Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Kuro5hit Update

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 17, 2002
 Comments:
Yet again kurobots are scrambling to defend Liberalist Perversity of the Day.
diaries

More diaries by tkatchev
Fuck the geeks.
Totalitarian America
This just in:
A Question for Americans.
For Inden.
Hell in your Handbasket
Another one bites the dust...
Another terrorist act.
OMG, ESR is a troll!
Kuro5hin
Win a fabulous trip to North Korea.
Contemporary Russian Poetry
Contemporary Russian Poetry pt. II
Happy Constitution Day!
Postmodern Art, Pt. I
Postmodernist Art, Pt. II
Contemporary Russian Poetry, Pt. III
Babylon Must Fall.
Happy New Year!
Weblog Pornography
Discover the Russia you never knew.
"New Chronology": As Requested.
LOTR: Please don't kill me.
The Satanic Nature of Kuro5hin is Revealed.
Link Propagation.
(Reading list)
The Benefits of Browsing Slashdot.
Controversial Wallpaper
Serious Inquiry about Paganism
Liberalists celebrating Hilter's birthday.
Happy Mayday!
Brilliant Kuro5hin article.
Please excuse the rudity.
Update
Oh ghod this is rich.
Another mindless link.
This time, it is child pornography.

Liberalism is a slippery slope. If you accept sex before marriage and homosexualism, you'll also have to accept pedophilia, at least if you want to be honest with yourself.

The bottom line is that there is no fundamental difference between these activities -- the mental and spiritual justifications in all three cases are identical. If you believe in liberalism, then the difference between handing out condoms in school and legalizing child prostitution is only a matter of degree.

       
Tweet

Morality (none / 0) (#1)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:08:45 AM PST
If you accept sex before marriage and homosexualism, you'll also have to accept pedophilia, at least if you want to be honest with yourself.

Uh, no. That doesn't parse. Sex before marriage and homosexualism both involve mutual consent between adults. Statuatory rape and pedophilia involve sexual relations with individuals legally incapable of granting consent. There is a world of difference here.

If you believe in liberalism, then the difference between handing out condoms in school and legalizing child prostitution is only a matter of degree.

Conversely, if you believe in conservativism, then the difference between killing a convicted murderer and killing someone who missed a Church service is only a matter of degree.


A troll's true colors.

So... (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:35:49 AM PST
Homosexuality was utterly wrong, right up until it became legal?


Legality (none / 0) (#30)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:02:31 PM PST
No, in the case of legality, law serves to protect the rights of consenting adults. By definition, minors are individuals who are not allowed to grant consent.


A troll's true colors.

That isn't what you said. (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:10:11 PM PST
"...individuals legally incapable of granting consent."

You've said the same thing again in this comment. See if you can figure out why it makes you look like an amoral monster.


I am an amoral monster. (none / 0) (#40)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 12:03:10 AM PST
I pass no judgments on choice. I pointed out the difference between liberalism and pedophilia, and the fallacy of suggesting that one necessarily leads to the other.

The legal argument serves to draw a boundary in public thinking of when a child is considered old enough to make binding decisions. The truth is that each child comes to this stage at different periods; some display the ability earlier while others should be held back even later. Either way, it is accepted that children are not capable of understanding consequences well enough to provide consent, and this is backed by force of law.


A troll's true colors.

 
Hello? (none / 0) (#4)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:49:05 AM PST
Two points:

a) Pedophilia does not necessarily mean rape. Are you seriously claiming that 14 year old girls do not have sexual desires? I may also remind you that people often start masturbating at the age of 5.

b) Attendance of church service is not a law. There isn't a single religious denomination in the whole world (I'm including even insane individuals in the cult of Koresh, the Watchtower Society and the cult of Chthulu here) that claims that missing church service is illegal.


--
Peace and much love...




Splitting hairs (none / 0) (#31)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:11:31 PM PST
Pedophilia does not necessarily mean rape.

That's why I separated "statuatory rape" (sexual contact with underaged individuals) and "pedophilia." Adults have the right to consent to sexual relations or to pose for sexually explicit media. Children do not have that right, and any act is automatically considered illegal.

There isn't a single religious denomination in the whole world...that claims that missing church service is illegal.

Wrong. The Taliban was doing just that before they were forced out of power. Their ultra-conservative policies were considered extreme and unnecessary even by their allies, but they did it. A man could be beaten (even to the death) for missing one of numerous daily prayer times or for missing service.

Like you said, it's a slippery slope...


A troll's true colors.

