Christianity and Child Rape: Non-Contradictory Because of Consent, says Greg-Peter.

Posted on January 6, 2011. Filed under: Atheism, Religion, Social Justice, Trolls |

Before you read this post and make yourself look stupid by attacking me in the comment section, read this, this and this.

These kids may be smiling, but that doesn't make Greg-Peter right...

I don’t mean to pick on the site Atheism Presupposes Theism, I just kind of came across his blog when witnessing the most misleading post ever by a theist. But I found a good launch pad for discussion concerning theism’s basis for accepting child rape. Greg-Peter writes in this post here that “… If, as Justin says, we should all just have sex the way we want with the types of people we want and enjoy it, then why shouldn’t people have sex with children? On the basis of the Christian worldview, we can make sense of our rejection of pedophilia, as we believe in universal, invariant laws of morality based upon God’s character…why for the atheist is pedophilia wrong even if the child consents to it?”  So what Greg-Peter is saying here is that he believes that children are capable of giving sexual consent, but that sex with a child constitutes a non-moral act for Christians.

How does the theist square this circle?   They don’t have to, they admit as much all the time.  All theists agree with the statement “It is perfectly moral to consider children Christians as they are capable of consenting to and understanding religious teaching”.  If one can consent to something as profound as a profession of faith, then surely that can be extended to sexual consent.  This is the theist mindframe.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Greg-Peter supports pedophilia, but rather that his embrace of theism could easily comport with a certain type of pedophilia.  If we assume, as the theists do, that a child can willfully consent to a sexual act, then it is amoral but not rape.  This is a slippery slope that some theists, including some members of its heirarchy, are now apparently trying to argue for as witnessed by Greg-Peter’s comments.  If we grant that children are aware enough to consent, as theists apparently do,  then child sex is apparently amoral but possibly not criminal.

Apparently, theists only find it amoral because God says no.  No other reasons.  None.  God says not to mix fabrics.   God says not to eat shellfish.  So this reasoning is subject to possible amendment further down the road if God changes His mind, or is acceptable if you follow a different sect of Christianity.    With what part of what Greg-Peter says would a pedophile disagree: “… if a child consents”? Reading it in that light makes me sick, but this is where theism takes you, dear friends.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

9 Responses to “Christianity and Child Rape: Non-Contradictory Because of Consent, says Greg-Peter.”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

You’re missing one other thing, George: nowhere in the Bible does it say “don’t have sex with children.” Just like our modern view of slavery and genocide as a crime against humanity, most societies have come to the conclusion that adults shouldn’t treat children as sexual objects. (Too bad we don’t feel that way about women yet.)

Peter is merely exhibiting yet another example of a theist trying to claim those subjective, humanistic morals for his religion.

Hi Greg. You misread me. I did not say that children are capable of giving sexual consent. People can have all the debate they want for or against the idea that children are capable of consenting to something, whether to anything in general or to sex in particular. But my position and the Christian position is that children should never be obligated or asked to give consent to sex in the first place. In other words, the immorality of pedophilia does not depend on whether children can or will or should give consent. Pedophilia is wrong regardless of what adults or children think about it. Also, your claim that “sex with a child constitutes a non-moral act for Christians” is false. As I’ve said, pedophilia is immoral. (Or perhaps you’re simply confusing the words immoral and amoral?)

You’re also missing the thrust of my main argument against Jason. He says that pedophilia is wrong but he says that morality is subjective. This is a self-contradictory position. If the claim that pedophilia is wrong is a matter of subjective opinion, as the atheist Jason says, then the atheist position actually provides the basis for pedophilia. In other words, why is the pedophile morally obligated to accept the claim that pedophilia is wrong if it’s just a matter of subjective opinion? See what I mean?

However, the Christian can say that pedophilia is morally wrong since the Christian position can account for universal and invariant laws of morality, whereas the atheist appeals to human opinion. But human opinion can be wrong. And if human opinion can be wrong, then how does the atheist know that pedophilia is wrong even when certain people are of the opinion that it’s ok?

