against your ridiculous theory (which by the way I once held as a teen ager and am now thoroughly ashamed of)
1. You might invent heaven, but you would not invent a Hell that everyone was going to wind up in unless they obeyed laws that were extremely inconvenient.
2. You do not put your worst failures in that same text and as Paul did "admit he was the chief of sinners".
3. This is a principle of law that men do not claim to have done wrong unless they are generally sincere.
4. History shows that men will create laws, and even risk death in order to kill others that did not agree with those laws. History shows very very few who willingly gave up their lives than to obey made up God's and laws without a fight. And Christianity probably accounts for over 90% of them.
5. Those who without any doubt knew the absolute fact of whether Christ rose from the dead or not claimed he did and obeyed him without gaining any earthly riches but in spite of incurring the wrath of their own nation and the greatest empire on earth. IOW like the founder of Harvard law said, if sincerity concerning something they knew the truth of was not their motivation no other motivation exists.

Any thinking man trained in theology can tear down the biblical God of convenience story with hundreds of inconsistencies in it, but I will stop here.

But your demands of proof work both ways. In order to assert you religious morality, prove your god exists, or is even internally consistent.

This is a whole new issue and irrelevant. I do not have to convince anyone I am right to be right. Regardless the bible was not written to govern an earthly theocracy. It was designed to govern an individuals heart and to clearly point out the obvious problem of sin, it's origin, and it's solution. It is not designed to govern Europe but can you imagine the relative moral Utopia Europe would be if everyone there actually obeyed the NT? You answered an ontological proposition with an epistemological response. That is probably a 5th grade philosophical mistake.

BY the way I mean no disrespect when I point out your mistakes. I judge ideas not people.

 

[Skwim]

This post scared the heck out of me. I clicked a link of a response to my post and yours is the one that was centered in the screen. I was thinking what could I possibly have said that made what you said necessary. I was relieved to find it was someone else you were responding to, but while I am here.

Knowing how much you cherish your heck, I'm certain you'll find more. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

1. You are right it is impossible to determine whether the animal consented.

Actually, I believe it's quite easy to determine when an animal consents. If he looks eager to engage I would take that as a sure sign.

2. However consent is not the meaningful issue here.

Sure it is. It's what's been discussed since post 2.

It could be that bestiality would produce a virus worse than any yet known, and given our modern recent downhill slide in sexual morality that virus would wipe most of us out in a generation.

And the Baptist faith could be the road to hell. Point is, could've, would've, and should've simply don't work here. There's no evidence for them

The point being there are many reasons why bestiality could be wrong, and I think consent a minor one of the set.

Just as there are many reasons Christianity could be wrong. So, are you ready to abandon your faith because of this "could be"? And, as far as your "many reasons," goes, you've only cited two, one of which is a variable.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Now we've gotten over homosexual marriage now its time we discuss interspecies marriage.i say we being to act like responsible people and accept the reality of zoophilia.For example if a man living a lonely life falls in love with his favourite animal or a women having impressed with the greatness of her horses penis and falls in love who are we to judge them.And isn't god all about love.So i want to see interspecies marriages taking place at the churches right now.What do you think?Hasn't the time come we drop our prejudices about zoophilia?

God is all about what is right, not what is wrong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

1. You might invent heaven, but you would not invent a Hell that everyone was going to wind up in

A good point I think

 

[Draka]

Wouldn't the motivation for imagining/creating a Hell be to keep people in line and instill fear in them making it easier to control them? Promise them bliss if they obey, torture if they don't, and preach away declaring yourself leader. I mean, it was a leader that had one version of the bible revised to fit what he wanted it to say. Religion makes people easier to control. So why not invent a punishment?

 

[Curious George]

The proof of what? You mean you asked for proof of humans marrying bizarre entities has been shown to be true by many others, or did you mean something else.



Ok, first this is a philosophical kindergarten mistake. You made a claim to absolute truth. Therefore by the rules of philosophy and logic you must post the absolute proof that you claim is true. Not only did you not even attempt to supply evidence for your revision of history but you can't supply it even if you wanted to. It is impossible to prove what you claim about thousands of God's throughout history.