I don't understand (none / 0) (#33)
by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:47:34 PM PST
Why do consenting adults have a moral license to do whatever they want amongst themselves?

While we're on the topic,you might recall that the Taliban (of which you are constantly speaking) combined elements of social and religious movements. For instance, Islam cannot be clearly shown to support beatings for missing prayer. If Muslims misbehave, must you always blame the ogre 'Religion?'

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

The issue of consent. (none / 0) (#41)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 02:01:48 AM PST
Perhaps they don't have it in your country, but the US Declaration of Independence includes the phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Note that there is no guarantee of happiness, merely the freedom to pursue it by whatever legal means an adult chooses. US laws then go into exhaustive detail to try to set boundaries between what is legal and illegal. Most of the basics boil down to making sure that my pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe on yours or your wellbeing. The moral intent is the supposition that your notion of morality is not necessarily mine. So long as my actions don't impede your life, it is morally correct for the two of us to leave each other alone. I happen to agree with that notion.

As for the Ogre of Religion, I pointed out the Taliban's excesses as an example of conservativism gone too far. tkatchev made the laughable claim that If you believe in liberalism, then the difference between handing out condoms in school and legalizing child prostitution is only a matter of degree. I responded with a similar claim about conservative thinking. If you claim one extreme, you must likewise accept the other. The only difference is that while I'm not familiar with any people or nation legalizing child prostitution, I do know of an example of draconian punishment for failing to observe religious ceremony.

I blame Religion for a lot of things, most of them having to do with making it far too easy for humans to oppress and abuse each other. I have stated in the past that religion can be used for peaceful and constructive means, but ultra-conservative elements tend toward "saving people from themselves." I personally consider that a crime on par with genocide.


A troll's true colors.

Are you still in grade school? (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:35:03 AM PST
The decalaration of independence is not a legally binding document. It has no standing in law, and thus guarantees absolutely nothing to the American Citizen. Most Americans are taught this before they enter High School.

The documents you need to analyze are the Constitution and the body of Federal law. Once you've looked into a bit, I think you'll find that "rights" in the US more accurately reflect the wording in the first draft of the Declaration, which guaranteed Citizens rights of "life, liberty, and property."


Declaration of Independence (none / 0) (#59)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:09:25 PM PST
The decalaration of independence is not a legally binding document.

Nor did I claim it was. I described it as a philosophy, a foundation for the laws to follow and one that I agree with.


A troll's true colors.

 
hmmm. (none / 0) (#44)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:45:50 AM PST
As a matter of fact, I don't think they have the Declaration in your country, either.

Honestly, I don't know why you insist on reducing the dialogue to this disgusting level of childish banter. To business.

Consenting adults are free to do whatever they like in private. You'll note on rereading my post that I support their rights to do so. I don't believe that that makes anything they do moral. Some things are wrong, regardless of whether they are legal or accepted; and while I would never defend any attempts at legislating morality, I will not hesitate to say that wrong is wrong.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

That's fine, then. (none / 0) (#60)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:13:34 PM PST
So we're in agreement. It is acceptable to disagree with someone's choices without impeding their right to make their choices.

Then why are we having this discussion?


A troll's true colors.

siamese fighting fish (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:03:44 PM PST
Oh, are they ever beautiful!

You know, a Fighting 5ish can batter itself to death on its own bowl when confronted with its own reflection. What a pity that is. Such magnificent animals, destroying themselves because they're a little on the dumb side. How I wish I could find some way of saving them from themselves!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Confused, as usual. (none / 0) (#57)
by hauntedattics on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:01:22 AM PST
...ultra-conservative elements tend toward "saving people from themselves." I personally consider that a crime on par with genocide.

So, telling someone they're immoral and on a path to Hell is the rough equivalent to killing, or attempting to kill, millions of people because of their skin color, religion, or national identity? How does that work?

Maybe I'm just being dense here.




Criminal behavior (none / 0) (#61)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:19:27 PM PST
I didn't say that disagreeing with someone is on par with genocide. I said that most ultra-conversatives like to "save people from themselves." That generally involves direct intervention, such as legal or physical action. You can tell me I'm a sinful, immoral heathen who is going to burn in Hell all you like. That doesn't infringe on my rights. Imprisoning me or physically punishing me for failing to follow your beliefs does. My examples of conservative excesses have all described such actions, not mere verbal warnings and denouncement.


A troll's true colors.

 
I also don't understand... (none / 0) (#45)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:46:24 AM PST
...why should any third party have a moral licence to interfere between two consenting adults, to tell them what they can/can't do amongst themselves.


it works like this (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:00:20 AM PST
I can tell people they are wrong. I can't, and wouldn't, prevent them from doing wrong.

