Why would God care who we have sex with?

[Zatzat]

Zatzat

So by your logic you would say having an abortion is fine because the act is performed by two consenting adults, the woman and the abortionist.

…not taking the bait.

Start a new thread if you wish, please stay on topic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Zatzat

*…not taking the bait.

Start a new thread if you wish, please stay on topic. *

Just trying to find out if your principle of “consenting adults” applies in all cases, or only in the case of homosexual and sado-masochistic relations. Since you decline to take a brief aside to explain that it does or it doesn’t, I’ll assume you are in a quandry about answering the question. And very likely with good reason.

By the way, since I reckon the vast majority of abortions occur as a result of pregnancies outside of marriage, I think I am on topic. God does care who we have sex with. Not having sex with your spouse but with someone else who gets pregnant, and then has an abortion, is very much against God’s desire for us to be whole and happy in our lives.

 

[Syntax]

I’ve told you, several times, animals cannot consent to sex with a human. Human / animal sex is abusive to the animal.

And I’ve told you several times that animals CAN consent to have sex with a human. Dogs do it all the time when they romp a human’s leg. So if the animal consents to it, it is not abuse. Why would it be?

I will repeat: Koko has a language, can do arithmetic, and can agree to certain contractual relationships with other human beings. Chimpanzees do this all the time. It is this **fairness and consent principle **that any Chimpanzee can understand. So of course Koko understands the terms of a contract between herself and another. In fact, there are rival jealousies concerning the sharing of a mate in their natural habitats all the time. So this is huge evidence that they can understand this principle of fairness and consent you are advocating.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Syntax

Zatzat has already boxed himself in by viewing sado-masochistic relations as healthy, rather than disordered, just because they are based on mutual consent between adults and nothing else.

He has refused to go to the abortion question with this false morality because it is patently absurd. He would have to argue that abortions are disordered because there are not two adults involved (the baby in the womb hardly qualifies) and the baby to be aborted has certainly not given her consent to be murdered.

Because he refuses to address this question, we can safely assume he is also pro-abortion, even though that position blows his logic out of the water.

 

[Syntax]

Syntax

Zatzat has already boxed himself in by viewing sado-masochistic relations as healthy, rather than disordered, just because they are based on mutual consent between adults and nothing else.

I know. Zatzat doesn’t even have a case, and never DID have a case.

Zatzat’s principle is,

“If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.”

Zatzat is doing a terrible job at laying down boundaries anywhere in these discussions.

He or she is failing miserably.

 

[da_nolo]

There have been mental disorders connected with religiosity as well…ie: scrupulosity, suicide bombing, delusional beliefs, visions of grandeur, schizophrenia etc…

all that you just have listed, do not arrive or develop from a person searching religious life. I have some of the most religious cousins in the world and I assure you they do not struggle with nor have problems with the above. Let’s talk Manson here huh? plenty of people might try ans say his religion turned him into what he was, but have zero support. Manson dealt with serious mental problems since a young age in actuality. His mind was blown which took a religion in his personal search and formed his own thoughts out side that religion’s teachings. Even today’s terrorists only use religion to do break people into doing their dirty work. They screw with the actual meanings of scriptures and other teachings to manipulate a person, of whom already dealt with personal attitudes and other problems in life, into doing things not normally supported by such a religion. Christianity is about being peaceful with others and loving thy neighbors, which in turn leads individuals (if correctly followed) into such a life style. Manson for some reason took a similar path as the Saint’s and arrived at murder? ha! Most unlikely, as he used scripture and abused it to manipulate a group of people already down and broke their mind into doing horrible things.

 

[da_nolo]

…not taking the bait.

Start a new thread if you wish, please stay on topic.

Could you please explain your reasoning?

 

[Syntax]

Just trying to find out if your principle of “consenting adults” applies in all cases, or only in the case of homosexual and sado-masochistic relations.

