Archive for January 6th, 2011

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.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

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