Originally posted by KellyJayIn otherwords, you want an answer that proceeds from the assumption that your hypothesis is true.
My statement was to if there was an owner of the universe! Who that may be is another thing altogether. If there is indeed an owner of the universe, and it is by all rights his/her's than I ask you again, would their objection be enough to void consent as a basis for calling any deed moral/okay/good/fine/legal and so on?
If god (since that seems to be what we're talking about) does exist, and if he cared to come down and reveal himself for all to see in an unequivical manner instead of playing this cosmological game of hide and seek, then I guess we'd all be obliged to dance to his tune.
But as we've seen, that doesn't appear too likely.
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsThrowing a spanner in the works..........
[b]I don't think this is even close to the general consensus that
has arisen here.
If you and I consent to cooperate with each other to kill a
third party, that consensual action between two adults would
not be morally permissible.
"A German man who confessed to killing and eating a man he met through a website for cannibals has been charged with murder, prosecutors have said.
The 41-year-old suspect, identified as Armin M, is alleged to have killed the 43-year-old victim in March 2001 in the town of Rotenburg in central Germany, after meeting him through the site.
He then carved up and froze portions of the man's flesh, later eating some of it, prosecutors allege.
The crime was apparently carried out with the victim's FULL CONSENT, however state prosecutor Hans-Manfred Jung told French news agency AFP that the victim's supposed "death wish" did not change the fact that the killer had wanted to commit murder."
BBC News
The actions of the selfish "Meal" is to me immoral, even though mentally healthy<if that could be said>, and fully consenting he hurt ONLY his family and friends if he had any, and took his gift of life for granted by wanting to die by one of the oldest taboo's and the deviance of his sexual perversion.
Edit. Remembering that the victim? ate some of his OWN manhood before dieing.
Originally posted by WHY AYEKings X.
Throwing a spanner in the works..........
"A German man who confessed to killing and eating a man he met through a website for cannibals has been charged with murder, prosecutors have said.
The 41-year-old suspect, identified as Armin M, is alleged to have killed the 43-year-old victim in March 2001 in the town of Rotenburg in central Germany, after me ...[text shortened]... nted by wanting to die by one of the oldest taboo's and the deviance of his sexual perversion.
Time out.
Certified psycopathic... certified nuts are not to be discussed.
Originally posted by rwingettPersonally, why would there be need for God to come down and make Himself known? Simply making it known through whatever means God wanted is all that is required, if anything is it not? You seem to want to obligate God to doing something to your liking to make God's objections legal or acceptable after a fashion. Why should God feel the need to dance to our tunes, in being forced to come down? If the scriptures are true, He did once. If He did once, how many times should God come down as it were to obligate us to him if He requires our faith?
In otherwords, you want an answer that proceeds from the assumption that your hypothesis is true.
If god (since that seems to be what we're talking about) does exist, and if he cared to come down and reveal himself for all to see in an unequivical manner instead of playing this cosmological game of hide and seek, then I guess we'd all be obliged to dance to his tune.
But as we've seen, that doesn't appear too likely.
Getting back to my question, if God owns the universe his objection
does void adult consent than correct?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCertified nuts eh??
Kings X.
Time out.
Certified psycopathic... certified nuts are not to be discussed.
What word would you describe peadophiles with????
As I'm sure I'd rather be eaten alive, Anyday!!!!!!
I had this thread in mind when posting.
Originally posted by Ivanhoe, Pornography Degrading Behemouth Thread.
Here in the Netherlands there were and still are advocates of legalising child pornography and sex with children, until the crimes of the Belgian child molester and killer Dutroux became known. It caused a lot of turmoil. That's why they decided to postpone their lobbying because the time was not right. If you think sex with children is a crime because there cannot be a situation of consenting adults, they will explain to you using logical reasoning, yes, they are freethinkers, and convince you this isn't the case at all and that you are in error. Children are very well capable in giving their consent.That's what these people claim.
How will you reason with such freethinkers ?