Of course the principle applies to all cases if you don’t modify the principle. If Zatzat doesn’t think the principle applies to abortion cases, then it is not the principle Zatzat is actually advocating.

So we can only wonder, what IS Zatzat’s principle?? NONE, that I can see.

Zatzat has no case at all, and his or her repeated failure to provide any answers to our questions is astounding!

 

[Zatzat]

Zatzat’s principle is,

“If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.”

Now you’re following along!

So long as no laws are broken and the act doesn’t involve any non-consenting parties, you betcha, it’s all good.

 

[Syntax]

Now you’re following along!

So long as no laws are broken and the act doesn’t involve any non-consenting parties, you betcha, it’s all good.

lol…that’s precisely your problem, pal.

First, Human Laws are not the final arbiters of what is actually right and wrong because there can be unjust laws.
Second, if you agree to this principle, then notice all the repugnant consequences you have on your hands:

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible
(2) Koko and you consent to have sexual relations with one another.
(3) Therefore, yours and Koko’s sexual relations are morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(4) Bob and his sister mutually consent to sleep with one another
(5) Therefore, Bob and his sister’s sleeping with one another is morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(6) Jane and Bill mutually consent to abort their baby because of financial burdens.
(7) Therefore, Jane and Bill’s aborting their baby is morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(8) Bob and John mutually consent to rob a bank together.
(9) Therefore, Bob and John’s robbing a bank is morally permissible.

Should I go on? Or are you finally willing to admit to everyone that you don’t have a case whatsoever?

 

[Janet1983]

Now you’re following along!

So long as no laws are broken and the act doesn’t involve any non-consenting parties, you betcha, it’s all good.

Well there is always another party involved and that party is very important: GOD

“If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.”

If our actions are in accordance to what God wants us to do it is morally permissible. God is the absolute standard and His will plays an important part in what we should do.
If we stay in accordance with God’s will by consenting to doing X, then X is morally permissible.

 

[Syntax]

If our actions are in accordance to what God wants us to do it is morally permissible. God is the absolute standard and His will plays an important part in what we should do. If we stay in accordance with God’s will by consenting to doing X, then X is morally permissible.

Of course! But I seriously doubt it is God’s will that anyone have sexual relations with a family member! This is precisely why that alleged principle is so stupid as I have shown

 

[Janet1983]

lol…that’s precisely your problem, pal.

First, Human Laws are not the final arbiters of what is actually right and wrong because there can be unjust laws.
Second, if you agree to this principle, then notice all the repugnant consequences you have on your hands:

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible
(2) Koko and you consent to have sexual relations with one another.
(3) Therefore, yours and Koko’s sexual relations are morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(4) Bob and his sister mutually consent to sleep with one another
(5) Therefore, Bob and his sister’s sleeping with one another is morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(6) Jane and Bill mutually consent to abort their baby because of financial burdens.
(7) Therefore, Jane and Bill’s aborting their baby is morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(8) Bob and John mutually consent to rob a bank together.
(9) Therefore, Bob and John’s robbing a bank is morally permissible.

Should I go on? Or are you finally willing to admit to everyone that you don’t have a case whatsoever?

You can take it even further…
There was a case a couple of years ago that stunned the German nation:
Armin Meiwes and Bernd Jürgen Brandes mutually agreed on Cannibalism. (Bernd Jürgen Brandes answered to a advertisement at a website where Armin Meiwes was “looking for a well-built 18 to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”)

Morally permissible?

The German courts didn’t think so and sentenced Armin Meiwes to 8 1/2 years in prison for manslaughter.
After the prosecution made an appeal he was sentenced to life in prison for murder…

Just because 2 people agree on doing something does not make it right or just.

 

[Zatzat]

Of course! But I seriously doubt it is God’s will that anyone have sexual relations with a family member! This is precisely why that alleged principle is so stupid as I have shown

Ahem, Adam and Eve and their children, with whom did they procreate, if not with each other?