That's how morality works in a pluralistic society.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I like it. (none / 0) (#47)
by jvance on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:30:47 AM PST
Concise. To the point. You can tell me I'm wrong, and I can tell you you're wrong to tell me I'm wrong, and then we can both tell each other to fuck off. In a civilized society, that's as far as it goes.

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Now apply to paedophillia (none / 0) (#49)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:43:45 AM PST
Concise. To the point. You can tell me I'm wrong, and I can tell you you're wrong to tell me I'm wrong, and then we can both tell each other to fuck off. In a civilized society, that's as far as it goes.

So where do you two stand on dealing with rogue players who don't follow civilized society's rules?

Say I'm a paedophile who's currently raping a child against their will. You approach me, and tell me that raping children is wrong. I tell you that you're wrong to tell me I'm wrong. What happens next?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

oh man! (none / 0) (#50)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:03:04 AM PST
You know what? You're right! Boy, do I ever look stupid! After all, this is a position that I have consistently espoused!!

Now try selling your objections to the 5ish.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Why the hostility? (none / 0) (#53)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:24:55 AM PST
Now try selling your objections to the 5ish.

Wait a second. I don't remember having any objections. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what my objections are. Then could you please answer my question? Thanks.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

ugh (none / 0) (#54)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:29:53 AM PST
Face it, man; if you can't parse parody and get the joke once it has been explained in so many words, you're utterly inadequate.

My brilliant work of postmodern art - and all for nothing!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Sorry... (none / 0) (#55)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:41:02 AM PST
...I can't read your comment through this yellow sticky note.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

how about this one? (none / 0) (#56)
by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:43:45 AM PST
Fuck off.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Why must you torment me so? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by derek3000 on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 11:41:53 AM PST
When you left me for dead at the steps of the Parthenon, I thought that our dreams of happier times were over. Once I finally gained my strength back by eating the maggots crawling inside Henderson's freshly-nibbled skull, however, I knew that you would eventually find your way back into my life. Since then, it's been a magical 6 months, not counting that night at Studio 54.

Now I come to find that you would make an example of me in front of my fellow Adequacy readers. How embarassed I am! However, familiarity has afforded me the opportunity to expose you for what you really are.

Violin my ass.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

questionable practice (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by nathan on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 10:26:23 AM PST
Violin my ass.

I refuse to participate in liberalist perversions of any sort whatsoever!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Off topic (none / 0) (#51)
by jvance on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:18:05 AM PST
We were discussing legal behavior affecting adults.

But to answer your question, I'd snap your fucking neck, and then face the jury. Fair enough?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

An honest man (none / 0) (#52)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:21:07 AM PST
But to answer your question, I'd snap your fucking neck, and then face the jury. Fair enough?

That sounds fine to me.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Following society's rules. (none / 0) (#62)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:31:42 PM PST
Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's.


In the case of individuals who fail to follow the law with regard to pedophilia, arrest and incarceration is a minimum requirement. I'm personally of the opinion that punishment should fit the crime, although I'm not going to go into detail about that here.

For me the ultimate crime is to willfully harm another individual. Raping a child or forcing them to pose in a sexual manner is known to be harmful, and such offenses should be dealt with harshly. Viewing pornography involving minors is, in my mind, a lesser offense but helps provide the greater criminals with the incentive to continue their work. It also requires punishment, mostly along the lines of an accessory.


A troll's true colors.

A fine comment. No argument. (none / 0) (#70)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:19:49 AM PST
But I do have a speling falme.
  • Peter "Shoeboy" Johnson is a pedophile.
  • Gary Glitter and Johnathan King are a paedophiles.

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Of course (none / 0) (#63)
by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 04:38:18 PM PST
Use of the word "wrong" makes no sense at all without having some higher standard or moral law -- common to all humans -- to compare it to. Then you have to ask where this moral law comes from etc. But I'm sure you're well aware of that.

p.s. Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis?


 
Chthulu? (none / 0) (#32)
by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:31:19 PM PST
Just an aside.. I think chthulu is an rpg. I believe I played a game with the exact name. Is there any relation?



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

Cthulu (none / 0) (#38)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 10:17:42 PM PST
Cthulu is a personage (?) from H.P. Lovecraft's classic turn-of-the-century horror fiction.


--
Peace and much love...




Pictures (none / 0) (#43)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 04:54:38 AM PST

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
So now you say its fiction? (none / 0) (#67)
by JoePain on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 07:22:14 PM PST
I thought you said it is a cult? Which is it?