Now some evidence against your ridiculous theory (which by the way I once held as a teen ager and am now thoroughly ashamed of)
1. You might invent heaven, but you would not invent a Hell that everyone was going to wind up in unless they obeyed laws that were extremely inconvenient.
2. You do not put your worst failures in that same text and as Paul did "admit he was the chief of sinners".
3. This is a principle of law that men do not claim to have done wrong unless they are generally sincere.
4. History shows that men will create laws, and even risk death in order to kill others that did not agree with those laws. History shows very very few who willingly gave up their lives than to obey made up God's and laws without a fight. And Christianity probably accounts for over 90% of them.
5. Those who without any doubt knew the absolute fact of whether Christ rose from the dead or not claimed he did and obeyed him without gaining any earthly riches but in spite of incurring the wrath of their own nation and the greatest empire on earth. IOW like the founder of Harvard law said, if sincerity concerning something they knew the truth of was not their motivation no other motivation exists.

Any thinking man trained in theology can tear down the biblical God of convenience story with hundreds of inconsistencies in it, but I will stop here.

This is a whole new issue and irrelevant. I do not have to convince anyone I am right to be right. Regardless the bible was not written to govern an earthly theocracy. It was designed to govern an individuals heart and to clearly point out the obvious problem of sin, it's origin, and it's solution. It is not designed to govern Europe but can you imagine the relative moral Utopia Europe would be if everyone there actually obeyed the NT? You answered an ontological proposition with an epistemological response. That is probably a 5th grade philosophical mistake.

BY the way I mean no disrespect when I point out your mistakes. I judge ideas not people.

No disrespect felt. One would have to understand the argument to disrespect it. But the theory of god did not begin with the NT or the old. You will have to dig deeper in history to touch my argument. Understanding this should highlight why a large portion of what you said is meaningless.

And no you are mistaken with regard to the morality. If by your god, your morality is correct, if and only if your god exists, can your morality be correct. This would leave us waiting for your proof of your gods existence in order to prove your moral code. But I would even entertain an internally consistent concept of a god to support or prove your morality. As you have none, you have no support for your morality.

But hey, it is possible that your god exists, despite such evidence to the contrary. And in that event, you very well could be right. But given the snake oil sales pitch: "it's true, I just can't prove it, or even make such notions congruent with reality, but it's true, honest...scouts' honor...I swear..." You will have to forgive this "5th grader" for being smart enough to just say no.

 

[1robin]

Knowing how much you cherish your heck, I'm certain you'll find more. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I hate it when I miss the point of a joke.

Actually, I believe it's quite easy to determine when an animal consents. If he looks eager to engage I would take that as a sure sign.

Consented to what? If you actually believe this then you have reduced human morality to the interpretation of the actions of a bear when someone tries to mate with it. Have you not seen the film of the bear enthusiasts who interpreted bear behavior as acceptance and wound up being bear lunch? God help us, people want to base right and wrong on the actions of a mongoose.

Sure it is. It's what's been discussed since post 2.

I did not say it was not discussed. I said it is irrelevant. I may consent to buy crack from a guy who consents to sell it. That will not help my in court because our laws are generally not based on consent. A tiny fraction of them involve consent and even within those the inability to determine consent is impossible. Not that two people who agree to commit adultery makes adultery any less wrong. I sure hope your not running for any political office, but if you are the American liberal party would probably champion your cause.

And the Baptist faith could be the road to hell. Point is, could've, would've, and should've simply don't work here. There's no evidence for them

There is evidence, my faith was based on the Baptist understanding of salvation and just as my receiving salvation justifies that creed, raising Jesus from the dead justified his claims. That is not to say that the Baptist creed is the only one that get the core doctrines correct. Most denominations contain the exact same core creeds and the secondary issues are merely intra-faith disagreements and have nothing to do with what salvation requires, is, or produces. I will grant however that all the billions of pieces of evidence of this are subjective in general but proof to at least that person. IOW if both I and a Catholic believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin and are born again within the context of the supernatural revelation of the truth of that fact then whether we disagree about transubstantiation or not. I also want to point out that one who has never experienced being born again cannot understand that a property and actual purpose of it is to supernaturally convict the recipient of his of her final destination.

Just as there are many reasons Christianity could be wrong. So, are you ready to abandon your faith because of this "could be"? And, as far as your "many reasons," goes, you've only cited two, one of which is a variable.

[/quote] I will be the first to agree that there are reasons to conclude Christianity false. That is to say there is evidence (and by evidence in a philosophical sense) means data, that the inclusion of which makes the proposition more likely. However after decades the gap between the pile of reasons not to believe, and the pile of reasons to believe are becoming even greater to the credit of pro-faith. There was a published cosmologist with a PhD, I can find his name if you must have it as I cannot remember it, that quit his job to defend the faith from cosmology full time. He started collecting published material from secular sources that made God's existence more likely. He started back in the 70's or 80's I think. He said he would come across an article that made the Biblical explanation of cosmology more likely at the rate of 1 or 2 a month. He said that now it he finds them by the dozens a weak. If I was asked what to tell someone to look for in order to that would most effectively lead him to faith I would suggest watching or reading about the lives of obedient Christians. If I was asked what is the subject that would I chose to defend that faith in general I would be torn between science and philosophy.

