Surely the world we live in proves there is no [loving] God.

[Saint Frankenstein]

If the action doesn't abuse, harm, take advantage, oppress, violate, etc. other people then calling it bad, wrong, or sinful is arbitrary prejudice or some religious/cultural tabboo that won't apply to others.

Not everybody believes things are bad because someone else claimed their God said so.

Exactly!

As for me, I choose to examine issues rationally before I make a judgment about whether it is ethical or not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because, with children and animals, the other party is unable to consent, and sex with relatives can cause birth defects in their offspring.

Incidentally, in many cultures, women are forced into marriage and sexual relationships without their consent.

Also... I don't even see why marriage is still even around nowadays anyway... It was invented by the ancient Greeks and Romans as a way for the state to force women to pop out more babies with men that they didn't even care about.

It continues because it has evolved into a way for women to force men into helping them pop out babies.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The RCC needs to clean up its own backyard before pointing fingers at others. I watched Frontline's documentary "Secrets of the Vatican" last night and it was highly disturbing. A priest who had intercourse with his own son (sired while he was a priest), another who raped a little girl then gave her penance to do for her "sin" and then told her if she told anyone her parents would go to hell. The Vatican's response? Besides the cover-ups and transfers to different parishes, prohibiting those with a homosexual orientation from entering the priesthood as if there were a connection between the two! Well at least half the Curia is gay and Italian priests openly engage in gay sex parties. And that's not even getting into the financial improprieties of the Vatican bank, a whole other subject. Makes me sick.

Yeah. The hypocrisy is horrendous. I need to watch that doc.

 

[Penumbra]

Adultery in the form of cheating on a partner is dishonest and a betrayal of trust. Having sex with a child is predatory because cannot provide adult informed consent.

Consensual intimacy or romantic love between adults of the same sex is not either of those things, and to compare them ethically is disrespectful and shows a profound lack of understanding.

 

[nazz]

Yeah. The hypocrisy is horrendous. I need to watch that doc.

It's probably available at the PBS website.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Adultery in the form of cheating on a partner is dishonest and a betrayal of trust. Having sex with a child is predatory because cannot provide adult informed consent.

Consensual intimacy or romantic love between adults of the same sex is not either of those things, and to compare them ethically is disrespectful and shows a profound lack of understanding.

'Nuff said. :yes:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's probably available at the PBS website.

Yup. Here is if anyone else wants to watch it:

Secrets of the Vatican | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The RCC needs to clean up its own backyard before pointing fingers at others. I watched Frontline's documentary "Secrets of the Vatican" last night and it was highly disturbing. A priest who had intercourse with his own son (sired while he was a priest), another who raped a little girl then gave her penance to do for her "sin" and then told her if she told anyone her parents would go to hell. The Vatican's response? Besides the cover-ups and transfers to different parishes, prohibiting those with a homosexual orientation from entering the priesthood as if there were a connection between the two! Well at least half the Curia is gay and Italian priests openly engage in gay sex parties. And that's not even getting into the financial improprieties of the Vatican bank, a whole other subject. Makes me sick.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Pegg]

Because, with children and animals, the other party is unable to consent, and sex with relatives can cause birth defects in their offspring.

Also... I don't even see why marriage is still even around nowadays anyway... It was invented by the ancient Greeks and Romans as a way for the state to force women to pop out more babies with men that they didn't even care about.

ah, i think people were getting married long before the greeks and romans even existed

Didnt the pharoahs of Egypt marry?

 

[Badran]

God’s Mercy surpasses His Wrath. As Murata and Chitick suggests in their book titled ‘The Vision of Islam’: “One of the ways in which the Koran refers to the fact that the names of beauty and mercy represents God’s true nature more accurately than the names of majesty and wrath is in the statement that God’s mercy embraces all things. ‘I strike with My chastisement whom I will, but My mercy embraces all things.(7:156)’. The Koran never suggests that God is wrathful toward all things. He is wrathful only toward those creatures who refuse to accept His nearness to them”[4].

All the following is redundant but i'll say it anyway.