 
Statuatory rape? (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:14:10 PM PST
Are you sure you aren't someone else we know?


 
Morals (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Akumu on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:40:45 AM PST
I think you're confusing your own particular moral code with moralism in general. Just because your attitude on sexuality forbids pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and pedophilia doesn't mean that there aren't any self-consistent morals that can allow the first two and disallow the last.

For instance, how about the belief that the sexual activity undertaken by two consenting adults is their own affair? You can't argue the fact that in pedophilic sex, one of the participants is not sexually mature. That's a pretty "fundamental" difference.

How are pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, and pedophilic sex fundamentally linked anyway? In that they're all sex, of course, but that would rule out post-marital sex as well. They go against nature? That doesn't really apply to marriage, which is a purely societal construct. They go against God's will? Well, this of course begs the question, what God? If you mean the Christian God, there's no explicit mention one way or the other if pedophilia displeases God. There's some mention in Song of Solomon 8 against it, and some mention in Numbers 31 for it. If you mean some other God, a Christian could point back and say "my God, the real one, doesn't think so." So what is this fundamental underpinning that links all three?

-akumu-


The liberalist faith. (none / 0) (#5)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:00:05 AM PST
For instance, how about the belief that the sexual activity undertaken by two consenting adults is their own affair?

What about it? It is one of the tenets of the liberalist faith. So?

The fundamental link between all these cases is adultery. In all cases you are acting out of pure egoism. If you are going to say that that the sensory pleasure derived from premarital sex is a fundamental human right, then you are going to have to agree that the sensory pleasure the pedophile gets from fondling young girls is also a fundamental human right. There is no fundamental difference between these two cases -- only slightly different shades of gray and differing cultural biases.


--
Peace and much love...




I'm surprised at you, tk (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by Akumu on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:34:22 AM PST
Wow, are you really too stupid to link adjacent sentences together or are you being wilfully dense? I was citing that "tenet of the liberalist faith" to demonstrate a self-consistent moral stance which allows pre-marital sex and homosexuality while denying pedophilia. In this way, I was disproving your assertion that "[i]f you accept sex before marriage and homosexualism, you'll also have to accept pedophilia, at least if you want to be honest with yourself." As to the fundamental link being adultery, that just plain doesn't make sense. Adultery, by three different dictionaries and apparently even in the Bible is the sexual relation between a married person and someone other than their spouse. That doesn't cover pre-marital sex, homosexuality, OR pedophilia. As for egoism, all three of these modes of sex are not just for one's own benefit, but can also be for the benefit of the partner as well. An expression of love, as it were. And as for cultural bias being the only difference between pre-marital sex and pedophilia, I'd suggest you go back and re-read my original post, this time not ignoring the point that pedophiliac's partners are not sexually mature. This is a concretely biological distinction, not a social one. Your crusade against pleasure seems to have pushed you all the way back from working on Step Four to working on Step Three. -akumu-


Dumbass. (none / 0) (#7)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 05:48:35 AM PST
First, prove your assertion that 14 year-old girls are unable to derive pleasure from sexual activities. Good luck.

Second, just because you are an arrogant liberalist who has no fucking clue about what the words he uses mean, does not imply that you have "won" the argument. If you had even a passing knowledge of Christianity, I'd realize that homosexualism is a perfect example of the sin of adultery.




--
Peace and much love...




Read more closely (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Akumu on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:01:20 AM PST
I have never asserted that 14-year old girls can not experience sexual pleasure. I have asserted that pedophiliac's partners are not sexually mature. And guess what, that is the DEFINITION of pedophilia. If we can agree to accept the DSM-IV's defintion: "Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning sexual activity with a sexually immature child (usually age 13 or under)." Try not to get it confused with statutory rape, which is a completely different matter altogether.

Now, let's traipse through the Bible a bit, shall we? Just so you know, I'm referring to the New International Version, which is the version I have sitting on my bookshelf.

Exodus 20:14
You shall not commit adultery

Not very helpful in terms of definition

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

This seems to support my definition

Deutoronomy 5:18
You shall not commit adultery

Same as Exodus 20:14

Job 24:15
The eye of the adulterer watches for dusk;
he thinks, 'No eye will see me,'
and he keeps his face concealed.

No clue as to what an adulterer is.

Psalm 50:18
When you see a thief, you join with him;
you throw in your lot with adulterers.

Still, no context. From now on I'll just mention that ones that show context.

