On Pedophilia

I'm still puzzled by how the involvement of a deity adds to the process rather than distracts from it. If one is capable of providing proper restitution, the injurer should and the matter ended. If one is not capable of doing so, the extent of the injury should be up to the injured party's discretion within rules agreed upon by society (ie: civil and criminal laws). These are the rules in a civil society.

The involvement of a deity does nothing to promote this process. All it does is give the injurer a convenient salve for which to wash away his/her guilt. Worse yet, a number of religions (of which Christianity is a prominant example) liberally dispense guilt where is clearly doesn't belong in a shameless ploy to sell more of their branded soul cleansers. A decent person should no more feel guilt over honoring a different god than he should feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. Frankly, I also see no harm in noticing the nice rack on the woman pushing a baby stroller either.

Heck, how many guys here can honestly say that they don't find a pretty teenage girl to be attractive?

Last time I answered that, Pred ran me over with the Rape Train (tm).

ALL ABOARD, MOTHERF*CKERS!
IMAGE(http://www.midcontinent.org/news/cr29i_.jpg)

Worse yet, a number of religions (of which Christianity is a prominant example) liberally dispense guilt where is clearly doesn't belong in a shameless ploy to sell more of their branded soul cleansers. A decent person should no more feel guilt over honoring a different god than he should feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. Frankly, I also see no harm in noticing the nice rack on the woman pushing a baby stroller either.

True, and I think that's something that Christianity ran away with. Prior to Jesus, you either were a Jew or you weren't a Jew. Sure, you could convert, but it was a tough process and was generally discouraged.

Jesus taught two things that taken separately sound great, that we should love one another, and that everyone is welcome in the kingdom of heaven. But put them together and you get that since we love everyone, we want everyone to be in the kingdom of heaven. And there you get evangelism.

Anyway, believing that simply asking for forgiveness from God means you're sin free and ready to sin again is a really really dumbed down version of Christianity, and not correct. Unfortunately, is the most widely popular version.

As to your other issue, what need have we of God? Societally? Aside from the fact that western society bases it's rules for behavior off of christian values, nothing. Personally I think we have a greater need than that, but I can't offer anything non-anecdotally.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Worse yet, a number of religions (of which Christianity is a prominant example) liberally dispense guilt where is clearly doesn't belong in a shameless ploy to sell more of their branded soul cleansers. A decent person should no more feel guilt over honoring a different god than he should feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. Frankly, I also see no harm in noticing the nice rack on the woman pushing a baby stroller either.

True, and I think that's something that Christianity ran away with. Prior to Jesus, you either were a Jew or you weren't a Jew. Sure, you could convert, but it was a tough process and was generally discouraged.

Jesus taught two things that taken separately sound great, that we should love one another, and that everyone is welcome in the kingdom of heaven. But put them together and you get that since we love everyone, we want everyone to be in the kingdom of heaven. And there you get evangelism.

Anyway, believing that simply asking for forgiveness from God means you're sin free and ready to sin again is a really really dumbed down version of Christianity, and not correct. Unfortunately, is the most widely popular version.

As to your other issue, what need have we of God? Societally? Aside from the fact that western society bases it's rules for behavior off of christian values, nothing. Personally I think we have a greater need than that, but I can't offer anything non-anecdotally.

I don't know that Western society "bases" its rules of behavior off of christian values any more than it does so with Greek, English, or Mespotamian ones. I can certainly agree that Christianity is an influence (even a strong influence) in Western Civilization, but to state that it is the basis of it is a pretty gross overstatement. Even the very Christian values themselves did not appear out of the mist. Numerous pre-Christian influences were involved in the creation of that religious philosophy. Should we then conclude that Amon Rah (because it was a heavy influence in Jewish monotheism) is the basis of Western Civ?

A far more accurate picture would be to say that the basis of our codes of laws are the nearly millineum old English Common Law system. Certainly, we are much more likely to draw precedence from that than we are from anything discussed in the Bible. Go into a court of law in the US and try to argue that you are not guilty of child abuse based on Levitican law and you'll soon find out exactly how much influence that book has to our current codes.

I can certainly understand (and will try to respect) your personal need for spiritual peace through intercession with your deity. That is a very personal decision and my input into it is unlikely to be helpful in that regard. I just don't see it as adding a social good as much as a mechanism for individual comfort.