Peter,
Thanks for your prompt, if ridiculous reply. As I warned you before, your argument is completely wrong on it’s face and will be shown as such if you continue to ague for it.
That morality is subjective is a fact. That does not mean that pedophilia is o.k. under certain circumstances. It is wrong based on an agreed upon group of social conventions that most if not all humans share; not least of which is that children are incapable of consenting to a sexual act. Your whole argument stands on the logic that if everything we believe as a society were different, if every fact we base that opinion on were different, then it would still be universally wrong. I would need to see a strong proof for that case, but it doesn’t change the fact that I believe pedophilia to be both immoral and abhorrent. If it does change that fact then you have not reached the burden of proof in stating it.
I suspect that you are well aware of the semantic juggling act you are trying to perform, of the eventual fallacy of your own argument. I can’t prove it though, and I have met and defeated this challenge from others who have felt it to be a universal truth. I hope you are not one of those.
I see you have already begun the nitpicking, it won’t make your wrong argument any more true. But have at it, I need a good copy editor from time to time.
I’ll say two things:
1. If you re-read your post, you did imply that children are capable of consent. Jason has never said or implied this. So you are either trying to project that opinion onto him fallaciously, or you are saying that you believe that to be a valid line of defense. So you were either a liar or you believe that position valid. By saying you never implied it is to admit that you are a liar. You bore false witness.
2. Subjective morality is not self-contradicting. You have failed the burden of proof in making that logical step. You cannot by fiat assume victory based on your faulty logic. You need to prove it with something more than a ridiculous logical pretzel that we need to untwist. You say morality cannot logically be subjective. Explain exactly why and I will tell you all the reasons you are wrong. Can anything be subjective, given the assault on logic you performed over at Jason’s blog, or is the Christian position that everything is objective?

I await your reply….

George: “That morality is subjective is a fact.”

If morality is subjective then I have no objective moral obligation to listen to or agree with anything you say.

George: “That does not mean that pedophilia is o.k. under certain circumstances.”

Do people have a moral obligation to believe this?

George: “It [pedophilia] is wrong based on an agreed upon group of social conventions that most if not all humans share…”

Are people who don’t share those social conventions morally obligated to accept them? If yes, then don’t they have a moral obligation? If no, then on what basis should they not engage in pedophilia?

And consider this claim for the sake of argument: “Morality is based on an agreed upon group of social conventions.” Is this claim a convention? You see, if the claim itself is a convention, and if conventions can change, then you leave open the possibility that the claim can later be rejected in favour of the idea that morality is not a matter of convention. That’s why the claim is self-defeating.

So you know, I’m not coming back here. I was debating Jason and don’t feel like repeating myself all the time.

Feel free not to come back, I’ll continue to be a pain in your ass there as well. I am happy to keep the argument all in one place, that way one only needs one resource to prove you are full of shit. Jason will dissect your arguments just as easily as I can, and everyone will see you either crawl back under your rock, refuse to answer simple questions, refuse to concede the logical extensions of your premises, keep restating long disproved premises, or my guess, all of the above.
I warned you that this is a shell game you are playing, and we have all seen it before. The trick doesn’t work, and when we show everybody that the pea is up your sleeve, your going to look pretty stupid when you insist that it isn’t, especially when all the shells are turned over….
I’ll address these concerns over at Jason’s then. Oh, wait, Jason already did. Yet you continue to argue for it. There is no such thing as an objective moral obligation. Wishing that there was does not make it so. Insisting that there is doesn’t make it so either. Claiming that your religion offers or demands it is self-contradictory, if you follow the logic.

I’ll address you over there then, and look forward to the exchange. If someone wants my reply to your laughable claims, they can read them over here, at least until I summarize them in a post.

Peter:”If morality is subjective then I have no objective moral obligation to listen to or agree with anything you say.”

So if morality is subjective then you don’t have to prove that it is objective? Alright then.
If I claim anything to be subjective, then you, by fiat, get to assert any truth claim you want, as long as you disagree with me? Sure….
Also, I’m the one claiming morality subjective, not you. So you are the one who considers yourself to have a moral obligation to listen/agree/respond. If you refuse to do that, are you not conceding my point? Hmmmm….

