Who made the sexual laws in the bible

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sigh...
the whole point, ultimately, is that I think the "natural" argument is stupid.

I think that’s Jimoslimos’ point, doc.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Oh by the way, I did biology in college too, and both rabbits and bonobos have sex for pleasure, that's not anthropomorphising.

Yes, but rabbits and bonobos (and many other species) also have sex to enforce dominance.

The point is, the fact that we observe homosexual behaviour in rabbits or bonobos or any other species tells us nothing, one way or the other, about the morality of human homosexual behaviour.

Or, in other words, the “natural” argument is stupid. And it remains stupid whether you argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong because unnatural because not observed in nature, or that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature and is therefore natural and is therefore not wrong.

Enkidu

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I don't remember declaring anywhere it was natural or un natural, I asked why did some men think poking their penis up another mans rectum and faeces was a natural form of sex in accordance with nature and evolution ?

I enjoy the touch of class you bring to these discussions.

sensibleken

Enkidu wrote: »

From the book of Leinster, after describing a king at court, the language is Old Irish:

A mbatar and dofic ben do shaigid in ríg 7 mac na hucht. 7 dobert i n-ucht in ríg. Ar do rígi 7 ar do fhlaithemnas or si finta damsa tria fhirinni flatha cóich athair collaide in meicsea ar ni fetarsa fessin. Ár thongimse féin fót fhirinni flathasu 7 fón ríg follomnaiges ind uli dúil nach fetar cin o fherscal fri hilbliadna innassa. Tochtais in rí andside. In dernais lanamnas rebartha ri mnaí aile for se. 7 na ceil or se ma dorónais. Ni chel or si. Doringnius.

Is fír ar in rí ra chomraic in bensin ri fer in n-uair remi. 7 in compert ro fhacaibside accisi rolásaide. rolaside triasin comshuathad it maclocsu. Coro chompert it broindsiu. Is é in fersin athair do meicsiu. & fintar cía eside.

My translation:
While everybody was gathered there in came a woman with her child and put him in the hands of the king.
"On your kingship and your authority, figure out, via your knowledge of truth as ruler, who the natural father of this boy is, because I myself don't know! I honestly swear, by your king's knowledge of truth and by the King of all created things, that I haven't been with a man in years!"

The king took silence then.

"Have you had fun sex with a woman? And don't bother hiding it."

"I won't", she said "Indeed I have!"

"Ah!, 'tis true" said the King, "She had had sex with a man just before and his semen that he left behind, she put into your womb during your wrestling, so it was fertilised in you. That fellow is the father, let it be discovered who he is!"

you sir, have just made a particularly ****ty morning awesome. Merry christmas

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I've had quite a few personal comments made about me, can I expect you to deal with them from now on ?

If you feel that some poster has made a comment that violates the forum charter, then please click on the 'Report Post' button (a gray warning triangle) in the panel to the left of the post's text box, underneath the poster's details. The forum moderators will receive the report and will take whatever action is deemed necessary to restore peace, up to and including a forum ban.

amacachi

EAT DA POOPOO!

dead one

God exists but what christian believe that doesn't exist..

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, in other words, the “natural” argument is stupid. And it remains stupid whether you argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong because unnatural because not observed in nature, or that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature and is therefore natural and is therefore not wrong.

Yes but is anyone actually making the "its natural so it is ok" argument. The arguments for homosexuality being moral seem to be as simple as its not harming anyone so do it if you like, which is pretty much the moral argument everything that is not immoral.

We have Newsite and TQE arguing that, independently, to their religion homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural, it is against nature.

They both, thankfully, seem to have backed away from this argument, but it shouldn't be assumed that the counter to this argument is that yes it is in fact natural it isn't against nature.

The argument for for homosexuality is that is as harmless and fun (for the homosexuals) as heterosexual sex so knock yourself out.

