ISAW wrote: » Is rape always wrong?
RichieC wrote: » You're using the camels nose to suggest that because we don't buy your book that we're eventually going to legalise rape and sex with minors. Ridiculous. these things by the way weren't unheard of back in the old biblical days. There's also no mention of an age of consent in the bible. There's plenty of Rape, though.
Morbert wrote: » Is 1+1 always 2?
ISAW wrote: » We have been over this before. Marienbad was the last to suggest it. Where in the bible does god condone rape? when did the church ever say sex with children was okay? It has always said it is wrong? so please dont dodge the question You stated :The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time. is rape always wrong? Is sex between an adult and a child always wrong? Yes or no? Your "morals change/it depends on the society of the day" = NO Have you changed your mind?
marienbad wrote: » I think sex with a child is always wrong, some ,as is well documented do not, some even come to believe that the child enjoys it. But enough people also think sex with a child is always wrong so we have been able to make laws prohibiting it. I think rape is always wrong in every case, not all do . For example rape within marriage is only a relatively recent concept. Again enough people agree so that we made laws against it.
What are all these laws that do not change over time ? You keep alluding to them but never list them. Can you give us some specific examples ? How about a list of ten ?
ISAW wrote: » Suprisingly for a person who does not believe in morality Morbert is suggesting rape is always wrong! Unless of course he is trying to pose a trick question and say something like iota plus iota is an imaginary number. Rape is always wrong? Yes or no? If you say yes then you cant have moral relativity as a basis for argument.
Morbert wrote: » Under the real number system, 1+1 is always 2. However, under a simple ring with a single element, 1 that is both an additive and multiplicative identity: 1+1 = 1 Similarly, if you adopt a moral system built from compassion, and consideration for suffering, rape is always wrong. If you adopt a moral system built from consideration for ham sandwiches, rape is not always wrong.
ISAW wrote: » and this coming for someone that claimed that god ordered rape in the bible ?-he didnt - you may be compounding your errors Marienbad Ever heard "sin existed before the law" guess where i got that from? You dont have to write laws down to have them ; that is a school called "positive law" But ther is a school called "natural law" For example if a country passed a "children enjoy sex" law or " rape your wife" or 3pi equals three" law it would be wrong According to what? according to an overarching moral law which can be but does not have to be written down.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights Article 40.3 of the Irish constitution refers to and accounts for the recognition of unenumerated rights. The Supreme Court is often the main source of such rights, such as the right to bodily integrity, the right to marry and the right to earn a living, among others. not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law.'' Alternative terminology sometimes used are: natural rights, background rights, and fundamental rights. They might still be there in the spirit of the law since time immemorial but unwritten.
RichieC wrote: » (Judges 21:10-24 NLT
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) laws of rape
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
I'm talking about the Bible. Not the church, who by the way we know for a fact have been covering up systemic child abuse in their ranks. it has nothing to say on the age of consent and Plenty of laws regarding the rape of women.
marienbad wrote: » Why not answer the question ISAW ? the above is all just more needless verbiage. It is a simple question , can you give some examples of these '' natural rights ,background rights,fundamental rights'' ?
ISAW wrote: » (sniped) i don't accept that mathematics proves rape is not always wrong . children are not ham sandwiches. But if it is you opinion that rape is not always wrong then say it and dont beat around the bush. I dont think you feminist colleagues will be pleased when you tell them.
ISAW wrote: » i just did. the Irish constitution. some of them even became enumerated I dont think you understand. they are not written down but exist. If you wrote them down they would become positive law not natural law. ninth ammendment to the US constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights[/QUOTE] This is just such utter rubbish, you keep banging on about overarching laws , presumably coming from some higher power and you can't even give a few examples. All the cases you have listed above are irrelevant to your position,they are all man made laws and often made in the teeth of clerical opposition and church teaching. Once again what are some examples of these universal laws , etc that are unchanging ,that are applicable for all peoples and in all times and are self evident to all ? How hard can it be to give even a few examples ?
ISAW wrote: » Look Morbert you are well aware that there are unprovable assertions. Any system that is sufficiently powerful to be able to state true propositions must be able to create statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within that system. It is a theorem but one thats been proved! But to move off Mariens point on listing things that cant be shown true to the "rape is always wrong" you are trying to suggest that because the REPRESENTATION of 1+1 =2 can be changed that we can consider rape is not always wrong because mathematics says so? i don't accept that mathematics proves rape is not always wrong . children are not ham sandwiches. But if it is you opinion that rape is not always wrong then say it and dont beat around the bush. I dont think you feminist colleagues will be pleased when you tell them.
tommy2bad wrote: » But we don't build our moral or legal system on compassion or consideration for suffering. Jesus may have advocated such a system but even yet it has failed to materialize. If this natural moral law exists it ain't like gravity because it doesn't apply universally or through time.
Morbert wrote: » My point is you are tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "If morality is a construct, then rape is not always wrong".
marienbad might accept that morality emerges as a societal, biological phenomenon, and is not issued from God,
but they could still say rape is always wrong, insofar as they adopt a moral system which says there is never a case where rape is justified.