1 reason bestiality is wrong is plenty if it can't be and was not even challenged.

 

[1robin]

A good point I think

There are so many reasons that if you were lying Christianity would not be what was produced that they prompted maybe the greatest expert on evidence and testimony in human history to state:


"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."

This comes from a famous paper written by the founder of Harvard law and is not that long and very very well written. To read the entire paper please visit:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

It is a legal examination from one of the best legal minds to ever exist applied to the Gospels. Take you about 20 minutes to read.

 

[1robin]

No disrespect felt. One would have to understand the argument to disrespect it. But the theory of god did not begin with the NT or the old. You will have to dig deeper in history to touch my argument. Understanding this should highlight why a large portion of what you said is meaningless.

And no you are mistaken with regard to the morality. If by your god, your morality is correct, if and only if your god exists, can your morality be correct. This would leave us waiting for your proof of your gods existence in order to prove your moral code. But I would even entertain an internally consistent concept of a god to support or prove your morality. As you have none, you have no support for your morality.

But hey, it is possible that your god exists, despite such evidence to the contrary. And in that event, you very well could be right. But given the snake oil sales pitch: "it's true, I just can't prove it, or even make such notions congruent with reality, but it's true, honest...scouts' honor...I swear..." You will have to forgive this "5th grader" for being smart enough to just say no.

Well then you have a terrible problem. The further back you go the less reliably you know anything. I have had atheists dismiss the cofounder of Harvard Law, or the only legal expert to occupy every legal high court office in the largest empire to ever exist by stating they rode horses to work and so were to old to be relevant. You cannot reliably know much of anything with sufficient detail to make claims that are reliable enough to be both specific and persuasive about moral issues that occurred long before the historical period.

Objective morality (meaning morality that is true regardless of whether you think it is) is only possible with the supernatural. Any scientist will tell you that science can tell what is, and can't even begin to reveal what should be in this context. Natural law does not stand in moral relationships with anything. That is why no society has ever used natural law to ground legal code. The closest any ever got was Hitler's Germany. After being taught evolution by a man called Darwin's bulldog, Ernst Haeckel. Hitler concluded that he could make the human race stronger in general by killing off the weak and infirm so the strong were no longer burdened by him and on a naturalists view who's to say he was wrong. The only way to show he was incorrect requires a transcendent authority.

Snake oil is a terrible analogy, and believe me I have seen some bad ones before. Snake oil became famous for it never working. People bought into it and it either hurt them or it did nothing and it never became a going concern and soon faded from history at least in it's classic 1800s western sense. However Christianity has been tried and billions not only claim it works as a moral/philosophical worldview but also worked as a supernatural answer to a problem that no natural remedy had any effect upon. Your analogy is horrifically flawed. It is so biased and so bad a comparison that it almost does not merit a response but your new to me and I'm bored so I didn't want to bear down too hard on you at this point.

 

[Skwim]

I hate it when I miss the point of a joke.

Consented to what? If you actually believe this then you have reduced human morality to the interpretation of the actions of a bear when someone tries to mate with it. Have you not seen the film of the bear enthusiasts who interpreted bear behavior as acceptance and wound up being bear lunch? God help us, people want to base right and wrong on the actions of a mongoose.

Whatever you meant when you said "it is impossible to determine whether the animal consented" (actually, is was sex).

I did not say it was not discussed. I said it is irrelevant.

No, actually, you said "consent is not the meaningful issue here." And I corrected you, it is a meaningful issue. " It's what's been discussed since post 2." Now if you won't/can't accept this, fine.

There is evidence, my faith was based on the Baptist understanding of salvation and just as my receiving salvation justifies that creed, raising Jesus from the dead justified his claims. That is not to say that the Baptist creed is the only one that get the core doctrines correct. Most denominations contain the exact same core creeds and the secondary issues are merely intra-faith disagreements and have nothing to do with what salvation requires, is, or produces. I will grant however that all the billions of pieces of evidence of this are subjective in general but proof to at least that person. IOW if both I and a Catholic believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin and are born again within the context of the supernatural revelation of the truth of that fact then whether we disagree about transubstantiation or not. I also want to point out that one who has never experienced being born again cannot understand that a property and actual purpose of it is to supernaturally convict the recipient of his of her final destination.