ShooterSF

Fascinating wordplay from Newsite. Instead of saying it's wrong because god says so, which would be a ridiculous statement to an atheist he instead claims it's unnatural which on the surface seems at least a debatable issue. However when met with plenty of evidence that it is natural (as in occurs in nature) he then claims the definition of natural he's using is one where god decides what is and isn't natural and we're finally back to because god says so. But isn't it a much more clever way to put forward your argument as it at least temporarily muddies the water and leads us to arguing definitions of the word natural rather than dealing with the subject at hand.
This seems to be a common tactic too as seen in another thread where a poster describes his frustration arguing over the definition of atheism rather than discussing say, evidence for the existence of gods.
I know we have strawmens and ad hominems but maybe we need a word for people who would rather argue over meanings of words. Then again that would probably result in arguments over the meaning of said new word...

Galvasean

Losing the game? Change the rules!

You see Shooter, football is in fact a race to see who can get the most red cards.

joseph brand

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I don't remember declaring anywhere it was natural or un natural, I asked why did some men think poking their penis up another mans rectum and faeces was a natural form of sex in accordance with nature and evolution ?

This post is a real 'coversation stopper'. Unbelievable. I am absolutely certain that there is no point in anyone debating with with this sort of inane waffle.

Jimoslimos

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point is, the fact that we observe homosexual behaviour in rabbits or bonobos or any other species tells us nothing, one way or the other, about the morality of human homosexual behaviour.
Or, in other words, the “natural” argument is stupid. And it remains stupid whether you argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong because unnatural because not observed in nature, or that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature and is therefore natural and is therefore not wrong.

Yes, indeed this was the argument I was trying to make, and I think we're all broadly saying the same thing.

Certain visitors here like to indulge in cherry-picking science when it suits (and the Bible when it doesn't).
We shouldn't

pH

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, in other words, the “natural” argument is stupid. And it remains stupid whether you argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong because unnatural because not observed in nature, or that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature and is therefore natural and is therefore not wrong.

Well said. I believe it's been observed that some male animals will attempt to kill offspring of a mate's former partner. But to be honest it doesn't matter if this has been observed or not - we can decide whether a step-dad killing his wife's children is right or wrong - its "naturalness" and appeals to the actions (or non-actions) of other animals seem entirely irrelevant.

Homosexuality is fine because it's a consensual act between consensual adults - end of - appealing to the sexual predilections of bottle nose dolphins is entirely unnecessary.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but is anyone actually making the "its natural so it is ok" argument. The arguments for homosexuality being moral seem to be as simple as its not harming anyone so do it if you like, which is pretty much the moral argument everything that is not immoral.

We have Newsite and TQE arguing that, independently, to their religion homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural, it is against nature.

They both, thankfully, seem to have backed away from this argument, but it shouldn't be assumed that the counter to this argument is that yes it is in fact natural it isn't against nature.

The argument for for homosexuality is that is as harmless and fun (for the homosexuals) as heterosexual sex so knock yourself out.

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think that a lack of reply = backing away from an argument. Unlike your good self I don't spend all my time on the A&A forum/Boards.ie

Pretty much what you've confirmed above is the atheist's viewpoint is that 'what doesn't hurt anyone is moral'....or in more popular parlance - 'if it feels good, do it'.

Which inevitably ends up making it so that everything from abortion to euthanasia to gay 'marriage' to whatever else you're having is ok

So, that base point is subjective assessment of what is ok or not ok - an assertion made either on the basis of collective or individual agreement - not on the standards of God.

Jimoslimos

Newsite wrote: »

Pretty much what you've confirmed above is the atheist's viewpoint is that 'what doesn't hurt anyone is moral'....or in more popular parlance - 'if it feels good, do it'.

So, that base point is subjective assessment of what is ok or not ok - an assertion made either on the basis of collective or individual agreement - not on the standards of God.

I'm struggling to see how;

'What doesn't hurt anyone' = 'If it feels good, do it'

Given that these 'standards of God' have always been given indirectly by way of prophet, etc. you could argue that this is even more subjective.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think that a lack of reply = backing away from an argument. Unlike your good self I don't spend all my time on the A&A forum/Boards.ie

Pretty much what you've confirmed above is the atheist's viewpoint is that 'what doesn't hurt anyone is moral'....or in more popular parlance - 'if it feels good, do it'.

Given those two sentences mean completely different things I'm going to assume you are joking.