Though in that proposition god can forgive everything, he actually doesn't, correct? Though god can forgive anything he wants, he won't in one instance at least, and more importantly that instance is if a person dies in a state of disbelief (shirk).

If you don't accept that premise then ignore the following, but since it's the basic premise for most Muslims, i'm going with it. If that's part of the proposition, then his wrath obviously surpasses his proposed mercy, when he refuses to forgive despite being capable of it, if his refusal is stemming out of his wrath (which at the least, in the case of punishment for disbelief, it certainly is). Worse, as you know, when he doesn't forgive and punishes instead, in the case of disbelief, the punishment is an eternal state of immense, unbareble pain of the worst kinds imaginable, basically being the most severe type of punishment possible.

Further making it even worse, the fact that the one thing he takes exception with so badly is disbelief towards him (or associating other gods with him), making him at his most wrathful, and engaging (and threatening) in senseless, unwarranted and undeserved amounts of vengeance (infinite) against his very own creation, basically reduces the proposition of mercy on his end at all to being nothing more than a ridiculous notion.

Yet both are necessary, as they further state,
“Without fear, people become bold and do whatever they want, not worrying about the consequences. Without hope they shrivel and die”[4]. Finally, their analysis of the attributes of God point out that the ‘fear of God’ is essentially a component of the 'mercy of God', because “the only logical way to act when you fear God is to go toward him, since there is nowhere to run. Likewise, hope and love for God encourage people to go toward him. Every relationship with God encourages seeking out nearness with him”[4].

Saying that without fear people do whatever they want reduces any goodness in people to just the will to avoid consequences, which in principle is too simplistic and in practice isn't as efficient as a lot of people like to believe. I don't consider fear to be an illegitimate motive, but i do consider relying on it and worse, considering it the only or main motive we operate upon to be a negative view on things.

But, i'll actually grant that. If this is the case, then all gods need to do is threaten, but never actually carry through.

Just like a mother would discipline her child with punishments and threats of consequences because she loves her child very much and she would like to see her child to be in the best of manners, our creator knows that human beings do forget and transgress their limits and they need to be constrained through punishments and deterrence.

I think punishment is okay, but that comparison might start appearing to make sense (despite actually still not making any) if the mother threw her child out the window if they refuse to accept her motherhood.

Basically, the kind of punishment god would engage in this case like i said is senseless punishment. It doesn't serve any purpose other than blind, unlimited amounts of need for vengeance.

 

[Penumbra]

Then you have neither read the Qur'an nor the Bible.

I've read both in full.

The Bible is much longer than the Qur'an and it has a lengthy narrative structure that includes multiple acts of genocide, so there is much more violence in it. It's from dozens of writers, so there are parts where god is not wrathful at all and other parts that are full of destruction and death. The violence tends to be focused on the act of causing death, rather than causing extended suffering in most cases. Therefore it's malevolent and violent far more than it's actually sadistic. Sadistic means enjoying cruelty, which is why I used that particular word rather than others.

The Qur'an on the other hand is shorter, and because it is unified and rather repetitive, there's a very high density of ecstatically described sadistic threats in there, going into detail about hellish torture far beyond anything in the Bible, including things like burning people and replacing their skins so they can keep burning, beating them with maces back into the fire, and making them drink boiling water, and so forth. And throughout it, it links bad behavior with non-believers, treating them as sort of a unified block of people by saying things like "and they will say ___" as though the world's several billion non-Muslims share much in common. So Islam seems fairly unique in the amount of sadism in its text.

And then after the Qur'an and then the Bible, I haven't encountered much sadism at all in any other religious text. Islam comes off as about as simple and tribal as a religion can be, with repeated promises of paradise for people that believe the book and do things in it, and repeated threats of detailed torture for people that don't believe such things.

I don't know how a person could possibly have the mindset to accept such sadism towards any individual, but whatever the feeling is, it isn't love.

You would be surprised if I start quoting stuff from the Bible.

No, I won't be.

He is wrathful only toward those creatures who refuse to accept His nearness to them.

Like an abusive partner?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

That you'll have to ask God.

But I do note that the Christian scriptures state specifically [paraphrasing]: "To whom much is given, much is required!"

So it apparently works both ways.