Paley, I think it would be easier to paste that rant onto its own web page somewhere and just link to it whenever someone claims that our gov't is based on Christian values. I've seen you post it at least 3 times and I don't frequent P&C too often.

*Legion* wrote:
Heck, how many guys here can honestly say that they don't find a pretty teenage girl to be attractive?

Last time I answered that, Pred ran me over with the Rape Train (tm). :)

The train only Rapes to Educate. (TM).

ADDENDUM:

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Caboose_lineup.jpg/300px-Caboose_lineup.jpg)

Toot, Toot!

I think this thread hijack may be my fault. Or nomad's. Let's blame him then. Unless it will make him want to kill me in the name of God or something

I declare a Jihad on Fletcher!

The involvement of a deity does nothing to promote this process. All it does is give the injurer a convenient salve for which to wash away his/her guilt. Worse yet, a number of religions (of which Christianity is a prominant example) liberally dispense guilt where is clearly doesn't belong in a shameless ploy to sell more of their branded soul cleansers.

If there is no God, then what is this guilt concept of which you speak? How can you tell where guilt does and doesn't belong? Where does one person have the right to declare someone else's belief a "shameless ploy" without a concrete rule of truth to compare it to? If there is no absolute truth, your condescending tone toward Christianity is pretty arrogant to say the least, considering everyones opinions would be equally valid. I'd be interested in hearing some of your theories on the origins of morality.

Hey, this is a thread about having sex with kids. Let's be a little more appropriate with the whole "rape train" thing.

IMAGE(http://shop.thomasthetankengine.de/images/60025.jpg)

"Now Thomas the Tank Engine is going to enter your tunnel, little Johnny..."

Paleocon wrote:

Frankly, I also see no harm in noticing the nice rack on the woman pushing a baby stroller either.

And thus God said to Moses "Hey, quit looking at her, she's a mom man. A mom. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Keep this crap up and you can all go back to Egypt."

Respect the pooty.

Nomad wrote:

If there is no God, then what is this guilt concept of which you speak? How can you tell where guilt does and doesn't belong? Where does one person have the right to declare someone else's belief a "shameless ploy" without a concrete rule of truth to compare it to? If there is no absolute truth, your condescending tone toward Christianity is pretty arrogant to say the least, considering everyones opinions would be equally valid. I'd be interested in hearing some of your theories on the origins of morality.

Values are made by man. I am astonished that people believe we would end up in a world without morals when you leave god out of the equation. Man has shown since the age of enlightenment that he is able and willing to define a set of morals and truths without the need to rely to a god for ackknowledgement. Which won't happen in the first place, or do you know that Moses got the ten commandments from God directly?
No you don't, but you believe that it happened. And it wouldn't make a difference if he got them from god or made them up himself, because what counts in the end is a set of values that the society we live in agrees on.

Guilt is the feeling you have, if you were raised to adhere the set of morals and truths that the society you live in agreed on, then act against one of these morals and regret it. God has no place in that equation.

In regards to being raised accepting a set of morals and truths, what is even more important is the ability to challenge all these morals and truths. Because in the end nothing is more powerful than realizing by this challenge that the morals and truths you were raised to adhere are actually worth doing it and even more important worth defending them.
And if you do not agree with them, in the western world you have every right to try and change this set of morals and truths together with others who think the same way. Depending on how set in stone the set of morals is for the society you may succeed (gay marriage, abortion) or not with your trying.

And yes you can call a religion like scientology a shameless ploy, because it tries to deprieve its members of several human rights that we as a "more global society" agreed on.

Chris beat me to it.

I'd also like to add that it would be hard for me to imagine that you, Nomad, would be a sociopathic child molester were it to be conclusively and convincingly proven to you that there are no gods. If the only thing preventing you from malevalent behavior is fear of reprisals from a deity, you are an unredeemable character irrespective of your belief. If you are governed (as most people, believers or no) by an internal compass independent of your religious beliefs, the existance or non-existance of gods bear no influence on the existance of morals as a whole.

More importantly, as we have discussed before, morals and their application in society are not the eternal, unchanging values religious literalists would have you believe. Views on the roles of women, slavery, genocide, individual freedom, private property, and even dress codes have evolved tremendously in the last 300 years (let alone the last 3000). This would indicate to me that morals are a very human concept arrived at through very human comprimises. The addition of "divine" influence on such morals serves only to short-circuit the logical process of making timely and appropriate comprimises.