Newsite wrote: »

Which inevitably ends up making it so that everything from abortion to euthanasia to gay 'marriage' to whatever else you're having is ok

You have euthanasia because it feels good? Yeah I'm not sure you have thought that one through particularly well...

Newsite wrote: »

So, that base point is subjective assessment of what is ok or not ok - an assertion made either on the basis of collective or individual agreement - not on the standards of God.

Well given that God doesn't exist, yes. I'll take the collective or individual agreement of post-Enlightenment folk over the ancient barbaric notions of Arabian tribes who liked to stone people to death any day.

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think that a lack of reply = backing away from an argument. Unlike your good self I don't spend all my time on the A&A forum/Boards.ie

Pretty much what you've confirmed above is the atheist's viewpoint is that 'what doesn't hurt anyone is moral'....or in more popular parlance - 'if it feels good, do it'.

Which inevitably ends up making it so that everything from abortion to euthanasia to gay 'marriage' to whatever else you're having is ok

So, that base point is subjective assessment of what is ok or not ok - an assertion made either on the basis of collective or individual agreement - not on the standards of God.

who enjoys abortion or euthanasia as a hobby? :eek:

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

Pretty much what you've confirmed above is the atheist's viewpoint is that 'what doesn't hurt anyone is moral'....or in more popular parlance - 'if it feels good, do it'.

I presume you realize that you have got this completely wrong, don't you?

Newsite wrote: »

Which inevitably ends up making it so that everything from abortion to euthanasia to gay 'marriage' to whatever else you're having is ok [...] not on the standards of God.

Where exactly in the bible does your deity outlaw gay marriage?

Galvasean

Guys guys, you're all getting it wrong. You're allowed be gay, just not do gay things...

Sonics2k

God gives you free will, but don't you dare get euthanisa if you're dying a slow, painful, miserable death, in searing agony, or losing all memory of your loved ones, and being totally aware you've forgotten the name of your children standing around you.
Because that's just wrong isn't it.

Get a grip Newsite.

Zombrex

koth wrote: »

who enjoys abortion or euthanasia as a hobby? :eek:

God?

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, in other words, the “natural” argument is stupid. And it remains stupid whether you argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong because unnatural because not observed in nature, or that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature and is therefore natural and is therefore not wrong.

Yes, I agree, it's a stupid argument. The only reason I mentioned the counter argument is because people apparently don't think so.

In my experience the naturalness argument is the resort of someone who effectively doesn't like the gayzorz because it is icky, and religion is basically a nice shield for those feelings.

Galvasean wrote: »

Guys guys, you're all getting it wrong. You're allowed be gay, just not do gay things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auS0rOnunzg

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Guys guys, you're all getting it wrong. You're allowed be gay, just not do gay things...

By the same token are you allowed be a murderer as long as you don't kill anyone?

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

By the same token are you allowed be a murderer as long as you don't kill anyone?

Apparently thinking about murder is just as much a sin as actually murdering someone, so no.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Guys guys, you're all getting it wrong. You're allowed be gay, just not do gay things...

i thought that thinking about adultery was as bad as actually doing it
so how does that work

Ciaran0

Galvasean wrote: »

Apparently thinking about murder is just as much a sin as actually murdering someone, so no.

So really, even just thinking about gay sex is a sin too isn't it? And since you can't control your thoughts, a gay man who maybe never even slept with another man is still in a constant state of sin. God's really got it out for the gays hasn't he? What a pr*ck.

efb

Ciaran0 wrote: »

So really, even just thinking about gay sex is a sin too isn't it? And since you can't control your thoughts, a gay man who maybe never even slept with another man is still in a constant state of sin. God's really got it out for the gays hasn't he? What a pr*ck.

If he's the guy that created Tom Hardy- all is forgiven!!!

Jimoslimos

efb wrote: »

If he's the guy that created Tom Hardy- all is forgiven!!!

No, that was his straight parents. Thou shalt forsake thine gheyness and pay homage at the altar of hetrosexuality:pac:

DuPLeX

should hetrosexuality be allowed also ? it seems that other animals do it .
Oh! and there's something nasty in the woodshed .