Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-02-2015, 04:27 PM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,088 posts, read 29,142,569 times
Reputation: 7812

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
Yes, but that's natural.
By whose definition? Either having sex and not PRODUCING babies is a SIN or it s not, it does not matter whois having the sex..same with your "exit hole" theory...my god my sides are aching from laughing...

 
Old 10-02-2015, 04:30 PM
 
6,961 posts, read 4,599,321 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
No, I'm not complaining about anything. You are incorrect.

Okay.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 04:39 PM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,355,453 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
No. What I meant was that is uses the body in an unnatural way.
Because sitting on a CHAIR and then TYPING on the internet uses it in a completely natural way

Since you have dodged and run away from my other posts I will take a different tact.

Exactly what is your issue with things that are "unnatural".

Especially given you probably just ate your last dinner from food you paid for with money.... and money is sure as hell not natural.... and we are having this conversation over the internet.... the internet being a medium of communication devised from forcing electrons to... against their very nature..... travel crazy paths along entirely unexpected mediums.

The very majority of your life is "unnatural". So perhaps before you bring the word "unnatural" down into a conversation in the hope it will make a point for you where you are otherwise incapable of doing so...... you might find your way to linking your use of the word..... "unnatural".... to the actual title of the OP which is "objections" to homosexuality.

Or is "unnatural" only a bad thing when it involves something YOU personally do not do.

You have failed not only to establish homosexuality AS being unnatural.... but have made a pure mockery of yourself by failing to even establish why it being "unnatural" would even matter. Insert here the guffaws, and better luck next time.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 04:42 PM
 
1,490 posts, read 1,210,566 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx View Post
If I am reading you correctly, I believe you are agreeing with me.

Sentience means nothing. It is simply a trait that our species have evolved and cannot hold any higher or deeper meaning than gills or tails. As I said, and as you pointed out, in an infinite number of possible outcomes, there is no reason to hold that the one we reside is any better or worse, any moral or immoral than any other.

The issue is authority. You personally have no real authority to label any other moral viewpoint as right or wrong, because such labels are meaningless. Other individuals come from different societies, different genetics and your particular beliefs are just as valid as theirs. So you cannot, therefore, claim that homosexual behavior is moral for all people at all possible times because you have no moral authority on which to base such a statement. The best you can say is that it is your opinion, or your personal taste, or that of your tribe, or clan or society. This is still completely subjective and doesn't mean it is, in fact, true.

That being proven, you know that this isn't true and hence where the issue lies. Because if you follow the rabbit hole of naturalism to its logical conclusion, you eventually come to the truth that there is no right, no wrong, no good, and no evil, just indifference and finally nihilism. The issue is that you know this wrong. You know that torturing babies for fun is immoral and reprehensible and there is no universe, no evolutionary path, no society where it would be a good and moral act.

So here you are, in a logical and philosophical paradox.

If there is no transcendant, objective law-giver, then good and evil don't exist. However, God does exist and that is why we have a morality that is objective and applicable to all people for all time. To reject this is to claim that an act such as 'torturing babies for fun' is not immoral, just in bad taste depending in which society the act occurs.
Same arguments...different day.

A couple of points in response...

On sentience...
Sentience means something...to those that have it. Thats why I put the survival and well-being of other people above that of a rock. I am concerned for the rock to the extent that the rock plays a part of a larger picture, but not this specific rock as opposed to your well being.

On authority...
I can claim whatever I want. And you can too. As a matter of fact, both of us actually do claim what we believe to be moral or immoral yet I own my morality and don't outsource it to an invisible being. The same invisible being which requires a subjective acceptance for its very existence.

On the rabbit hole...
Thats where YOUR logic leads, not MINE sir (or madam, apologies if needed). I don't subscribe to nihilism or indifference at all. And truth be told, you are more creative than that as well, as I'm not so special.

I exist in this world. I see no reason to leave it any sooner than I must. I see no reason to force anybody else to do what I myself don't want to do (e.g. leave this place) so I let that fundamental instinct help me along. I submit nihilists do as well, perhaps by using different coping mechanisms.