Peace,

Bruce

Why bother asking God? I'm sure millions of people have asked that same question, but how many have actually gotten an answer... not a single one. Just like every other question that's ever been asked of him. It's almost as if prayer is just a placebo for people to try and make themselves feel better by hoping that someone is up there listening.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Because, with children and animals, the other party is unable to consent, and sex with relatives can cause birth defects in their offspring.

I have responded to the issue about 'consent' and the other types of sex that you mention above in the following post ...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3677707-post253.html

Also... I don't even see why marriage is still even around nowadays anyway... It was invented by the ancient Greeks and Romans as a way for the state to force women to pop out more babies with men that they didn't even care about.

I know ... it would be so much more fun and easy to just make a young girl pregnant (accidentally) and just walk away without taking any responsibility. Marriage enforces 'taking responsibility' within the bounds of a social system. We are ready to accept any other types of 'enforcement' to make people comply or be responsible, but when it comes to God's commands - forget it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Now both homosexuality and adultery/fornication is considered sin according to Islam (and in some other religions as well). And I know very well that you do not consider any of them to be anything wrong. So why is it considered 'bigotry' and 'hatred' against the homosexuals but not against adulterer/fornicator ? No one talks about 'bigotry' and 'hatred' against an adulterer or fornicator. That's why I said it is nothing but a way to draw sympathy and promote homosexuality (regardless of whether the attraction is natural or not).

There is bigotry if you try to restrict the rights of those you deem "fornicators" or "adulterers". I've seen that apparently Islam calls for the death penalty for those things in some cases. If that's so, that's beyond simple bigotry and is a human rights abuse. So correct me if I'm wrong but Islam views having sex with someone you're not married to as being a worse moral crime than stoning someone to death? Stoning is surely one of the most brutal and painful ways to die. Even I, who agrees with the death penalty in principle, am absolutely horrified by the practice of stoning. It is simply hideous and cruel. I do not see how a person who supports such a thing can possible call themselves moral, righteous or ethical in the least.

It is completely bizarre how fixated certain religions are on sexual behavior. Too bad your god apparently doesn't view war, slavery, discrimination towards women, cruelty, etc. as being equally sinful as having sex.

That's exactly my point - it is wrong when it is acted upon and no different than adultery/fornication.

Except there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

That's just a bunch of baloney - specially the excuse of 'illegal'. Homosexuality is illegal in many places, would you accept that then ?

No, of course not. There's no reason for homosexuality to be illegal.

Who said sex is harmful to the 'children' ? Define children. You might consider someone under 18 to be a child but not everyone else in the world agrees with that.

When I say "child", I'm referring to a pre-pubescent child. Teenagers are not children. Hopefully you're not actually expecting me to explain why it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a pre-pubescent child.

That is totally subjective. Marriageable age varies from 14 to 21 in different countries in the world and age of Consent ranges between 12(mexico) and 18.

I know.

So why would it be wrong to have consensual sex with a 12 year old ? Who decides the cut off age? Only our Creator has a right to do that .

There is no hard and fast cut off age. It's situational.

Without God you don't have objective morality. So in essence you really can't objectively say that it is wrong to have sex with a child. See my point.

There is no such thing as objective morality, with or without a god.

How'bout animals ? Do you take consent from an animal when you milk a cow ? Then why do you think it is wrong to have sex with it without consent ?

I didn't say it's wrong to have sex with animals in all cases. In fact, I don't believe it's wrong. It's another one of those things that needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

Same goes for incest. Possibilities of genetic disorders through incest are no more probable than higher HIV rates among homosexuals. So that doesn't count either.

I don't care if people have incestuous relationships as long as it's consensual.

Therefore, you could not prove why practicing homosexuality is natural and ok where as all those other types of sexual perversions are wrong.

The only one I think is definitely wrong is having sex with a pre-pubescent child.

