Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Earnest

  Hi cofty!

  Not an easy question to answer as there is much in the Bible, especially the OT, which I find difficult to understand and to reconcile with the "christian" God. I have a lot of sympathy for Marcion and others who believed the christian God was a different god to that of the OT, which was one way of reconciling the dramatic differences between the two (but not my way).

  I can only speak for myself as my beliefs are my own and are not orthodox amongst Jehovah's Witnesses. A geologist friend of mine caused me to reconsider the account of the Flood and I concluded it could not be true in an earth-wide sense. I eventually concluded it was allegorical, and my interest in palaeontology led me to conclude that the Genesis account was also. In the remainder of the OT I am left with the quandary as to whether I am understanding something as allegory because it is convenient or because that is how it was intended to be understood. So with that background I would answer your question by saying that some commands in the OT are repulsive on face value but I tend to look at the story behind it ... what is the author explaining or trying to convey ... did this actually happen or is it an allegory. I also try and consider the audience, the sitzimleben, to understand what the purpose of "shock" value is even if the account is allegorical.

  I agree that most readers of the bible, christian or not, filter what they read through a set of ethical beliefs.

  My apologies to chrisuk for straying from the subject matter of the thread, but I like Simon (and cofty) and think their questions deserve an answer.
• 

  cofty

  I have a lot of sympathy for Marcion and others who believed the christian God was a different god to that of the OT

  And yet Yahweh of the OT is repeatedly desrcibed as "the god and father of Jesus".

  My point is that nobody actually get's their ethics from any part of the bible.

  We base our ethics on things that are far more fundamental as Jgnat explained above. We then pick and choose which parts of the bible comply with those values and give god the credit for them. Then we find ways to explain away the parts that conflict with our morals.

  At least that was how it worked for me as a believer.
• 

  Earnest

  You express my thoughts far more succintly than I do, which is what I was saying to Simon. If God did condone or mandate pedophilia then he would no longer be god to me because I cannot reconcile that with what I believe god to be.
• 

  cofty

  You have a PM - off to bed, will catch up tomorrow
• 

  Ruby456

  cofty said

  I shall retreat gracefully as cofty sounds like he is on an obey the party line mission. - Ruby

  That is a way of avoiding dealing with the evidence that has been offered.

  Jgnat presented an excellent article on the foundations of human morality.

  I offered an explanation of the differences between absolute, relative and objective morality.

  A personal insult is not an honest response.

  I think all of us grapple with the idea of absolute, relative and objective morality. I have found that it is a vast subject - Here in Britain we tend to question appeals to foundational morality as well as to objective morality. Margaret Wetherell has done some excellent research on automatic response and instinct that questions Haidt's conclusions in her book Affect and Emotion if you are interested (she does not mention him by name but addresses the same subject). And cofty I did read the piece jgnat linked in.

  I am on a different trajectory from both you and jgnat and have enormous respect for both of you. at the same time I'm not interested in refuting you and others if you seem to have found what they want. But if you are trying to educate others along a particular path then of course I will try to say something that may open up the subject because what you are suggesting may be a deadend for them.

  Knowledge is power
• 

  Ruby456

  sorry for the mistake above - I meant to say I'm not interested in refuting you and others if you seem to have found what you want

  i want to explain what I mean by knowledge is power too cos I'm not saying that the more knowledge one has the more power one has but that taking in knowledge gives one a feeling of power and empowerment which in itself may be an impersonal subjectivity that carries one along nevertheless - like an eagle catching the wind. It can be a heady mix and can be an overweening subjectivity like the god apollo who was also very creative and healing at the same time as being enlightening (strangely enough he was interested in small boys and girls too). If you can conceive of the ancient gods and goddesses as impersonal subjectivites that take hold of one then you will know what I mean. I would love to hear what you have to say about conceiving of subjectivity in this way focus. Perhaps if pedophiles can be taught to think in such terms it may be possible for them to take a step back and not act on their impulses or even learn to ride different subjectivities or even encourage aspects of apollo like subjectivites that do not take advantage of children so much so that that subjectivity is obliterated from the psyche altogether. of course I'm not suggesting that pedophiles not be responsible for their crimes.

  def of overweaning here below

  overweening əʊvəˈwiːnɪŋ/ adjective

  1. showing excessive confidence or pride. "overweening ambition"

     synonyms:

     overconfident, conceited, cocksure, cocky, smug, haughty, supercilious,disdainful, lofty, patronizing, arrogant, proud, vain, vainglorious, self-important, egotistical, high-handed, magisterial, cavalier, imperious,domineering, dictatorial, overbearing, presumptuous, lordly, peremptory,pompous, officious, blustering, boastful, self-assertive, opinionated, bold,forward, insolent; informalhigh and mighty, throwing one's weight about/around, uppish; rarehubristic
• 

  Ruby456

  clarification to post above about Apollo and pedophilia. Owing to mal nutrition children in ancient times had their puberties very late, so a pre pubscent person could have been aged 18-20 rather than as young as 12 today. So we are not comparing like for like when we talk about the past and I shouldn't have said small boys and girls.
• 

  Simon

  But taking your question at face value I would say that if my god declared pedophilia was OK or even mandatory he would no longer be god to me.

  You might say that is cherry-picking (to coin a phrase) as to what I believe and what I do not. And I would agree. But I know what I believe god to be and countenancing pedophilia is not one of his qualities.

  If God did condone or mandate pedophilia then he would no longer be god to me because I cannot reconcile that with what I believe god to be.

  Basically then, "god" is just something *we* create ... so any belief that 'he' determines what is right and wrong is really an attempt to sidestep taking responsibility for the decision.

  The reality is that any deity's proclamation on good or bad is really some guy's own belief system using the invention of a deity and prophet-status to promote their own values, whether they themselves are good or bad.

  So we end up with some religious adherants trying to do no harm to any living creatures and others thinking it's OK to kill / mutilate / abuse others as they see fit.

  I don't need to know or care whether the basis for this is absolute or objective to know which ones are good and bad.
• 

  Earnest

  Simon : Basically then, "god" is just something *we* create ... so any belief that 'he' determines what is right and wrong is really an attempt to sidestep taking responsibility for the decision.

  Some do use God to sidestep taking responsibility for a decision, others use God to excuse or justify what they do. No doubt about it. That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in God is irresponsible or inexcusable. And simply because some people make God in their image does not negate that God made man in his image.
• 

  braincleaned

  The title of this OP is incredibly misleading, and a shamful spin.
  Makes me wanna barf.