Proverbs 2:16-17
[Wisdom] will save you also from the adulteress,
from the wayward wife with her seductive words,
who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant she made before God.

Supports my definition.

Proverbs 5:20
Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?

Are we seeing a trend here? Another man's wife?

Proverbs 6:26
for the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life.

Separates the prostitute from the adulteress. Could be inferred that prostitution is not inherently adultery.

Proverbs 6:32-34
But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment;
whoever does so destroys himself.
Blows and disgrace are his lot,
and his shame will never be wiped away;
for jealousy arouses a husband's fury,
and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.

Jealous husband -> sleeping with wife of husband.

Proverbs 7:5
they will keep you from the adulteress,
from the wayward wife with her seductive words.

Adulteress = wayward wife. Note the difference here from Proverbs 6:26, namely the lack of an and, making this a paranthetical phrase rather than a separate clause.

Much of Jeremiah speaks of adulterers, the most enlightening being Jeremiah 9:2
Oh, that I had in the desert a lodging place for travelers, so that I might leave my people and go away from them; for they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful people.

This speaks of adulterers as unfaithful in general, in most of Jeremiah it is unfaithful to God. Now, people who never claimed to be God's followers in the first place thus cannot commit adultery by God.

Jeremiah 29:23
For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the Lord .

With their neighbour's wives.

Ezekial 6:9 (This is THE LORD speaking, by the way)
Then in the nations where they have been carried captive, those who escape will remember me-how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts, which have turned away from me, and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols. They will loathe themselves for the evil they have done and for all their detestable practices.

Their hearts are adulterous because they turned away from God. Can't really turn away from waht you were never facing.

Ezekial 16:32
You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!

That one's pretty clear.

Hosea 1:2
When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord ."

Once again, can't depart when you're not there to begin with.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Woop! Well, there's one strike against my definition, straight from Christ himself. Of course, this stil hasn't condemned gays, they don't look at women lustfully.

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Adultery as breaking marriage vows again, just four lines later.

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

And again!

These sentiments are repeated in Mark 10, and Luke 16, and Romans 7.

Corinthinas 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

This delineates and separates the sexually immoral from the adulterers from the homosexual offenders, implying that none is identical to the other.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral

Alright, so the adulterer is without a doubt sexually immoral, but not all those who are sexually immoral are adulterers.


Well, yay, wasn't that fun! Except for that one bit about committing adultery in your heart, which again didn't condemn male homosexuals, it pretty much matched up with what I said adultery was to begin with. Now, honestly, I don't go to church, so I haven't been instructed as to what it _should_ mean, but I am able to read and come to my own conclusions about meaning.

-akumu-



Who cares? (none / 0) (#9)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 08:50:33 AM PST
Your quotes from the Bible are completely irrelevant. There is no Christianity without the Church, and the Church's answer as to the definition of adultery is very clear, unambigious, and hasn't been changed in hundreds of years.

You can quote the Bible all you want, but as far as Christians are concerned, homosexualism falls squarely under "adultery". (And "sodomy", as well, but that is simply a generic name for abnormal sex acts. Anal sex, in this case. Sodomy, BTW, is generally seen as a lesser sin than adultery.)

The Bible is useless without attending Church -- because the essence of Christianity is not in the Bible but rather in the Church, the living Body of Christ. Trying to argue about theological matters from a purely Biblical perspective, without any knowledge of the teachings of the Church is very, very stupid and arrogant. It's about as stupid as an argument with professional airline pilots about the technical merits of the 767 after reading a short layman's description of the plane on the Net.

At the very least, you should know that Christianity, unlike Islam, is not a religion "of the book".

As to your claim that 13-year-old girls are not "sexually mature", you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean that young girls are unable to recieve sexual pleasure? That is simply untrue. Do you mean that they are unable to bear children? As a liberalist, you care the least about bearing children. Do you mean that they are unable to reach "mature" desicions in their sex life? But then again, how many so-called adults can make mature decisions about their sexual lives? Besides, sex isn't theoretical physics. Even the dumbest person can understand what sex is all about; after all, even mentally retarded people have absolutely no problem forming stable, sexual relations among each other.

Again, you failed to explain how pedophilia is substantially different from pre-marital sex.


--
Peace and much love...




As was carefully explained to me (none / 0) (#11)
by jvance on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:30:55 AM PST
by a Born Again Christian, adultery is betraying one's marriage vows. Anyone who divorces and then engages in sexual relations with someone else is an adulterer in the eyes of the Lord, even if they remarry. I believe the word you're looking for that describes premarital sex is "fornication." I can understand your difficulty, being an ESL type.