Hmm... I believe it'll be hard to give an opinion on this topic without entering into the religious debate that's going on, but I'll try.

First off, I don't agree with pedophilia... just in case anything I say sounds like I do. And my opinion on this is for pedophilia involving post-pubescent persons, as I consider pre-pubescent attraction a short in the brain, or an incurable birth defect.

I can understand a male's attraction to a younger female, or an older female's attraction to a younger male. Our genetic coding does not recognize age, like our legal system does. But what our mind recognizes, is that a younger female will be more likely to produce an offspring, and a younger male will be stronger, faster, and more able to take care of his mate (taking into account that our bodies do not conform to the rules of society). There's really no way for a person to turn off this impulse. It's hardwired into us.

However, I do believe that a person has the choice to ignore this impulse, and find a mate that is acceptable within society. It wasn't that long ago (historically speaking) that this behavior was not only acceptable, but was encouraged. An older male would take a 13-15yr old female, so that he would have many chances to have a son. Thus proving that most of human existance is trial and error ("I know, I'll bang a young girl, and I'm sure EVENTUALLY I'll get a son!) But our society has changed, and most of us are brought up to understand what is acceptable.

Maybe one day geneticists will figure out what gene causes this attraction, and we'll be rid of it. Until then, we'll just have to put up with this problem, and deal with it accordingly.

As if we needed even more evidence of the human evolution of morals, the very concept of pedophilia is a VERY modern one. As Purevil points out, with the exception of the last hundred years or so, "age of consent" would have been entirely alien to the entirety of human sexual interaction.

Paleocon wrote:

As if we needed even more evidence of the human evolution of morals, the very concept of pedophilia is a VERY modern one. As Purevil points out, with the exception of the last hundred years or so, "age of consent" would have been entirely alien to the entirety of human sexual interaction.

Not true. The age just would have been much, much lower, as Purevil pointed out. I doubt any society has ever found sexual relations with a seven-month old baby morally fine and dandy. If they have, they haven't documented it.

KaterinLHC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

As if we needed even more evidence of the human evolution of morals, the very concept of pedophilia is a VERY modern one. As Purevil points out, with the exception of the last hundred years or so, "age of consent" would have been entirely alien to the entirety of human sexual interaction.

Not true. The age just would have been much, much lower, as Purevil pointed out. I doubt any society has ever found sexual relations with a seven-month old baby morally fine and dandy. If they have, they haven't documented it.

By "age of consent", I was referring to a sort of line in the sand number. There is a chasm in our society between 17 and 18. This would have been alien to nearly every society prior to, say, 1900 and still remains a bizarre concept to many societies today and yet it is a defining aspect of the nature of rights and citizenship for us now.

Not true. The age just would have been much, much lower. I doubt any society has ever found sexual relations with a seven-month old baby morally fine and dandy. If they have, they haven't documented it.
with the exception of the last hundred years or so, "age of consent" would have been entirely alien to the entirety of human sexual interaction.

Technically, I agree with both of you. Age of Consent is a very modern concept. A person would disregard age (other than putting a higher limit to it), in hopes of finding a more reliable mate. But KaterinLHC, I must point out, that Paleocon was agreeing with my view of strictly post-pubescent scenerios. The older person would not have been interested in a child, as the purpose of the attraction is procreation, and that would have been counter-productive.

**edited and sent just to Paleo, so as not to bore everyone**

I agree with all this age of consent stuff. But we love our rules and numbers, and unless we want to go back to local government and put more emphasis on the family instead of career or self (which I'd like to do), we've got to have a point where we restrict access to minors. Or just accept the rise in drinking related accidents and health problems from unsupervised kids having fun w/ alcohol (and by kids I mean like 10-12).

Jolly Bill,

I think we're actually on the same page with minor differences in perspective. We seem to agree that morality and codes of laws evolve, that the institution of the church influenced Western society, and that the church itself evolved through this process as well. The problem arises when some folks (not you apparently) decide to take a revisionist view of the church and insist upon taking on "old time religion" as a "basis for our morals". The danger in this is that it serves only to push a political agenda (eg: anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti science education) at the expense of a sober view of history and the process of evolution in human thinking.

