# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/301 "2010-09-02T04:27:49Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Familiarize yousrself with Bell’s Theorem. Wiki didn’t invent it. You’re also going about things wrong by asking for an authority. You would do better by actually learning something about scientific method. > > I am familiar with Bells Theorum. I prefere to read the source; Wiki has it’s problems, as I’m sure you are aware. > > So can you name a physicist who has been published claiming virtual particles derive from nothing? Stephen Hawking. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/302 "2010-09-02T04:33:35Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > ‘Some taboos’ come more than close. There is a fairly universal (human) recognition that child abuse, murder, theft, rape are ‘wrong’. It is only in very small minorities, or amongst the insane, where these are considered anything other than wrong. Those aren’t “universal taboos”; those are the results of thousands of years of progress (a great deal of which was fought tooth and nail by religion). They are presently so widespread because societies that forbid such behavior are more successful and more pleasant places to live, not because they are somehow intrinsic to the universe. Plenty of societies haven’t considered those things wrong at all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/303 "2010-09-02T04:37:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > No, they don’t come more than close. There is no universal ethos. Sorry. Even the ones that tend to come close (because of obvious shared evolution among humans) are typically filled with loopholes and exceptions and are often not intended to apply universally to alll humans, but only to the in-group. > > So prohibitions against child abuse are only supposed to apply to the ‘in group’? I didn’t say all prohibitions have this characteristic, I said that prohibitions _often_ do (especially in more primitive cultures). > [@](#): > > And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself? See. There’s a perfect example. Humans are evolved to survive in discrete populations, not as a universal human mass. To simplify, we are tribalistic. What’s “moral” is what’s good for our own tribe. Murder within our own in-groups is destabalizing and counter to our survival. Murdering those hairy-ass heathens on the other side of the waterholes is _good_ for our tribe. People tend to still be like this, we just have giant tribes now. We still have no problem killing other tribes for oil. War doesn’t count. war has never counted. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/304 "2010-09-02T05:00:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > > > Abuse by definition is not good. If for some reason the child was deranged and enjoyed it, it would still be wrong to further his or her sadomasochistic, self-destructive impulses. > > Oh I agree. But the question is why? How do you identify this as ‘wrong’? > > Here is my point. Man is remarkably unsuccesful at establishing an objective moral code, yet able to identify one an objective moral law. This objective moral law exists, yet must, logically, come from outside of man. The atheist must either: > > 1\> Deny that an objective moral law exists, or > 2\> Maintain that such a law is able to be devised by man. > > In my view neither proposition is sustainable. These people certainly seem both sane and perfectly comfortable with abusing children. Therefore, they don’t seem to accept this “objective moral law” you claim is known to everyone. [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL) “For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means ‘boy player.’ The men like to boast about it.” ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/305 "2010-09-02T06:02:57Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Oh I agree. But the question is why? How do you identify this as ‘wrong’? > > > > Here is my point. Man is remarkably unsuccesful at establishing an objective moral code, yet able to identify one an objective moral law. This objective moral law exists, yet must, logically, come from outside of man. The atheist must either: > > > > 1\> Deny that an objective moral law exists, or > > 2\> Maintain that such a law is able to be devised by man. > > > > In my view neither proposition is sustainable. > > These people certainly seem both sane and perfectly comfortable with abusing children. Therefore, they don’t seem to accept this “objective moral law” you claim is known to everyone. > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL) > > “For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means ‘boy player.’ The men like to boast about it.” OK, this IS a subject for a totally different thread (or threads- one for GD & one for the Pit) but in the really homophobic world of extreme Islam, how does this crap get a pass? Is the Taliban cool with this or is that one of their excuses for their ruthlessness? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/306 "2010-09-02T06:53:53Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > OK, this IS a subject for a totally different thread (or threads- one for GD & one for the Pit) but in the really homophobic world of extreme Islam, how does this crap get a pass? Is the Taliban cool with this or is that one of their excuses for their ruthlessness? IIRC, it’s one of those “it’s not really homosexuality unless you’re the one on the bottom” deals. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/307 "2010-09-02T10:51:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You confuse the mind of God with the will of God. > > What makes you think you know the will of God? Isn’t that rather arrogant on your part? Didn’t the 9/11 hijackers also think they were doing God’s will? How do you know they weren’t? I do not believe I, or anyone, knows the will, or mind of God,all is just Belief or faith in what another person taught or one thinks for themselves. God has nothing to do with it, it is a human concept! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/308 "2010-09-02T11:04:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You confuse the mind of God with the will of God. > > What makes you think you know the will of God? Isn’t that rather arrogant on your part? Didn’t the 9/11 hijackers also think they were doing God’s will? How do you know they weren’t? As a post script to my last post,you answered that your self; the high jackers thought (or believed) they were doing God’s will because they believe in jihad,taught most likely by some other follower of Muhammad or used their own beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/309 "2010-09-02T11:18:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself? Because if you go around killing off the competition, and I realize I’m in the group you call “the competition”, and other folks likewise realize they’re in that group with me, we’re sensibly going to band together against you in pure self-defense; go-it-alone type who aren’t wired for that approach tend to get picked off without spawning, in part because they (a) unimaginatively run afoul of such groups or (b) lack such a group to watch one’s back when a competition-killing loner comes a-callin’ in the night. And, again, factor in sympathy on _ **top** _ of pure self-interest and guys like me and mine are going to step in when such a killer starts preying on innocents even if we’re not in “the competition”. That said, though, I think you can build a pretty good straight-up case for enlightened self-interest on institutionalizing this sort of taboo: Iimagine you’re _ **completely** _ selfish, and you get to propose any laws you like for the society you’re living in. Do you want to bar your fellow citizens from murdering you? Yep. Do you want the right to murder with impunity? Well, sure; it’s probably not as important as that first part, but for the sake of argument let’s say it’d be awesome. And now imagine plenty of other people feel the same. What deal can be struck? What can we all agree on? What social institution should be full-throatedly advocated? What slogans preached? What examples set? (And, okay, let’s imagine a freak who says, _no, it’s cool; I’d rather be free to murder than ban others from murdering me._ Populate a culture with enough of _ **those** _ folks and it dies out. Populate it with enough folks who can sign on for a do-unto-others modus vivendi and it keeps on keeping on.) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/310 "2010-09-02T12:13:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Meatros](#): > > > > Saw this on the previous page. > > > > So God is not a physical entity. > > > > What is God then? > > It would seem rather obvious. God is seperate from the physical/natural universe. God is non-physical. Okay, you’ve just told me what God is _not_. Please tell me what God _is_. Here’s an example of why your definition fails: God is not a shoe. While this does tell me something, namely that God is not a shoe, it tells me absolutely nothing about what God is. You wrote to Dio: > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered. What does this actually mean? What does it mean to say a non physical \_\_\_ interacted with the physical? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/311 "2010-09-02T12:14:22Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The multiverse, panspermia and other ideas still do not answer the fundamental question. > > > > How does something (physical) come from nothing? > > > > There are no other examples of this in the natural universe that we are aware of, yet somehow a purely naturalistic explanation is accepted. Why? > > Who says that something came from nothing? > > It seems to me that theists do. IIRC, most philosophers accept the B theory of time, which means, there is no need to accept the idea that something came from nothing. > > That said, let’s suppose it’s possible that something can come from nothing. > > It make no sense to say that this could be _caused_ by anything - unless you mean something by ‘caused’ that is not what is commonly understood. > > To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. > > Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act? > > It’s nonsensical. Bump ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/312 "2010-09-02T14:46:57Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. Your asking this is bizarre - the idea that quantum processes can be uncaused follows directly from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There’s a good write-up of the history on the Wikipedia page about [the Bohr-Einstein Debates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates). It was settled long ago. > [@aigonz](#): > > If a child wanted and enjoyed being abused, would the abuse of that child be acceptabel to you.? Define “enjoyed.” If the action was not harmful to the child, or at least potentially harmful, then it’s acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/313 "2010-09-02T23:03:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Yes I can. I can throw in fish food. > > That makes you part of the pond. No it doesn’t. I am not ‘in’ the pond. I am seperate from it, yet interact with it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/314 "2010-09-02T23:08:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I am familiar with Bells Theorum. I prefere to read the source; Wiki has it’s problems, as I’m sure you are aware. > > > > So can you name a physicist who has been published claiming virtual particles derive from nothing? > > Stephen Hawking. I suggest you read the contents of his lecture titled "Does God play Dice’. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/315 "2010-09-02T23:11:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > ‘Some taboos’ come more than close. There is a fairly universal (human) recognition that child abuse, murder, theft, rape are ‘wrong’. It is only in very small minorities, or amongst the insane, where these are considered anything other than wrong. > > Those aren’t “universal taboos”; those are the results of thousands of years of progress (a great deal of which was fought tooth and nail by religion). They are presently so widespread because societies that forbid such behavior are more successful and more pleasant places to live, not because they are somehow intrinsic to the universe. Plenty of societies haven’t considered those things wrong at all. Thousands of years of progress, from a low population base, within societies who did not recognise the prohibition toward such behaviour? Come on, you don’t really believe that. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/316 "2010-09-02T23:16:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > So prohibitions against child abuse are only supposed to apply to the ‘in group’? > > I didn’t say all prohibitions have this characteristic, I said that prohibitions _often_ do (especially in more primitive cultures). > > > [@](#): > > > > And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself? > > See. There’s a perfect example. Humans are evolved to survive in discrete populations, not as a universal human mass. To simplify, we are tribalistic. What’s “moral” is what’s good for our own tribe. Murder within our own in-groups is destabalizing and counter to our survival. Murdering those hairy-ass heathens on the other side of the waterholes is _good_ for our tribe. > > People tend to still be like this, we just have giant tribes now. We still have no problem killing other tribes for oil. War doesn’t count. war has never counted. But that doesn’t address the issue. 