On good and evil....
I can determine what is good and evil for myself. If you agree with me that torturing babies is evil, then we can work together to get widespread acceptance. And one day...we sentient beings can make a law outlawing such behavior because none of us agree with it.

Thats how human morality works. And I'd suggest, and I'm sure you'd disagree, thats the genesis (forgive the pun) for your book(s). Lots of morality existed before the OT, let alone the NT, so apparently it wasn't always needed.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 04:50 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,634 posts, read 15,583,585 times
Reputation: 10871
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
No. What I meant was that is uses the body in an unnatural way.
Getting a haircut, shaving, and wearing clothing are also unnatural uses of the body, not to mention piercing ones ears or getting tattoos. Certainly dentistry and surgery are also unnatural uses of the body. Vaccinations are unnatural, but I'm glad we have them.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
 
Old 10-02-2015, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,094,900 times
Reputation: 14069
Thanks for all your posts, jimmiej.

You and your confreres do so much to aid the cause of anti-religion.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 05:11 PM
 
1,490 posts, read 1,210,566 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx View Post
If there is no transcendant, objective law-giver, then good and evil don't exist. However, God does exist and that is why we have a morality that is objective and applicable to all people for all time. To reject this is to claim that an act such as 'torturing babies for fun' is not immoral, just in bad taste depending in which society the act occurs.
I'm pulling this particular part out just to elaborate more on it since it seems to be such an ingrained thought process and (in my view) mental block for those of religious faith.

There is no objective morality just as there is no objective music. And thats not anything to go crazy about, nor reason to start pondering whether one should go all nihilistic about it.

Do you really need a book of laws by a god to tell you that torturing babies is wrong? Really? What if this god of yours said it was the gateway to heaven? Would that make you a baby torturing practitioner?

I'm sure the stock response of "well my god didn't or wouldn't say that because its wrong" is already on auto-response...but thats a truly sad analogy to use. Sad in the sense that you don't think you could resist such "temptations" if not for your god telling you otherwise. Sad in the sense that you think the same of others.

I would submit that you are just as capable of not "indulging" in such behaviors as I am. And I promise you that I am no god, and have no special attributes which make me anything more than "just a human".
 
Old 10-02-2015, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Free State of Texas
20,427 posts, read 12,725,801 times
Reputation: 2489
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
By whose definition? Either having sex and not PRODUCING babies is a SIN or it s not, it does not matter whois having the sex..same with your "exit hole" theory...my god my sides are aching from laughing...
By definition of the way the body functions naturally.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Free State of Texas
20,427 posts, read 12,725,801 times
Reputation: 2489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Because sitting on a CHAIR and then TYPING on the internet uses it in a completely natural way

Since you have dodged and run away from my other posts I will take a different tact.

Exactly what is your issue with things that are "unnatural".

Especially given you probably just ate your last dinner from food you paid for with money.... and money is sure as hell not natural.... and we are having this conversation over the internet.... the internet being a medium of communication devised from forcing electrons to... against their very nature..... travel crazy paths along entirely unexpected mediums.

The very majority of your life is "unnatural". So perhaps before you bring the word "unnatural" down into a conversation in the hope it will make a point for you where you are otherwise incapable of doing so...... you might find your way to linking your use of the word..... "unnatural".... to the actual title of the OP which is "objections" to homosexuality.

Or is "unnatural" only a bad thing when it involves something YOU personally do not do.

You have failed not only to establish homosexuality AS being unnatural.... but have made a pure mockery of yourself by failing to even establish why it being "unnatural" would even matter. Insert here the guffaws, and better luck next time.
The things you describe are not harmful.
 
Old 10-02-2015, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Free State of Texas
20,427 posts, read 12,725,801 times
Reputation: 2489
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Getting a haircut, shaving, and wearing clothing are also unnatural uses of the body, not to mention piercing ones ears or getting tattoos. Certainly dentistry and surgery are also unnatural uses of the body. Vaccinations are unnatural, but I'm glad we have them.
Those things aren't harmful, and as you pointed out, are actually helpful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top