But back to the discussion of paedophilia. I take it that fornication with a 13 year old girl is a Sin, but sexual relations with a 13 year old girl within the bounds of a Church sanctioned marriage is just fine, right?


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

jvance, I'm surprised (none / 0) (#13)
by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:51:33 AM PST
Getting advice from a Born Again Christian®? You can hardly expect it to be canonical.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

It was someone (none / 0) (#16)
by jvance on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:00:09 AM PST
who I highly respect. He was raised by atheist parents, but his concern over the lack of any grounding for morality lead him to religion. He's an active member of his Church, which, just like the Roman and Orthodox churches, considers itself to be the body of Christ.

Your postings remind me of him. But I don't recall whether he had any interest in photography.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

respect and beyond (none / 0) (#28)
by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 02:26:13 PM PST
I don't deny the fellow's respectability, his courage, or his superior character. I do question his ability to speak canonically, in the sense in which that term has been used throughout Christian history.

A primitivist movement such as fundamentalism is perforce committed to a political position with respect to ecclesiastical history - one rather close to Ford's.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
So? (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:59:33 AM PST
We're arguing about different translations of the Bible; from where I'm coming from, the "adultery" spoken of in the seventh commandment is an all-encompasing concept that includes all lewd and lustful feelings.

See this link, for example. I especially urge you to take note of these quotes:

...every sensual overindulgence, and every action promoting such things also violates the Seventh Commandment.

In order not to sin against the Seventh Commandment, one must avoid whatever arouses indecent feelings, such as pornography and indecent language, especially in jokes.

Homosexuality is a very grave sin against the Seventh Commandment.




--
Peace and much love...




What is... (none / 0) (#22)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:34:33 PM PST
..."sensual overindulgence"?
<P>
Also, why the Church spends so much of energy to attach a sense of sin/guilt to everything that feels good?



Why do you care? (none / 0) (#24)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:54:53 PM PST
The Church does this because it is absolutely necessary if you want to keep spiritual health.

Most people would agree that spiritual health is more important than physical; why, then, do you understand the point of not eating poisoned chocolate (even if it tastes really, really good) but you object to curbing sensual overindulgence?

If you don't belive in sprirituality, then I suggest you don't butt into conversations that do not interest you or have any bearing on your life.


--
Peace and much love...




Bad answer. (none / 0) (#25)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 01:21:21 PM PST
Why do you care?

Curiosity? I know, it killed the cat, but maybe I have suicidal tendencies...

Most people would agree that spiritual health is more important than physical...

What is spiritual health? Maybe something the Church came up with in order to maintain social control through guilt?

...but you object to curbing sensual overindulgence?

What is sensual overindulgence? You still hadn't answered my original question.

If you don't belive in sprirituality, then I suggest you don't butt into conversations that do not interest you or have any bearing on your life.

Spirituality? The handwaving with unclear definitions? What if I like watching you squirm when I want you to remove the fog from your terminology?


I'm not squirming. (none / 0) (#37)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 10:14:07 PM PST
In fact, this discussion is so boring that I have trouble forcing myself to write this.

In actuality, I don't want to discuss trivial things with you; your adolescent-level mentality makes any discussion with you terribly forced and uninteresting,


--
Peace and much love...




Evasive maneuver. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 10:41:15 PM PST
In fact, this discussion is so boring that I have trouble forcing myself to write this.

Viz subj. - a textbook case.

In actuality, I don't want to discuss trivial things with you; your adolescent-level mentality makes any discussion with you terribly forced and uninteresting.

Asking unpleasant questions, and/or not sharing your particular set of dogmas, is called "adolescent mentality" now?


 
Well now ... (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 04:53:20 PM PST
Ya know, honey ... if you're gonna preach that, I think you'd best do me a favor and quit posting. All your sassy talk, flagrant use of 'fuck' & going on about sex of all types all the time has got me just hot as hell, in spite of my efforts to be good. You're contributing to my deliquency! Repent, spawn of evil! *snickers*


 
A question: (none / 0) (#12)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:38:56 AM PST
Again, you failed to explain how pedophilia is substantially different from pre-marital sex.

Please explain how pre-marital sex is substantially different from marital sex?


Marital relations. (none / 0) (#14)
by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:55:21 AM PST
Marital relations assume that you are going to have communal responsibilities -- first and foremost, raising children.

Although, strictly speaking, you are completely correct -- a large amount of sanctioned marriages are nothing more than a front for "legalized" adultery.


--
Peace and much love...