Nah, there's just Baptist say-so. Although, if there's actual evidence that the Baptist faith can not be the road to hell I'm willing to listen.

1 reason bestiality is wrong is plenty if it can't be and was not even challenged.

???


.

 

[Curious George]

Well then you have a terrible problem. The further back you go the less reliably you know anything. I have had atheists dismiss the cofounder of Harvard Law, or the only legal expert to occupy every legal high court office in the largest empire to ever exist by stating they rode horses to work and so were to old to be relevant. You cannot reliably know much of anything with sufficient detail to make claims that are reliable enough to be both specific and persuasive about moral issues that occurred long before the historical period.

What?relevance?

Objective morality (meaning morality that is true regardless of whether you think it is) is only possible with the supernatural. Any scientist will tell you that science can tell what is, and can't even begin to reveal what should be in this context. Natural law does not stand in moral relationships with anything. That is why no society has ever used natural law to ground legal code. The closest any ever got was Hitler's Germany. After being taught evolution by a man called Darwin's bulldog, Ernst Haeckel. Hitler concluded that he could make the human race stronger in general by killing off the weak and infirm so the strong were no longer burdened by him and on a naturalists view who's to say he was wrong. The only way to show he was incorrect requires a transcendent authority.

Not so, perhaps you should study morality and ethics.

Snake oil is a terrible analogy, and believe me I have seen some bad ones before. Snake oil became famous for it never working. People bought into it and it either hurt them or it did nothing and it never became a going concern and soon faded from history at least in it's classic 1800s western sense. However Christianity has been tried and billions not only claim it works as a moral/philosophical worldview but also worked as a supernatural answer to a problem that no natural remedy had any effect upon. Your analogy is horrifically flawed. It is so biased and so bad a comparison that it almost does not merit a response but your new to me and I'm bored so I didn't want to bear down too hard on you at this point.

Though I can think of instances where pretty much snake oil or some miracle cure made claims that it was tested and proven by popularity--(after all how could x number of people be wrong?)-- I withdraw the analogy but leave in its place the point that such an analogy makes. Cheers.

 

[1robin]

Whatever you meant when you said "it is impossible to determine whether the animal consented" (actually, is was sex).

Applied science's abject and constant failures in my lab are making my debate time so infrequent it's hard to remember to what your referring to. Are you referring to a premise about a bear and human mating? If so what's the conclusion?

No, actually, you said "consent is not the meaningful issue here." And I corrected you, it is a meaningful issue. " It's what's been discussed since post 2." Now if you won't/can't accept this, fine.

What's your conclusion to this bizarre line of reasoning you keep straightening out? I mean is what your defending that anything agreed to by those involved is a basis for declaring it legal or moral. If so the argument is so indefensible it requires no assault.

Nah, there's just Baptist say-so. Although, if there's actual evidence that the Baptist faith can not be the road to hell I'm willing to listen.

First of all I did not become a Baptist then a Christian. I became a Christian, then after spending a year determining which denomination's creed most closely matches what the Holy Spirit and my study of the bible had determined were the major doctrines of Christ, I found Baptist's most closely reflected it. However denominations cannot in and of themselves save or condemn anyone, though they can hinder or help in either case.

Now that I hope to have made clear that I am a child of God, born by the Holy Spirit, based on the merits of Jesus is the foundation and the infinitely important world view I hold. My being a Baptist is merely a reflection of an agreement about doctrinal issues that only apply after a person is a Christian and a massively less important relative to the former. Maybe you can recalibrate and ask me a more meaningful question.

The primary reason I chose to be a Baptist is their belief that salvation acquired by grace is maintained by grace, as opposed to the absurd Catholic idea that a thing acquired by grace must be maintained by merit. I have less than a dozen events in my life I would classify as miraculous, but of these few 3 of them were in confirmation of this very doctrine. Now that is very strong, almost objective evidence, but it is personal and of little help to you but it along with mountains of other things makes my faith evidenced based.

However your making a massive mistake here, your assigning your burden to me. Faith's actual burden is only that it lacks a defeater, I raise my personal burden to the level of the best explanation of the evidence but I actually do not have that burden.

Your the one who made the accusation that Baptists may be on the road to Hell. This if I am generous is a theoretical claim to knowledge. So it is your burden to show that evidence exists that makes you claimed theory more likely than not.

???

.