Ahem, Noah and the ark. The only people on the ark and the only people left alive were Noah’s family members. With whom did they procreate, if not with each other?

 

[Zatzat]

You can take it even further…
There was a case a couple of years ago that stunned the nation:
Armin Meiwes and Bernd Jürgen Brandes mutually agreed on Cannibalism.

Just because 2 people agree on doing something does not make it right or just.

Hence the " so long as no laws are being broken."

In the civilized secular Nation in which I live, you cannot consent to bodily harm or death.

 

[Janet1983]

Hence the " so long as no laws are being broken."

In the civilized secular Nation in which I live, you cannot consent to bodily harm or death.

Well if it is morally permissible, the laws can be changed, can’t they? Would it be right for two consenting adults if they agreed on one eating the other?
I have another question.
Given those pretenses in your estimation it is morally permissible to have consensual gay sexual relationships in the US, but it is not morally permissible in Zimbabwe? How does the location change the moral value?

 

[Syntax]

Ahem, Adam and Eve and their children, with whom did they procreate, if not with each other?

Ahem, Noah and the ark. The only people on the ark and the only people left alive were Noah’s family members. With whom did they procreate, if not with each other?

And your conclusion is…what? Everyone should be allowed to sleep his mother, his sisters, aunts and uncles?

Again, this is another example of your failure to make a distinction between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants rely on the literal and *sole authority *of scripture, and Catholics rely on the *joint authority *of the Bible and the Magisterium’s interpretation of the Bible.

These Bible passages in Genesis are just as metaphorical as the description of God’s creation of the universe in 7 days. But you can insist on remaining stubbornly dense and continue to deny this.

 

[Zatzat]

Well if it is morally permissible, the laws can be changed, can’t they? Would it be right for two consenting adults if they agreed on one eating the other?

Not at all. Regardless of the laws, permanent harm should not come to another person. Freedom from harm is a fundamental human right. I have the impression that you believe that without God, anything goes!

I don’t need a God to prohibit me from eating someone.

 

[Syntax]

Not at all. Regardless of the laws, permanent harm should not come to another person. Freedom from harm is a fundamental human right. I have the impression that you believe that without God, anything goes!

I don’t need a God to prohibit me from eating someone.

None of the following appear to harm anyone. Therefore, all of them are morrally permissible?

1. If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible
   (2) Koko and you consent to have sexual relations with one another.
   (3) Therefore, yours and Koko’s sexual relations are morally permissible.

(1) If two parties consent to doing X, then X is morally permissible.
(4) Bob and his sister mutually consent to sleep with one another
(5) Therefore, Bob and his sister’s sleeping with one another is morally permissible.

 

[Janet1983]

Not at all. Regardless of the laws, permanent harm should not come to another person. Freedom from harm is a fundamental human right. I have the impression that you believe that without God, anything goes!

I don’t need a God to prohibit me from eating someone.

I have another question.
Given those pretenses in your estimation (consensual, legal) it is morally permissible to have consensual gay sexual relationships in the US, but it is not morally permissible in Zimbabwe? How does the location change the moral value?
Given that, there were anti-sodomy laws in most states of the US, though many have been repealed. Until the Supreme Court invalidated all sodomy laws after Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 there were active sodomy laws left in some of the states like Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia. The ones I just mentioned still have these laws but due to the Court ruling they are overruled… A couple of other states repealed their laws after the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Do you think that it was morally wrong to have consensual gay sexual relationships in Texas until 2003 and after that it became morally right? What is the difference in the moral value between 2002 and 2003? Why is it that you think that between 1975 and 2003 it was morally right to have consensual gay sex in Las Cruces, NM, while it was morally wrong to have it in El Paso, TX? They are only 50 miles apart.

Homosexual acts are punishable by death in Pakistan but legal in India. When a couple crosses the border and has sex there does that make it morally wrong and indeed worthy of punishment?

Your logic doesn’t make sense. Just because 2 people agree and the law of the land is not violated, does not make it morally right.