Morbert wrote: » Morality and legality are, as I'm sure you are aware, different issues. And it is important to stress, as I did in my post to ISAW, that morality as a construct does not lead to normative moral relativism, a self-defeating (and dangerous) position.
marienbad wrote: » I think sex with a child is always wrong, some ,as is well documented do not, some even come to believe that the child enjoys it. But enough people also think sex with a child is always wrong so we have been able to make laws prohibiting it. I think rape is always wrong in every case, not all do . For example rape within marriage is only a relatively recent concept. Again enough people agree so that we made laws against it. What are all these laws that do not change over time ? You keep alluding to them but never list them. Can you give us some specific examples ? How about a list of ten ?
ISAW wrote: » which does not condone rape! It condems it and has a legal penalty. That is only if she consents ie it isnt rape You didnt read the next verse 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. i.e it says rape is wrong and punishable by death.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76209347&postcount=1657 "when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?" WHERE where in the Bible does God order rape where is it mentioned as right? It is always mentioned as a wrong in the bible! We dont know for a FACT that the church conspired to have a system to cover up child abuse! On what basis is it a FACT? Wher is your evidence? the church has plenty to say about age and sex. The roman church in particular has reams on it!
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Although not the first to discuss the idea, Lewis mentions natural law in Mere Christianity. Perhaps reading up on that would provide a gentle introduction to the proposition that we all resolutely believe in the concepts of good and bad, even if we can quite agree on what each is.
ISAW wrote: » to a objective person natural law to a CHristian the source of nature is God.
ISAW wrote: » But god is consistent. He dosnt do good acts and define evil and then do evil and say
ISAW wrote: » and if we didn't would we be truly human?
ISAW wrote: » god wouldnt god would wish we were with him. but if we so chose we can reject that.
ISAW wrote: » some of it could be triggered by harm.
ISAW wrote: » that is your point. Nobody else ever agreed it was true. Nor is it reasonable. god does not want people to suffer. But he is prepared to allow it if that is what they chose.
ISAW wrote: » but if they dont drown. and psychological harm isnt physical. So you accept something which may not cause any permanent physical harm can cause eternal torment?
ISAW wrote: » also I could harm you and then heal you. I could do this forever.
ISAW wrote: » How so?
ISAW wrote: » It is necessary that a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot. If such a thing does not exist and the robot will not be harmed or benefit then the robot does not have any choice does it?
ISAW wrote: » so what?
ISAW wrote: » It may seem that way to you but you arent using logic. "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot". Picking something that doesnt harm us does not suffice to formally prove that "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". If such a thing does not exist the robot is not free.
ISAW wrote: » Yes eternal suffering based on choosing from the list of "things which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". Obviously choosing one of these things will cause suffering or harm.
Andrewf20 wrote: » Thats fair enough but alot of people feel very disillusioned with religion. I still don’t have a clear answer to my initial point, whats so special about belief. Not repentance, but belief – I don’t understand its importance, yet the bible says I need to believe to be saved. You say theres nothing special about belief but that contradicts the bible imo. Name a moral or ethical act by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?
Andrewf20 wrote: » Feeling or belief is what im referring to: - belief in a specific religon that is. It doesn’t answer the question as to why Muslims for example believe their religion is the true one? They consider their “light” as being Islam - why are they not convinced by Christianity?
Andrewf20 wrote: » Certainly over population and the selfish drain on resources by many (selfish gene concept) is of grave concern long term, however the taboo of slavery, better rights for women, better healthcare and longer life spans are some measureable success stories, in the short term at least. Tbh its a very large topic, which I hope not to go into now.
Andrewf20 wrote: » Maybe on some issues, but not all. An example: the catholic church preached that non baptised babies are destined for limbo, but then changed their mind on this recently. http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/unbaptizedbabies.htm “In 2007, after extensive theological research, the commission has reported that there is a possibility that these unbaptized babies can go to heaven. They do agree with past findings that there is no definite answer to this question in religious documents, however, the commission has found that there is enough evidence to revise the official Roman Catholic Church opinion.” This took until 2007! The reality is that alot of people have interpretational difficulties that can results in years, decades, or as above, centuries to agree on.
Andrewf20 wrote: » They dont believe in a "him" in the first place. Just because they don’t believe in him doesn’t make them “evil” imo.
RichieC wrote: » The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time. They used to refer to black males as Bucks. Hangings were a public spectacle and any science outside the church forbidden. Humans are becoming more liberal and it's a force of change that no book will ever be able to stall.
philologos wrote: » As opposed to you determining what is good or evil on the basis of personal preference? It's entirely reasonable that God determines what is best for us, given that He knows far more about Creation than you or I could ever imagine. Ultimately, I'd rather trust God with that, than myself to be quite honest with you.
Zombrex wrote: » But why would God choose what is best for us? Because that is the right thing to do? In which case God doesn't determine morality, he merely follows it.
Psalm 8:4 wrote: what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
ISAW wrote: » It is to a moral relativist who says "well it might be that way now but it could change depending on how people feel"
philologos wrote: » Because, He cares for us as His Creation?