Originally posted by WHY AYEIf there are no boundaries besides those we want to put up, any
Certified nuts eh??
What word would you describe peadophiles with????
As I'm sure I'd rather be eaten alive, Anyday!!!!!!
I had this thread in mind when posting.
Originally posted by Ivanhoe, Pornography Degrading Behemouth Thread.
Here in the Netherlands there were and still are advocates of legalising child pornography and sex with childr ...[text shortened]... r consent.That's what these people claim.
How will you reason with such freethinkers ?
boundary we setup to twart human behaviour is subject to the
tastes of the moment nothing more. No matter how distasteful
those boundaries are or how tasteful they are, they would simply
be human boundaries set by humans, and ignored by humans.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy would god need to make himself known? Because I see no reason to believe he exists, that's why. Before I can believe in a god, he will have to make himself known in an unequivocal manner. I refuse to believe on faith alone. You yourself say, "IF the scriptures are true, he did once." The operative word there being "if". Your bible proves nothing. Using it to validate the exitence of god is circular reasoning.
Personally, why would there be need for God to come down and make Himself known? Simply making it known through whatever means God wanted is all that is required, if anything is it not? You seem to want to obligate God to doing something to your liking to make God's objections legal or acceptable after a fashion. Why should God feel the need to dance to ou ...[text shortened]... ck to my question, if God owns the universe his objection
does void adult consent than correct?
But to answer your question; if the existence of your god could be proven, then I suppose he could dictate an abolute moral code if he chose. But in the complete absence of any such proof, your moral code has no more validity than any other.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettOkay, I’m assuming we are in agreement that if there is an owner of the universe than it irrelevant who or how many adults are consenting, because consent is meaningless when it comes to acceptable behavior within someone else property. Just as consenting adults are not allowed to do whatever they want in my home. If I misunderstood you, please correct me on the point above, the points below are different subjects. I have not brought a moral code into this discussion, I simply wanted to know if consent between adults was the bottom line in acceptance of behavior. I believe we have agreed it is not always the bottom line of acceptable behavior.
Why would god need to make himself known? Because I see no reason to believe he exists, that's why. Before I can believe in a god, he will have to make himself known in an unequivocal manner. I refuse to believe on faith alone. You yourse ...[text shortened]... such proof, your moral code has no more validity than any other.
Your acceptance into if God exists or not is not important to this discussion up to this point either, simply because you don’t recognize or acknowledge various items in the universe does not come into play if they are real or not. Your recognition is simply your recognition nothing more. People at times don’t see things right in front of their face, as a spouse cheating, someone trying to take advantage and so on; they see what they want to see. If it is the happy family they believe they are living in, a very good deal they are taking part in and so on, they see what they want to see. Making a mistake or failure to see something can have very bad consequences in life, with or without having God part of the discussion, and I believe we would all agree that this is true.
I did use the word ‘if’ out of respect for points of view that do not agree with me. As far as saying I was using ‘circular reasoning’ I fail to see how you get that out of my point. Was I trying to prove the scripture by scripture? No, I pointed out that within scripture that God did make Himself known on the planet and it was recorded and that text was turned into scripture. Your acceptance of that text or your rejection of that text is up to you, it does not mean it is true or false because you accept or reject it, any more than it is true or false on how I view it.
Originally posted by KellyJayI've read your post several times and I have no idea what your point is. Please clarify.
Okay, I’m assuming we are in agreement that if there is an owner of the universe than it irrelevant who or how many adults are consenting, because consent is meaningless when it comes to acceptable behavior within someone else property. Just as consenting adults are not allowed to do whatever they want in my home. If I misunderstood you, please correct me o ...[text shortened]... or false because you accept or reject it, any more than it is true or false on how I view it.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI stated it plainly, it does not matter how many or who consents, if the owner of the place they are doing what ever they want does not like what they are doing. Be it sex acts, or playing baseball in an empty field, consent has its limits.
I've read your post several times and I have no idea what your point is. Please clarify.