When someone says "Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization", 99 times out of 100, he/she is trying to say that his/her narrow and very modern interpretation of biblical literalism is uniquely civilized and all other political views are sinful, barbaric, or morally bankrupt. It is, in short, a way denying 2000 years of human development to create a fictional past.

When someone says "Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization", 99 times out of 100, he/she is trying to say that his/her narrow and very modern interpretation of biblical literalism is uniquely civilized and all other political views are sinful, barbaric, or morally bankrupt. It is, in short, a way denying 2000 years of human development to create a fictional past.

Well, I always did try to excel

I'm glad we're on the same page. I kind of figured as much, I wasn't sure if that fact that I have a God was going to be too much of a gap to bridge. Probably the result of too many zealots assaulting you with scripture and bad logic.

Jolly Bill wrote:
When someone says "Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization", 99 times out of 100, he/she is trying to say that his/her narrow and very modern interpretation of biblical literalism is uniquely civilized and all other political views are sinful, barbaric, or morally bankrupt. It is, in short, a way denying 2000 years of human development to create a fictional past.

Well, I always did try to excel

I'm glad we're on the same page. I kind of figured as much, I wasn't sure if that fact that I have a God was going to be too much of a gap to bridge. Probably the result of too many zealots assaulting you with scripture and bad logic.

>95% of Americans have at least one god. If I can't bridge gaps to find commonality with at least some of them, I'm one very lonely American. Incidentally, my girlfriend is a theist and I think the difference matters more to her than to me.

Do you ever scream "OH GOD" during sex and she gives you a funny look?

Jolly Bill wrote:

Do you ever scream "OH GOD" during sex and she gives you a funny look?

was ist diese Sache, die Sie "sex" benennen?

>95% of Americans have at least one god.

That's why you don't get to ride in the Contact machine, Pale.

Incidentally, my girlfriend is a theist and I think the difference matters more to her than to me.

Good luck with that. I mean it. I was in a similar situation with my girlfriend (now wife) and never thought much about it. Turns out we had very different expectations about religion after we were married. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, but it can be a bone of contention between us from time to time.

Paleocon wrote:

was ist diese Sache, die Sie "sex" benennen?

Hehehe... Sache....

Anyway, um, Pedophilia is wrong... hijacking is bad... I blame Fletcher.

Paleocon wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

Do you ever scream "OH GOD" during sex and she gives you a funny look?

was ist diese Sache, die Sie "sex" benennen?


Used Babblefish:

"Sex". Sie wissen, und schlagen es

Or in Taco's case:

Einsetzen es in das pooper.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Not true. The age just would have been much, much lower, as Purevil pointed out. I doubt any society has ever found sexual relations with a seven-month old baby morally fine and dandy. If they have, they haven't documented it.

Well, they did document 7 year old as fine and dandy -> Quran

If there is no God, then what is this guilt concept of which you speak? How can you tell where guilt does and doesn't belong? Where does one person have the right to declare someone else's belief a "shameless ploy" without a concrete rule of truth to compare it to? If there is no absolute truth, your condescending tone toward Christianity is pretty arrogant to say the least, considering everyones opinions would be equally valid. I'd be interested in hearing some of your theories on the origins of morality.

When me doggy* dribbles on the carpet, and I say "bad, bad doggy!", and the doggy yelps and covers his head with the paws and wags its tail and whines softly, and appears genuinely guilty, is is because it's got God in it, as in an "absolute truth" benchmark. If so, how can my doggy possibly be capable of that without knowing anything about Jesus?

*I don't actually own a doggy. The sentence above was an allegory.

buzzvang wrote:
>95% of Americans have at least one god.

That's why you don't get to ride in the Contact machine, Pale.

Incidentally, my girlfriend is a theist and I think the difference matters more to her than to me.

Good luck with that. I mean it. I was in a similar situation with my girlfriend (now wife) and never thought much about it. Turns out we had very different expectations about religion after we were married. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, but it can be a bone of contention between us from time to time.

Yup. I've run into a number of those issues already, but figure that making atheism (or even rationality) a condition for dating necessarily limits my dating options to less than 1 in 20. Luckily for me, she's pretty open-minded and has told me on occasion that she thought the sermon she heard on any given Sunday was full of crap so the chances of her turning into a typical Korean Christian shut in are fairly low. In fact, I read her the 2Corinthians 6:14 verse about not dating degenerate atheists like me and her reaction was "don't believe everything you read".

I think I'll keep her for now.