Peter:”Do people have a moral obligation to believe this?”

I don’t believe in moral obligations to believe anything. You can believe what you will. Belief =/= truth. You try to conflate the two. Prove yourself right. Please.

Peter:”Are people who don’t share those social conventions morally obligated to accept them? If yes, then don’t they have a moral obligation? If no, then on what basis should they not engage in pedophilia?”

They are not morally obliged to accept anything. I thought we covered this. If you believe they are then prove your case instead of just trying to create a false convention, the burden of proof goes both ways, and both I and Jason have defended ours. You just keep insisting you are right, without offering any evidence or response to our questions. You are officially the worst debater ever. If they are morally obliged, then why do we have Christian pedophiles? They should not bugger children because of numerous reasons we have hashed out before. Like it harms children. Like they are committing rape, as children can’t consent. Like we thought this rule important enough to create laws and social conventions that serve to punish those who do it. I could go on, but why? You haven’t even shown a relevant bible verse that comes out against child buggery. So God must not find it that important, or not enough to get specific.

Peter:’And consider this claim for the sake of argument: “Morality is based on an agreed upon group of social conventions.” Is this claim a convention? You see, if the claim itself is a convention, and if conventions can change, then you leave open the possibility that the claim can later be rejected in favour of the idea that morality is not a matter of convention. That’s why the claim is self-defeating.’

I have considered your claim….. I consider it to be absolutely retarded. Are you claiming that morals are not conventions but universal, unbreakable truths that stand independent of their context? Answer that question. You haven’t answered one yet. You will not allow your premise to be defined because you know it fails when held to specifics. You won’t answer my question. I know this.
I’ll answer yours though. “Morality is a social convention” is a truth claim, not a moral claim. You are not obliged to accept this claim, but that makes it no less true. You cannot make someone’s opinion of the nature of morality a necessary moral any more than you can make someone’s opinion of the truth a necessary truth, both of which you are guilty of in your arguments.
You need to answer why you think your Universal, unchanging, God-shaped morality is unchanging. Are all the moral pronouncements of Deuteronomy still in effect? Has God’s position on the morality of slavery, or incest, or the rights of women, or child murder ever changed or been suspended to suit his whim? You need to answer these questions, because they lay at the heart of your entire premise. Are God’s laws, from which we derive our morality: Universal, Constant, Independent of Context, and by extension, objective? If they are, you need to really clarify how you square that circle, because the bible seems to say something completely different. If you have an answer, then give it. If not; if all you can do is repeat your argument without addressing the faults of it, then crawl back under your rock and hope that no-one with a brain ever finds there way over to my site or Jason’s by searching for TAG apologetics, or worse, from your blog. Because you haven’t fooled anyone.
You are, in essence, an intellectual weasel, trying to pull a fast one on an unsuspecting mark. As you have discovered, we are neither unsuspecting or unprepared. Your argument fails.
I invite anyone reading this to read all the comments at Jason’s blog, so they can see just what a weasel you are.

If you wish it to stand then you must address every question I asked you in this post.
Let’s start with the softball question you have avoided thrice already: If morality is objective, is it always objectively morally wrong to murder children?
Come on, that has to be an easy one…..

One question I’m not going to waste my time asking Peter is, “why do we have an objective moral responsibility to follow God’s demands?” All one must do is replace “society” with “god” in his arguments, and there really is no difference.
Fuck, I’m glad I spent tonight drinking beer with a couple of friends instead of watching Peter spin in circles until he ran away to his own blog to claim victory.

[...] Christianity and Child Rape: Non-Contradictory Because of Consent, says Greg-Peter. [...]

[...] comment on, which broke out in the posts Atheism and sexual self-contradiction by Greg Bahnsen,  Christianity and Child Rape: Non-Contradictory Because of Consent, says Greg-Peter by friend of Camels With Hammers George W., and Apologetics and Apoplexy by Stephanie [...]


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers

%d bloggers like this: