DrmDoc

Joan of Arc, Queen Victoria, etc...

There is only one universe that is beyond speculation and it is the one in which we exist. Theorhetical universes, if they exist, do not appear to have an affect on the outcome or destiny of this one as its increasing dispersion evinces.

No. Whether a society of men or women there will be wars as long as the competition for land and survival resources exist.

" All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."-American Heritage Dictionary.

Although I'm no astrophysicist, we have accepted the possibility of a big bang because all the the observable matter (galaxies) in the universe appears to be rushing away from an explosion at a single point in space. In addition to an initial period of inflation, the speed at which the galaxies are rushing away and apart has not decreased but is, in fact, increasing. This increasing speed--a result of something called dark energy--has led many scientist to believe that all matter will eventually disperse or dissolve in the cold continuous expanse of space. I agree with this idea of dissolution because there appears to be nothing beyond the universe slowing it down and there seems to be something in the universe supplying the energy to increase the rate at which it is flying apart.

You and lemur seem to be overlooking an important tenet in the OP, which is "What if it became scientifically proven that God exists?" If I understand correctly, the direction of this "philosophical thought experiment" should proceed from what constitutes scientific proof rather than a presupposed acceptance of faith, irrationality, or illogic. As I understand the OP, if God could be physically/materially proven to exist, how might we respond to his, her or its denial of the edicts we humans attribute to the being's will? In my response I said that I wouldn't be as interested in the validity of the being's edicts as I would be in its origins because a being cannot, in my view, create its own existence in a realm of scientific proof. So I would inquire of its origins rather than how we may have interpreted the being's edicts.

The OP presupposes a proven metaphysical being, which necessarily suggests an entity that conforms to the requirements of proof--meaning logic, reason, and verifiable evidence from our physical perspective--rather than faith. In my example, I provided, if you will, a metadatical being, from his creations' perspective, that may conform to their logic although not to their physics or state of being. In that example, one could conceive the programmer's creations reaching an understanding of their God as a type of data exceeding their state of being that arose from a sucession of antecedent data. If this discussion regards the acceptance of a being that exceeds our physics or state of being (metaphysical), my example provides a perspective of how we might come to understand that beings origins. Accepting the proven existence of a metaphysical being suggests a basis in verifiable evidence which suggests some conformity of that evidence to our physical laws and perceptions. I believe that conformity permits our inquiry and understanding of such a being although it remains outside our realm of experience.

That might apply if I was referencing the existence of God as either a force of good or evil, which I was not. I was referencing the being as primarily a creative and parental force. If I understood correctly, this discussion regarded the hypothetically proven existence of a God, which suggests to me a evidentiary foundation that is hypothetically logical and verifiable. If we are discussing the hypothetics on this basis, there should be no contradictions. For example, a very skilled computer programmer could create a virtual world and populate it with beings of independent minds and adaptive intelligence who acknowledge the programmer as their creator. With this scenario, we have a creator with a human lineage whose programmed beings may one day evolve a curiosity about that lineage. Should the programmer stifle such inquiry or encourage his virtual children's evolving curiosity and, by extention, their growing intelligence?

Essentially, you are suggesting that once the existence of a creator is accepted only the edicts of that creator should be our concern. If true, then such a position is akin to merely acknowledging the existence and edicts of our parents without concern or consideration of their lineage and our ancestry. Is our understanding of whom and what we are complete without such concerns and considerations or should we just be content with what our parent say we are? If we are discussing God as fact and not just faith, should we be content with just the fact of God and not know the likely amazing history that is our spiritual lineage beyond God's edicts? Even the bible emphasizes the significance of knowing the ancestry of its prophets, so why not the ancestry of what many consider the father or mother of us all? Aside, your emphasis of "Him" as "the creative spirit" is contrary to what we find in nature and in ourselves. When we consider the edict "On earth as it is in heaven," should there be this contrdiction? From insect to humanity, it is the female that gives birth (creates) and that is most robust. No doubt, as this world nears its end, the last living being will most likely be female--in my opinion.

I'll take that bet; death hasn't been a fear of mine since I was a child and I'm not one who readily believes in an afterlife as many do. However, I do believe that every effect has a cause, which would include the effect we call God. The ideal that an omnipotent being created itself is nonsense because the idea infers some existence of that being before its creation. How can a being create itself before it ever existed? How insane or uneducated does one have to be to believe in such a silly notion?

The earthly debates about his, her, or its intent for us, the world, or existence seem small and insignificant to me. If I could converse with such a being, I'd want to know who or what created it and then I'd want to know who or what created that who or what and so on ad infinitum. I could never be convinced that an omnipotent being created itself. Everthing, in my opinion, had a beginning including the God entity should it be found to exist. Regardless of the science and math, I will never be convinced that something sprang into being from absolute nothing. God, if existent, would have to be as much a creation as humanity--again, in my opinion.

Cultivating a child's innate talent is not the same as imposing a behavior on an unprepared child and, as ancient Peruvian child sacrifices attest, not every activity adults impose on children serves a later "good" no matter the justification. Spontaneous play among children is not the same as adults inserting themselves into that play. Invariably, adults who have sexual contact with children do so for their own gratification and not for any future "good" of the child. Admittedly, sex between adults can be rather selfish; however, the distinction selfish adults pose by imposing their will upon children is the equivalent of rape given their position of dominance. Fortunately, this era of human experience is not as primitive as it may have been and we do not live in ancient Greece. For all of ancient Greek's cultural accomplishments, they were, in my opinion, a debauched, barbaric society compared to present-day. How did grooming its young males to sexually serve adult males, serve the young males or Greek's society?

And,invariably, I ask again: "...shouldn't that necessarily include anything and everything a child is not mentally, emotionally, and physically prepared to endure?"

So, from the perspective of a child, what you were forced to do wasn't fair and you resented it. Correct? Your recollection of your childhood experiences suggests that you are able to empathize with the plight of children unwilling subjected to experiences beyond their years of maturity. Yet, despite your unfavorable childhood memories, you see no harm in forcing a child to engage in sex acts with an adult. Is that what your experiences have taught you? That a child is merely chattle and being an adult, like might, makes right any and everything a child is forced to do including sacrificing its life? Agreed, but does that make everything an adult forces a child to do right? No doubt the skating lessons you took to please your parents were torturous and, perhaps, your parents understood that. Although they forced you to do what pleased them, they probably, like good parents, thought you would benefit later from what you learned as a child might benefit from music or dance lessons. However, that is not the mindset of a pedophile. They do not engage children in magnanimity or with a genuinely objective thought of what is best for the wellbeing of the child. Instead, they use their position of authority and dominance selfishly over the protests, naivety, and powerlessness of the children subject to their will. As to what we should consider "intrinsically truly horrible and damaging" to a child, shouldn't that necessarily include anything and everything a child is not mentally, emotionally, and physically prepared to endure?

Protesting what you consider "arbitrary" laws does not directly address--as is your usual--my very simple queries. So I say and ask again:

You were pressured into activities by your parents for their gratification? You seem to remember the pain you suffered and, no doubt, you felt powerless to stop what you endured. You had no ally to intercede on your behalf because what your parents were forcing you to do was considered legal and your acquiescence to their pressure was considered consent? In your mind at the time and from your perspective as an adult was it right what they made you endure? Because an activity is legal and acceptable to a child's parent, should we always consider that activity acceptable? In ancient Peru, for example, child sacrifice was considered a sacred and acceptable ritual. Would you find such a ritual acceptable in present-day if the practive was still acceptable to the Peruvian people?

If a society permits sexual contact between an adult and 8 year old child, does this suggests that the 8 year old is capable of consenting to that contact? If so, what is the earliest age, in your opinion, that a child is able to make informed decisions without the influence, urging, or coercion from an adult?

You provided Kinsey's study of infant sexual stimulation as evidence of sexuality among children. Essentailly, he had to engage acts of pedophilia--engage in some sexual contact with a child--to get his results. His study would have had more weight if he could have shown infants becoming aroused without researcher intervention. An erect penis and vaginal secretions in infants resulting from stimulation by an adult are not necessarily evidence of sexual arousal in infants and are decidedly not evidence of an infants readiness for sexual contact with an adult. As an infant or prepubescent child? Precisely, how old were you? As I recall, this discussion regards sexual contact between adults and children. That taste buds analogy regarded the lack of physical readiness among prepubescent children for such contact in the way that an newly born infant is not physically ready for solid food although its taste buds can be stimulated by such food. Consider my comments in the context of your reply regarding your hands continually in your diapers as a child. If you were a circumcized child, the additional attention and care your penis recieved as a child "provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child." Diddling one's private parts as a child is no more evidence of sexual awareness at a young age than is thumb sucking. Are you saying that as a infant or prepubescent child you were able to articulate your sexual desire to adults? That you were interested in adults? How might such an attraction for adults evolve into an attraction for children upon reaching adulthood? We are getting nearer to what I mean by empathizing with children. I disagree; rape is an act of dominance wherein a person in a position of authority and influence uses that position to cajole, urge, or otherwise force the cooperation of the naive and/or vulnerable. Sexual awareness does not confer the sexual maturity or understanding of an adult. Prepubescent children, not teenagers, who engage in sex play likely do so because of some prior underlying, adult influence. If such a child is sexually active, this is not sufficient evidence that the child is motivated by an adult yearning. You have yet to directly address any of my questions or show that you have any understanding of children except from the position of one who takes pleasure in violating innocense. Even R, the person who began this thread, declared sex acts with children as wrong. What are you declaring?

In your review of Kinsey's study, did the infants take the initiative and stimulate themselves or were they stimulated by the researcher? If stimulated by the researcher, how does this differ from acts of an adult who initiates sexual contact with a child? With pedophilia, isn't always the adult who initiates sexual contact with a child rather than the opposite? Although our taste buds, as infants fresh from our mother's womb, were receptive to solid food, we were not physiologically; although you were born physiologically sensitive to initimate touch, you were likely not physiologically prepared for sex with an adult, which is what we are attempting to discuss here. If you were circumcized as an infant male, your intimate area probably required additional care and attention. That additional care and attention provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child. This is akin to the case of a young man, whom I knew from his infancy, who had a foot fetish. I later learned that his mother engaged him continually in a game that involved tickling his feet with her nose when he was an infant. In a case involving a female, she experienced a severe rash as a child and also required extra care that may have influenced her sexual inclinations and expressions as a child. In each of these cases, the child was not the intiate of the intimate contact but was most likely influenced by the contact, which is the position where we will inevitably arrive in our discussion of pedophilia--the submission of the most innocent and vulnerable among us to sexual violations exceeding their will or ability to stop. Sex play among children isn't the same as an adult inserting him or herself into those games. In that play, the children are likely mimicing what they've observed among adults and do not seek-out and drawn adults into the play. What I've observed in the comments of R and Marat is what I've found among the cases I've reviewed on this subject, which is an inability or unwillingness to empathize with the victims of pedophilia. Rather than as victims, pedophiles perceive the children they encounter as willing participants imbued with some adult intent, curiosity, and desire likely beyond their maturity. Pedophiles can't empathize or see themselves through the eyes of a child who is subject to the sexual will of an adult because they likely did not crave that experience. If the oppoisite were true--that they did desire sexual contact with an adult--that desire would persist into adulthood and they'd desire adult sexual relationships. If it is true that they always were attracted to children, then they would understand how abhorrent it is for a child to be forced into a relationship with an adult. This is like a male homosexual forced into a hetersexual relationship when what he truly desires is to be with a male. If a pedophile was born "oriented" to children, then that pedophile would have felt violated as a child when subjected to the sexual will of an adult. If you have been sexually attracted to children all your life, then you should understand what your life would be if you were forced into a sexual relationship with an adult. If, however, you would see no violation in you as a child involved with an adult, then you should continue to be involved with adults although you are no longer a child. So I ask again, when is sexual contact between a child and adult considered censensual not rape?

And how old were you then? Were you a prepubescent? If so, what led you at that early age to take the initiative? For example, were you exposed to sexual imagery or media before you initiated that behavior or are your earliest memories filled with desires to initiate and engage sexual behaviors before you understood what they were? If so, how did you articulate your desires without understanding what they were? As a teen, you may have had a curiosity; as a prepubescent, however, such curiosity seems unlikely.

When a young person cannot think for him or herself and is totally reliant on an adult to survive, can that person willing consent to sex with that adult without the adult's urging? If so, how is it possible when the child is incapable of making informed decisions? Imagining yourself as a 6 or 7 year old child without the experience and knowledge you have now, do you think you would willing approach and engage an adult in sexual activities without the adult leading or asking you to do so? If so, were you that sexually mature as a child?

You did not answer my question, so I will ask again. Is it acceptable for an adult to engage a prepubescent child in sexual behaviors exceeding that child's level of physical, mental, and emotional maturity? I've underlined adult because prepubescent children do not willingly engage this behavior without the influence, urging, or coercion of an adult. This is unlike a child able to engaging in business endeavors. These are children who are clearly vulnerable to adult authority and influence. You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex. Although I'm still waiting on your reply to my prior post, perhaps you could answer: When is a prepubescent child able to consent to sex with an adult? In other words, can a person who is physically, mentally, and emotionally immature, whether adult or child, willingly consent to sex without influence, urging, or coercion from an adult?

You have not replied to my post...have you abandon our discussion? Adolescent boys, perhaps it was considered normal; however, prepubescent boys, it was likely not. Is it your opinion that it is acceptable for the adult members of a civilized society to engage prepubescent children in behaviors that exceed their sexual maturity? If so, what affect, if any, might this behavior have on the overall wellbeing of the society's youngest, most vulnerable members?

How pedophilia impact the life, mind, and emotion of both children and society. And then there's this exchange: So, not all pedosexuals molest children; however, those who do molest children chose them because of their "orientation." Is that correct? When is sex between an adult and child not considered rape? Among all your statements, this is the first time you've made such a direct declaration...interesting. Do you understand why they are wrong? And then again, there is this exchange: Perhaps you didn't understand my use of the words, "by proxy." Whether or not a pedophile or pedosexual pays for child porn and whether that porn is home-made, that individual is engaging vicariously in the sexual violation of a child. When an individual derives pleasure from pornographic images of children, that individual is deriving pleasure from the sexual molestation of children. Although the pedosexual may not be the abuser, the actual abuser becomes the pedosexual's agent when the pedosexual views the abuser's pornographic material. In your words, "Sexual acts with children are wrong". Are you suggesting that "home-made" material involving sexual acts with children are acceptable? Have you any testimony from children who willingly—without adult influence, urging, or coercion—engaged in sexual contact with an adult? If you do, is it likely that a prepubescent child has the sexual maturity in mind, body, and emotion to independently and deliberately initiate such behavior?

To which I have written: You have only espoused views supporting pedophilia as an "orientation," which is indeed one-sided. I was asking if you considered the sociological/psychological impact and implication of this "orientation". Review my comments and you will find that I have expressed no such belief. So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct? If so, why wouldn't he? If the behavior is merely an innocuous sexual orientation, why would or should a pedosexual restrain himself? If I understand correctly, having sexual congress with adults and viewing child pornography are ways a true pedosexual calm his desires? How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy? Homosexuality does not lead to man-rape as pedophilia to child molestation does invariably. Invariably, either directly through contact or indirectly through media viewing, a child must be molested to satisfy a pedophile's sexual desires. Then how does one know that he is sexually attracted to children? Isn't arousal a sexual act? Are you now suggesting that there could be an indirect link? So, if I understand correctly, the "sexual orientation" label is not an attempt to legitimize pedophilia? Is it your opinion that sexual acts between adults and children can or should be legitimized? As I wrote: Although the referred site was part, my comments regarded our discussion and my impression of bias in your perspective. Shouldn't there be? If I understand your perspective, "pedosexuality" involves behaviors that cannot be acted upon directly and if ever a child is involved in satisfying the pedosexual, that should be consider behavioral aberrance. Without a legitimate outlet for the expression of their sexual desires, wouldn't therapy ameliorate what is obviously a frustrating compulsion?