I have no memory of this statement nor it's context. I am as puzzled by it as you, probably because you did not include the rest of the information that included the context, premise, and conclusion at some point.

 

[David1967]

Are we really discussing this? Is this a joke?

Videos could easily resolve the issue. If an animal is seen to have willing sex with a human that should be proof enough (and there are such videos).

 

[Skwim]

Applied science's abject and constant failures in my lab are making my debate time so infrequent it's hard to remember to what your referring to. Are you referring to a premise about a bear and human mating? If so what's the conclusion?

What's your conclusion to this bizarre line of reasoning you keep straightening out? I mean is what your defending that anything agreed to by those involved is a basis for declaring it legal or moral. If so the argument is so indefensible it requires no assault.

To the nub of the issue:

I came into thread to address Good Doctor's statement (post 43).

"The problem - which will never be resolved for pro-zoophilics - is that there is no way to prove that an animal partaking in sex with a human is not a form of rape."​

To which I replied (post 45)

"Videos could easily resolve the issue. If an animal is seen to have willing sex with a human that should be proof enough (and there are such videos)'"​

That's all. Bestiality videos showing the animals are not being raped. That they willingly engage in sex with humans. Whether or not this is moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful conduct, is another topic.

I have no memory of this statement nor it's context. I am as puzzled by it as you, probably because you did not include the rest of the information that included the context, premise, and conclusion at some point.

Bottom of post 69.

 

[Skwim]

Welcome to the real world.

 

[David1967]

Welcome to the real world.

This thread is right there with the supermarket tabloid headline." Farmer marries his cow". The most entertaining part of this thread is reading the attempts at a serious answer

 

[1robin]

What?relevance?

I re-read what I wrote. I don't know how to make it clearer. The time periods your discussing are impossible to acquire moral lessons from with enough clarity to be of any use. I can give you a blanket statement from the bible that would cover that time frame though. Actually you have two paths determined by which interpretation you have. If you think Adam was the first human being to ever live then he lived far longer than these silly genealogy estimates people have made and man has always had a soul (and been a nephish creature). IOW when God said we are made in his image he obviously did not mean we look like him. He meant as he states other places we are soulish creatures having a God given conscience that comes with having a soul. Or if you take the interpretation that Adam was not the first human being but the first to be given a soul then the same implications would be the same after that point. When Moses came down from the mountain he did not invent morality. Man had known not to kill since they had first had souls and God given consciences thousands of years before Moses' grandfather was born. Moses was merely sourcing their moral intuitions with the single God and also validating their supernatural apprehension of an objective moral realm.

Not so, perhaps you should study morality and ethics.

I gave an argument with evidence, you cannot counter it with a platitude which you cannot possibly have access to enough information to justify even saying it within an argument, which it wasn't.

Though I can think of instances where pretty much snake oil or some miracle cure made claims that it was tested and proven by popularity--(after all how could x number of people be wrong?)-- I withdraw the analogy but leave in its place the point that such an analogy makes. Cheers.

I think your trying to dismiss my claim by appealing to a fallacy called the appeal to numbers. That only applies to proof claims which I did not make. Also Christianity is the only religion in the history of man to demand and offer proof of the divine up front as the entry event into the faith. IOW Christianity set it's self up to instantly commit suicide if untrue. The fact that it flourishes even when the largest empires on earth are trying to eradicate it makes it about the thing most opposite to snake oil imaginable. No other religion offers proof at the entry point to it and only a few offer it to a rare and select few that I can never seem to find or find anyone who knows one so I may question him. Most other religions faith requirements are merely intellectual consent to propositions which the adherent has no access to what so ever, and will not have access to any subjective proof until it is too late to realize the mistake.

 

[Skwim]

This thread is right there with the supermarket tabloid headline." Farmer marries his cow".

Sorry not all real world issues come with pink bows and a PG rating, but they exist nonetheless. If they're too disturbing you can always change the channel.

The most entertaining part of this thread is reading the attempts at a serious answer

And why shouldn't a real life issue deserve serious thought? Consider:

Bestiality/zoophilia are, in fact, actual human sexual practices (Wikipedia article)
Do you think they are moral? If not why not?
Do you think they should be legal? If not why not?​

Now, are such questions simply witless silliness, or do they deserve reasoned answers? Think your church would dismiss them out of hand as irrelevant issues not worthy of consideration. In other words, if a member came your church with concerns with his bestiality would the head of your church simply say, "Do what thou wilt. It's of no consequence"?

Or perhaps making light of it as you have here, is simply a defense mechanism.