1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Oct '15 23:304 edits
    Traditionally, a church has been regarded as a sanctuary, a place of
    peace reserved (alternately) for quiet contemplation or joyful worship.
    At the very least, a church has been regarded as a place where one
    should feel safe, it not necessarily welcome. There were thieves who
    were devout or superstitious enough to avoid robbing churches, lest
    their crimes should invoke the wrath of God. But how many thieves
    today would be similarly deterred?

    In Brisbane, Australia, a 25 year old man recently was acquitted of rape.
    A few days later, he went out on a first date with a young woman.
    Reportedly, he suggested they go out on a walk together and the couple
    proceeded to the (apparently secluded) grounds of a local cathedral.
    There he began kissing her and fondling her breasts, demanding sexual
    intercourse. When she protested, he allegedly took her by force and raped her.
    Then he allegedly continued sexually assaulting her in other ways.
    The man has been arrested and again charged with rape yet released on bail.
    The prosecutor claimed that the man's allegedly raping a woman only
    a few days after he was acquitted of raping another woman shows his
    'inability to control his sexual tendencies'.

    My point is that churches or religion in general seem increasingly to
    be losing their power to inspire awe or strike fear into people growing up
    in most secular Western societies. The alleged rapist may have taken
    his victim to a cathedral's grounds because he anticipated there would
    be no persons around to interfere or witness what he wanted to do.
    If the woman had desperately appealed to him by exclaiming, "How dare
    you attempt to violate me in a house of God! Remember that God's
    watching everything you do. And if you rape me, you will be damned!
    But it's not too late for you to stop and repent." This kind of appeal
    might have succeeded in an earlier age with a more superstitious rapist.
    Yet I suspect that this man likely would have just laughed at her and said
    that he did not care if God would watch the rape as long as God could
    not testify against him at trial. "O tempora o mores!" -- Cicero
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    04 Oct '15 00:16
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Traditionally, a church has been regarded as a sanctuary, a place of
    peace reserved (alternately) for quiet contemplation or joyful worship.
    At the very least, a church has been regarded as a place where one
    should feel safe, it not necessarily welcome. There were thieves who
    were devout or superstitious enough to avoid robbing churches, lest
    their c ...[text shortened]... he rape as long as God could
    not testify against him at trial. "O tempora o mores!" -- Cicero
    So as the fear of God leaves the human race the human race is getting worse?
  3. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    04 Oct '15 06:39
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Traditionally, a church has been regarded as a sanctuary, a place of
    peace reserved (alternately) for quiet contemplation or joyful worship.
    At the very least, a church has been regarded as a place where one
    should feel safe, it not necessarily welcome. There were thieves who
    were devout or superstitious enough to avoid robbing churches, lest
    their c ...[text shortened]... he rape as long as God could
    not testify against him at trial. "O tempora o mores!" -- Cicero
    Christianity is not "Highlander".
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Oct '15 10:25
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Traditionally, a church has been regarded as a sanctuary, a place of
    peace reserved (alternately) for quiet contemplation or joyful worship.
    At the very least, a church has been regarded as a place where one
    should feel safe, it not necessarily welcome. There were thieves who
    were devout or superstitious enough to avoid robbing churches, lest
    their c ...[text shortened]... he rape as long as God could
    not testify against him at trial. "O tempora o mores!" -- Cicero
    seriously? a human turd rapes someone, is acquitted through a failure of the system, rapes someone immmediately after, another human turd in charge of punishing human turds finds excuses for him and you are concerned with the location in which the rape happened
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Oct '15 20:08
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    seriously? a human turd rapes someone, is acquitted through a failure of the system, rapes someone immmediately after, another human turd in charge of punishing human turds finds excuses for him and you are concerned with the location in which the rape happened
    Zahlanzi already has a long record of offensively misrepresenting what I write in order
    to make personal attacks against me.

    For whatever it's worth, the accused rapist's lawyer already has hinted that his defense
    intends to be based upon claiming that the woman consented to sexual intercourse--
    on the first date on the grounds of a cathedral. Will enough jurors believe this defense?
    Well, the accused rapist recently was acquitted of raping a woman with whom he had
    been briefly acquainted (perhaps on another first date), so if one jury believed his
    presumed 'she consented' defense before, why should another jury not believe it again?
    It does strike one as an extraordinary coincidence *if a truly innocent* man became
    embroiled in two separate cases of rape (with different accusing victims) so closely together.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Oct '15 20:14
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    So as the fear of God leaves the human race the human race is getting worse?
    I believe that the decline in religious superstition is generally good for the human race.
    Yet I have to say that sometimes 'the fear of God' was an effective enough substitute
    for a moral conscience among potential criminals who lacked such a conscience.
    There have been some cases where a woman (narrowly) avoided being raped after
    she was able to convince the man that she's a nun and so his intimately violating her
    would be considered particularly offensive to God.
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    04 Oct '15 22:48
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I believe that the decline in religious superstition is generally good for the human race.
    Yet I have to say that sometimes 'the fear of God' was an effective enough substitute
    for a moral conscience among potential criminals who lacked such a conscience.
    There have been some cases where a woman (narrowly) avoided being raped after
    she was able to con ...[text shortened]... 's a nun and so his intimately violating her
    would be considered particularly offensive to God.
    Why is it a substitute in your eyes only, what if it is the real thing?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Oct '15 23:13
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Why is it a substitute in your eyes only, what if it is the real thing?
    Some people have given enough thought to developing moral beliefs (or a sense of
    conscience, if you prefer to call it that) that preclude them from doing some bad things
    because they have reasonably considered the moral consequences. That's quite
    different from a person who believes that the *only moral restraint* on one's actions
    should be one's *fear of being observed and punished by God*.

