The MADB Body Count

[_Buffalo]

You don't need religion to tell you that child rape is wrong. But to come to the conclusion that drinking coffee or eating pork is wrong and other ridiculous ideas, that's where you need religion.

Thanks for going about agreeing with me in the unique Buffalo way.

Hmm, well sin is a loaded word. "Actions/thoughts that separate us from god." Since there is no god, there is no sin. But there are things, like child rape, that are instinctively offensive and are grave crimes. Crime exists because the law exists. The laws are based on practical considerations and on our evolved sense of empathy. We don't want our children to be raped, or to see another person's child raped. That offends us at a deep emotional level. It's in the genes.

[_Themis]

I kind of agree with you. It seems calling sin a ludicrous concept is the ludicrous thing. Afterall which person in this whole world does not assume that engaging in taboo actions (however subjective that can be) can somehow intrinsically taint the person? I hate to get all crass as an example but perhaps child rape can serve as an example of it? who here disagrees that raping a child is a taboo thing that does intrinsically taint the raper?

I think you are misreading what CK actually said. I suggest reading it a little more carefully.

[_stemelbow]

So what did you mean by this statement?

When the presented alternative appears to be nothing but misery I feel strengthened in my faith.

To me it implies that if you leave the church (which is the alternative) then your life will be nothing but misery. I could be wrong about what you meant but the statement does seem pretty clear.

First off I very much appreciate the question far more than attempts to jump to conclusions, as if you are speaking for me, so thanks.

In my statement I had in mind the very specific example of this thread. If you read it in the context of the conversation I think it makes sense. I do not therefore imply any alternatives presented me appear to be nothing but misery. I'm more than open, and feel I have shown that here, to consider other alternatives. Anyway, no I did not imply what you thought I implied. I can see how the mistake could have been made, so no big deal. Sometimes context is the key.

[_Themis]

First off I very much appreciate the question far more than attempts to jump to conclusions, as if you are speaking for me, so thanks.

In my statement I had in mind the very specific example of this thread. If you read it in the context of the conversation I think it makes sense. I do not therefore imply any alternatives presented me appear to be nothing but misery. I'm more than open, and feel I have shown that here, to consider other alternatives. Anyway, no I did not imply what you thought I implied. I can see how the mistake could have been made, so no big deal. Sometimes context is the key.

You could have done this eralier you know and saved a lot of time. This is what you said earlier.

No gaining faith, per se. Just resolve to my faith. you see, if my faith is bad, if my beliefs are pointless or unhelpful then I'd appreciate seeing what is the alternative. When the presented alternative appears to be nothing but misery I feel strengthened in my faith.

I hope you can see why people would easily think you mean the alternative of disbelief in LDS claims.

[_stemelbow]

I kind of agree with you. It seems calling sin a ludicrous concept is the ludicrous thing. Afterall which person in this whole world does not assume that engaging in taboo actions (however subjective that can be) can somehow intrinsically taint the person? I hate to get all crass as an example but perhaps child rape can serve as an example of it? who here disagrees that raping a child is a taboo thing that does intrinsically taint the raper?

I think you are misreading what CK actually said. I suggest reading it a little more carefully.

I have a feeling I understand how you say I'm misreading him (by the way how ironic it is that you just caught me misreading, or apparently misreading someone when I have accused you of doing so to me, huh?)

Anyway, while I think i get what Chris meant, and I'm not sure if I agree with that intended meaning anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts on my question I closed with, "who here disagrees that raping a child is a taboo thing that does intrinsically taint the raper?" This may lead me to the point of why I said I kind of agreed with Milesius.

[_Themis]

I have a feeling I understand how you say I'm misreading him (by the way how ironic it is that you just caught me misreading, or apparently misreading someone when I have accused you of doing so to me, huh?)

Let me ask you what are all the alternatives you were thinking about. The only two I could see from your comments is believing and disbelief in LDS claims.

Anyway, while I think i get what Chris meant, and I'm not sure if I agree with that intended meaning anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts on my question I closed with, "who here disagrees that raping a child is a taboo thing that does intrinsically taint the raper?" This may lead me to the point of why I said I kind of agreed with Milesius.

While I think raping a child is very wrong, I notice you stop at intrinsically tainting, and seem to forget that his statement went on. If you read that again you may understand what he is saying a little better. :)

[_CaliforniaKid]

This is the sort of vapid comment that CK imagines is sophisticated.

Thank you for your vapid dismissal. I'll take it under consideration.

(Incidentally, I plan on handing your posterior back to you on a silver charger re: the greater number of sexual partners, on average, of sexually active homosexual men versus heterosexual men. But it is down the queue.)

I hope you plan to engage with the sources I presented. I'm more than happy to listen to what you have to say, as long as it's well-reasoned and supported by solid statistics.

I kind of agree with you. It seems calling sin a ludicrous concept is the ludicrous thing. Afterall which person in this whole world does not assume that engaging in taboo actions (however subjective that can be) can somehow intrinsically taint the person? I hate to get all crass as an example but perhaps child rape can serve as an example of it? who here disagrees that raping a child is a taboo thing that does intrinsically taint the raper?

To be clear, I am not denying that some actions are immoral and unjust. But immorality and injustice are social concepts, rooted in game theory. The Judeo-Christian concept of "sin", by contrast, is a metaphysical concept, rooted in ancient Middle Eastern notions of purity and impurity. When you assume that immoral behavior metaphysically taints the perpetrator, you're basically reifying your emotional revulsion to what is fundamentally a social rather than metaphysical offense.