1\> Evolutionary theory wold tend to encourage activity such as murder at a tribalistic level because it eliminates competition for food, mates etc. Yet even in remote trabalistic societies man has found such prohibitions. 2\> Such behavioural prohibitions ARE universal. Murder is considered ‘wrong’ in virtually all societies. As is child abuse. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/317 "2010-09-02T23:19:26Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Oh I agree. But the question is why? How do you identify this as ‘wrong’? > > > > Here is my point. Man is remarkably unsuccesful at establishing an objective moral code, yet able to identify one an objective moral law. This objective moral law exists, yet must, logically, come from outside of man. The atheist must either: > > > > 1\> Deny that an objective moral law exists, or > > 2\> Maintain that such a law is able to be devised by man. > > > > In my view neither proposition is sustainable. > > These people certainly seem both sane and perfectly comfortable with abusing children. Therefore, they don’t seem to accept this “objective moral law” you claim is known to everyone. > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL) > > “For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means ‘boy player.’ The men like to boast about it.” This is not chid abuse. There a plenty of examples of similar behaviours, including cultures who (willingly) marry very young. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/318 "2010-09-02T23:27:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself? > > Because if you go around killing off the competition, and I realize I’m in the group you call “the competition”, and other folks likewise realize they’re in that group with me, we’re sensibly going to band together against you in pure self-defense; go-it-alone type who aren’t wired for that approach tend to get picked off without spawning, in part because they (a) unimaginatively run afoul of such groups or (b) lack such a group to watch one’s back when a competition-killing loner comes a-callin’ in the night. > > And, again, factor in sympathy on _ **top** _ of pure self-interest and guys like me and mine are going to step in when such a killer starts preying on innocents even if we’re not in “the competition”. That said, though, I think you can build a pretty good straight-up case for enlightened self-interest on institutionalizing this sort of taboo: > > Iimagine you’re _ **completely** _ selfish, and you get to propose any laws you like for the society you’re living in. Do you want to bar your fellow citizens from murdering you? Yep. Do you want the right to murder with impunity? Well, sure; it’s probably not as important as that first part, but for the sake of argument let’s say it’d be awesome. And now imagine plenty of other people feel the same. What deal can be struck? What can we all agree on? What social institution should be full-throatedly advocated? What slogans preached? What examples set? (And, okay, let’s imagine a freak who says, _no, it’s cool; I’d rather be free to murder than ban others from murdering me._ Populate a culture with enough of _ **those** _ folks and it dies out. Populate it with enough folks who can sign on for a do-unto-others modus vivendi and it keeps on keeping on.) 1\> Your initial paragraphs refer to a ‘retaliation’ response. But that doesn’t disguise the fact that evolutionay impulses contradict the world as we know it. Universally, sane people acknowledge that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent without cause. Yet evolutionary theory would suggest that we benefit from the removal of competition. If this is not clear, consider eugenics, which evolutionary theory would propose we should allow, yet objective morality dictates we abhor. 2\> Your final paragraph describes the direction of many modern societies. Yet we still hold to some immutable moral laws. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/319 "2010-09-02T23:31:12Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > It would seem rather obvious. God is seperate from the physical/natural universe. God is non-physical. > > Okay, you’ve just told me what God is _not_. > > Please tell me what God _is_. > > Here’s an example of why your definition fails: God is not a shoe. While this does tell me something, namely that God is not a shoe, it tells me absolutely nothing about what God is. > > You wrote to Dio: > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered. > > What does this actually mean? What does it mean to say a non physical \_\_\_ interacted with the physical? 1\> The response related to the questions. Your question is ‘what is God’? For the purposes of this discussion, God is a super-natural entity that is seperate from the natural universe. 2\> The claim has been made that an entity that is seperate from the universe could not interact with it. My position is that that is absurd, and no-one has been able to logically argue the claim. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/320 "2010-09-02T23:42:07Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. > > Your asking this is bizarre - the idea that quantum processes can be uncaused follows directly from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There’s a good write-up of the history on the Wikipedia page about [the Bohr-Einstein Debates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates). It was settled long ago. > > This is nonsense, and the entire virtual particle issue is being misrepresented here. Heisenberg is referring to the mathematical relationships between the measurable quantities of a particle. It has been described as ‘unintelligible’ to most people, so I really question the use of Wiki as an authoritive reference. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > If a child wanted and enjoyed being abused, would the abuse of that child be acceptabel to you.? > > Define “enjoyed.” If the action was not harmful to the child, or at least potentially harmful, then it’s acceptable. So, in your opinion, the abuse of a consenting 3 year old would be ok? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=17)