    Let's suppose that one man believes, "I would never rape a woman because I believe
    it's morally wrong to violate another person's sovereignty over her own body. I believe
    that sexual intimacy with her would be debased if not given freely by her consent.
    And I also am aware of how deeply she could be harmed if she's taken by force."
    And another man believes, "I would never rape a woman only because I am afraid that
    God would notice it and punish me later in some way. I might get zapped by lightning."
    Should a woman feel more comfortable being around the first or the second man?

    I believe that the best moral conduct is motivated by reasons other than the fear of God.
    The best moral guide is inspired by love and guided by wisdom, not driven by mere fear.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    05 Oct '15 05:51
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Some people have given enough thought to developing moral beliefs (or a sense of
    conscience, if you prefer to call it that) that preclude them from doing some bad things
    because they have reasonably considered the moral consequences. That's quite
    different from a person who believes that the *only moral restraint* on one's actions
    should be one's *fea ...[text shortened]... of God.
    The best moral guide is inspired by love and guided by wisdom, not driven by mere fear.
    The real point would be that they would know it is wrong, the moral restraint would be
    the knowledge it should never happen. The fear of doing wrong would be either from man
    who can be fooled, paid off, or look the other way, or God who will hold them accountable
    regardless. If our restraints are just what we think we can get away with, than we really
    don't have restraints just opportunities.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    05 Oct '15 05:52
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Some people have given enough thought to developing moral beliefs (or a sense of
    conscience, if you prefer to call it that) that preclude them from doing some bad things
    because they have reasonably considered the moral consequences. That's quite
    different from a person who believes that the *only moral restraint* on one's actions
    should be one's *fea ...[text shortened]... of God.
    The best moral guide is inspired by love and guided by wisdom, not driven by mere fear.
    Love is best!
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    05 Oct '15 20:11
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    The real point would be that they would know it is wrong, the moral restraint would be
    the knowledge it should never happen. The fear of doing wrong would be either from man
    who can be fooled, paid off, or look the other way, or God who will hold them accountable
    regardless. If our restraints are just what we think we can get away with, than we really
    don't have restraints just opportunities.
    In the first example, the man or woman makes a moral judgement based on their own thinking but the second one does not require actual thinking, just fear the wrath of some alleged deity.

    To me, the first example is a person higher on the spiritual scale than the second one. The second one cannot grow morally, only stay in the same mental place.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    05 Oct '15 20:551 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse to KellyJay
    In the first example, the man or woman makes a moral judgement based on their own thinking but the second one does not require actual thinking, just fear the wrath of some alleged deity.

    To me, the first example is a person higher on the spiritual scale than the second one. The second one cannot grow morally, only stay in the same mental place.
    You (Sonhouse) understand what I mean, though KellyJay apparently does not.
    Some religious believers seem rather childlike in terms of their moral development.
    They act as though the only compelling reason to avoid immoral actions is the fear of punishment.
    For instance, a child may decide not to steal from another child *only* because one's
    afraid of being punished, if caught stealing, by one's parents. The child's too immature
    to do enough moral reasoning about why stealing would be wrong. Some adult religious
    believers here seem stuck at the same primitive level of moral development.

    Let's say that a woman goes out on dates with a religious man who urgently desires to
    enjoy sexual intercourse with her. And the only reason why he has not yet taken her
    by force is his fear that God eventually would punish him in some way. But what would
    happen to her if his fear of God begins to fade? Many religious people go through phases,
    at least, when their faith seems to waver or weaken. If this (morally less developed)
    man became less frightened of God, then the only restraint against him attempting to
    rape her would be his fear that the earthly lawful authorities could punish him for his crime.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    05 Oct '15 22:40
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    In the first example, the man or woman makes a moral judgement based on their own thinking but the second one does not require actual thinking, just fear the wrath of some alleged deity.

    To me, the first example is a person higher on the spiritual scale than the second one. The second one cannot grow morally, only stay in the same mental place.
    The first example we agree is an acknowledgement of what is right and wrong. The 2nd
    being what could/would happen if I did what I knew was morally wrong wouldn't hinder
    or promote anything just because, it would only harm or help depending on if God is real
    or not. If real, than all justification which God rejects will be for nothing, if God isn't real it
    doesn't matter one way or another.

    The first is just an acknowledgement, the 2nd is a fear of what would happen with and
    without God. Without God it is just a matter of can I get away with it, that would again
    mean it isn't a matter of restraint, only what I want and can get away with. With God it
    doesn't matter if I can get away with it here in this life, I know I'm guilty and will pay for it
    either here in this life, but without a doubt in what is to come.
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148451
    05 Oct '15 22:424 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    You (Sonhouse) understand what I mean, though KellyJay apparently does not.
    Some religious believers seem rather childlike in terms of their moral development.
    They act as though the only compelling reason to avoid immoral actions is the fear of punishment.
    For instance, a child may decide not to steal from another child *only* because one's
    afraid of ...[text shortened]...
    rape her would be his fear that the earthly lawful authorities could punish him for his crime.
    I do believe I understand you, if you actually cared for the other person and have a chance
    to do evil to them, you would not harm them because you care. Love is the best protection
    against all wrong doing, but not everyone loves as they should so what then?
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Oct '15 02:13
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I do believe I understand you, if you actually cared for the other person and have a chance
    to do evil to them, you would not harm them because you care. Love is the best protection
    against all wrong doing, but not everyone loves as they should so what then?
    KellyJay has again corroborated that he does not understand what I mean.
Back to Top