 
I think the point is... (none / 0) (#10)
by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:28:11 AM PST
By my reading, Mr Tkatchev objects to the following ideas.
  • The idea of "a self-consistent moral stance" as coherent outside of absolute, religious morality.
  • The idea of "sexual maturity," in some kind of diagnostic sense.
  • The idea that sex is some kind of privileged phenomenon such that it becomes something for which people have natural rights to gratify their desires.

    In other words, he is swatting for the gad, not for the gadfly. I sum up my understanding of the liberal view of sex thusly: it is a largely harmless activity, and people ought to be allowed to do it except where it causes harm to others. (I would actually agree with the proposition that people have a right to indulge in sex practices not harming others unduly; this is without saying that it's actually a good idea to do so.) Liberals have moved from that position, though, to believing that sex is innocuous except insofar as it is perverted; perversion being defined in a rather ad hoc fashion, though.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • Thank you. (none / 0) (#15)
    by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 09:56:04 AM PST
    You are calm and level-headed, as always.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    Think about this... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:23:33 AM PST
    Howdy, first post, and i allready find this enjoyable:

    Roughly 90% of the people in the world follow some sort of religion. This does not mean that they all believe in the same god(s). Following, this also means that there has to be another morality within them, seeing that not all gods dictate the same morality. If I don't believe in god, (which is most likely the case) then your "absolute" which generally is made by god, is not important to me. Egoism fails in many many many ways also. No denying that. However, absolute-ism fails when you force the assumption the god that you believe in. There are many types of Christians/Cathloics. Regardless of who it is. The Pope has a different view of god then you do, and thus a different view on morality. Obviously the Bishop "believes" in the same/similar god and follows the same church and reads from the same bible. (I am puzzeled by your statement on how the bible is useless with out the church...) And this Bishop also had some 'interactions' with some pre-pubescent male children. Many people find this wrong. I dont think its fair that the Church even gets brought into this argument because there are many different moralities in the church.

    You might say, "Even though you dont believe in my god, there still is. His absolute morals are channeled through the church, which is spoken by the Pope... Thus, all Christians/Catholics (your choice) believe in a central core idea."

    I disagree with this. If you say that then one can say that the pope cannot truely even begin to voice the "core morality" because God is to complex. Also, being human will cause error in the relay of the message. Look at the bible! There is supposed to be one core idea, however how many translations are there I ask?

    Thus, regardless if you object to "The idea of "a self-consistent moral stance" as coherent outside of absolute, religious morality." It is not useful in this argument becuase we are not talking about the church's view, we are talking about "right" and "wrong". Which is an unsolved argument by the "church" and anything else that is not the church.

    I say, stick to the homo-child-premarital sex talk and not the church.

    Shinkansen!!

    Also this stuff is copyrighted to me. Yes me. Don't copy my stuff.



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

    Whatever. (none / 0) (#18)
    by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:51:43 AM PST
    Please shorten your post by about three-fourths, making sure to highlight your main points and use correct grammar.

    This is not a flame; it is honest criticism -- seriously, I read your whole post, and I still have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say.




    --
    Peace and much love...




    Corrected (4.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:13:49 PM PST
    Sure, sorry about that. I'm not Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style."

    Point A: Religon and The Church have no bearing on this, or any argument, other then strictly church-related issues.

    Reason A: There is more then one religion. If there is more then one religion and God dictates an absolute morality, then there is more then one morality. Therefore there is more then one morality.

    If you are implying that this has anything to do with the church, then you need to lay out ALL of the moral values that are "core" to the church.
    I will say that the only thing that can lay out the absolute moral values is god. The Pope, Bible or Church, cannot accurately do this because of human error. (Example: there are too many bibles and sects of the church... who is to say one is more correct then another?)

    Reason A2: I don't believe in your god. I don't agree that the views the church holds are always right. This argument will go into a "God's existence" argument or a "what is god?" argument too quickly. Another reason to abandon the use of church in the argument.

    Thus, if you want to use religion in an argument keep it within an argument about religion. We are talking about things that are not based around the church, but around views that may contain ideas that the church holds. This does not mean that all of the church's views are in this argument.

    Point B: Length has nothing to do with my argument. Short and concice arguments with one point and no examples don't always work.

    I hope I didn't offend earlier.

    Shinkansen!!



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

    About your point. (none / 0) (#23)
    by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:51:01 PM PST
    That's one of the tenets of the liberalist faith, but most people would not agree with you.

    Please don't try to pretend that your own religious biases are somehow empirically more "correct" than mine -- because they are not.