 

[loverOfTruth]

There is bigotry if you try to restrict the rights of those you deem "fornicators" or "adulterers". I've seen that apparently Islam calls for the death penalty for those things in some cases. If that's so, that's beyond simple bigotry and is a human rights abuse. So correct me if I'm wrong but Islam views having sex with someone you're not married to as being a worse moral crime than stoning someone to death? Stoning is surely one of the most brutal and painful ways to die. Even I, who agrees with the death penalty in principle, am absolutely horrified by the practice of stoning. It is simply hideous and cruel. I do not see how a person who supports such a thing can possible call themselves moral, righteous or ethical in the least.

Once again you are talking from pure ignorance. That's why I told you to read the Islamic position here : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...65-post48.html

I and neither Islam is in support of businesses restricting service to homosexuals. Go tell that to those who think that way. Don't blame Islam of bigotry and hatred then.

And you are talking about subjective things like my way of killing is more humane than your way of killing. So silly. That's why we take it from God, our Creator, who knows best and why. Read the details please ... see how many people really get Stoned for that.

It is completely bizarre how fixated certain religions are on sexual behavior. Too bad your god apparently doesn't view war, slavery, discrimination towards women, cruelty, etc. as being equally sinful as having sex.

Once again your views are just typical ignorance as a result of brainwashing by the media. I have discussed all those issues in this thread. Please read ...

Do you believe that Islam is a fair and just religion? - Religious Education Forum

No, of course not. There's no reason for homosexuality to be illegal.

But there's a reason for 'sex with a 12 year old' to be illegal ?

When I say "child", I'm referring to a pre-pubescent child. Teenagers are not children. Hopefully you're not actually expecting me to explain why it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a pre-pubescent child.

I know.There is no hard and fast cut off age. It's situational.

So you think its ok for an adult to have consensual sex with a 12 year old ? Don't avoid the question please.

There is no such thing as objective morality, with or without a god.

Of course there is. Otherwise, one person's right would be another person's wrong - and who gets to decide who is right ?

I didn't say it's wrong to have sex with animals in all cases. In fact, I don't believe it's wrong. It's another one of those things that needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

I don't care if people have incestuous relationships as long as it's consensual.

The only one I think is definitely wrong is having sex with a pre-pubescent child.

I don't think I need to respond to that ... it speaks for itself.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I have responded to the issue about 'consent' and the other types of sex that you mention above in the following post ...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3677707-post253.html



I know ... it would be so much more fun and easy to just make a young girl pregnant (accidentally) and just walk away without taking any responsibility. Marriage enforces 'taking responsibility' within the bounds of a social system. We are ready to accept any other types of 'enforcement' to make people comply or be responsible, but when it comes to God's commands - forget it.

Right... Because marriage completely takes away someone's ability to be irresponsible. :sarcastic

 

[kjw47]

I bumped into a Plymouth Brethren the other day. Now I am not singling out that particular religion but the conversation highlighted a problem I have always had about the God of the bible.
I asked him “why would a loving God create smallpox for example, or river blindness [Onchocerciasis] or Malaria” and so on. His answer was ‘to test mankind’ ?

Surely the world we see around us proves behind all doubt whatsoever that if there is an intelligent creator he is not the loving God that the Christians believe in?

Maybe no matter what is created an opposite forms>? I don't know---- God created mankind to know only good to live forever in perfect health--God doesn't want this world( system of things) the rebels caused all of this.
So either God could have killed all 3 on the spot( no one ever born would have gotten life,the seed would have died as well--- or God could let it be proved once and for all time that we do need God to direct our steps to find real happiness, and God chose right---it is almost done.

 

[ChristineES]

I guess you're not reading any of Penumbra's posts in this thread. I don't believe in any all-powerful and all-loving god and even I'm feeling a bit sad about it all. Lol.

We're two different people. You probably feel let down by your former religion right now, although I wouldn't know for sure (I only gather this from posts you've made throughout your time here but I don't know you personally).

Also, I also can discuss between God and religion. What people are apparently discussing is religion but they are not really putting God into the equation. Whatever God-concept a person who believes will have a different idea about the nature of God, as well.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The only one I think is definitely wrong is having sex with a pre-pubescent child.

*Cough cough* Muhammad and Aisha.

 

[loverOfTruth]

*Cough cough* Muhammad and Aisha.

Once again talking from pure ignorance ... you seem to be quite worthy of your name though