    If you belive in the liberalist faith, then come out and say so honestly. It's very disheartening when you put down dogmas other than your own.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Reply (none / 0) (#26)
    by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 01:56:49 PM PST
    Are you calling any faith other then your's liberalist?

    Because I believe in a position on something that has no proven answer, that doesn't make it "correct". Similarly for you or anybody else.

    Sorry that its disheartening for you; however, I am suggesting that we do not use religion in arguments when there are problems such as the ones I have mentioned. Like I said before, this is not an attack at you, but a point that I am allowed to make. There are many problems with the "Liberalist Faith" I am sure. Yet, I would like to know what your definition of this "faith" is before I admit I am one of them or not.

    If you want to point out dogma, please do.

    Shinkansen!!



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

    Katchup is an asshole (none / 0) (#66)
    by JoePain on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 07:15:51 PM PST
    Further, he never bothers to spell out wtf he is babbling abount, and has too big of an ego to admit he has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

    He has become a cog in the right wing propaganda machine (as far as this site goes). In fact, he should start writing books for them, I hear they need a new author. He would be perfect for it since he never backs up what he writes. Perhaps writing insane articles on 2-bit web sites is a prerequisit?

    His arguments--like theirs--go something like this: Babble-Opinion-You're a liberalist-babble-more babble-liberalist-babble.

    In short he is a troll, I call him the 'ambiguous' troll.

    Like them, he says a lot of nothing.




    So this is the fabled liberalist rationality... (none / 0) (#68)
    by tkatchev on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:06:15 PM PST
    Let me see if I understand your point correctly:

    "I don't understand what he is saying => Therefore he is an idiot => Therefore he is a troll and it's OK to hate him".

    Wonderful. Did it ever occur to you that the reason you have trouble understanding my point lies in yourself? Typical liberalist egocentrism, to believe that your persona is the center of the universe.

    Besides, what do you want me to do? Chew up my point and place it in your mouth? If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then I am sorry. I have no intention of changing my life just so your life becomes a little bit easier to understand.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    greetings. now to business: (none / 0) (#27)
    by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 02:18:10 PM PST
    The fact that several religions exist, and they disagree, does not imply all are right[1], that none are right, or that it is impossible to be right. There are serious philosophical reasons to believe in the unity of any God worthy of the name, for instance, which I will not go into unless specifically asked to do so.

    [1] "Right," in this discussion's context, referring to a religion's legitimately speaking to morality.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#29)
    by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:13:46 PM PST
    I agree with you on this and being a philosophy student, understand what you are saying. I wanted to help direct the discussion away from religion and to the topic. Religion plays a part in this topic, but it could easily become the focus of the discussion. If somebody uses A (where A is any religion) to support a premise and I believe B (where B is any religion that is Not A) then the argument becomes unsound because I will have a disagreement. I believe its called the "divine command theory" but I don't recall.

    Shinkansen!!



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

     
    Corrected secondly: (none / 0) (#21)
    by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:18:11 PM PST
    I would like to note that some arguments that you have replied to have been longer and less coherent then mine. And your arguments have been a little wordy too.

    I agree, this is not a flame-related service but honest criticism. If this is the case. It is not only the new person who has to watch the poor grammer, etc.

    Shinkansen!!



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

     
    You're an idiot (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:20:34 PM PST
    Roughly 90% of the people in the world follow some sort of religion.

    What, did you pull that number out of your ass? 90% of one of the most religious countries in the world, the United States of America, follow some sort of religion. As it turns out, if you include Buddhists, fully 40% of the world population does NOT believe in a god or gods.

    Damn me and my sources (none / 0) (#48)
    by Shinkansen on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:31:53 AM PST
    I think the subject says it all...

    Good looking out. However it doesn't change the major point at all.

    Shinkansen!!



    Shinkansen!!
    Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

     
    I agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:10:51 PM PST
    Basically abandoning God means abandoning His moral codes too, and this is happening as we speak. Yeah, for now it is just Gay Rights but tomorrow it will be Pedophile Rights, and after that probably just outright nihilism. Yep, we're fucked.

    I know you are thinking, "Well, we've got to bring back Christianity." But that isn't going to work -- no one believes that stuff anymore.

    I think the only solution is that since people will no longer be moral we will have cameras placed everywhere (like in the book 1984) and the state will enforce harsh laws to keep us from falling into the black pit of anarchy.


     
    Uh oh (none / 0) (#72)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 02:19:41 PM PST
    Don't look now, but the damned Slashbots are defending the right to watch naked kids now. How far below human are these geeks?


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.