Sexuality - isn't it natural?

[SavedByChrist94]

To return to the OP:

Yes, sexuality is natural.

Of course, God made it. God never condemns sex, only sexual immorality because sexual immorality(homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, rape, uncommited sex/promiscuity, sexual addiction, making life all about sex people make sex to be the be all end all) is not natural[/QUOTE]

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Again, proving Scientology by citing Dianetics. Few of these can be substantiated by anything other than religious myth and apocryphal legend.
At best, we can deduce that there was such a sect, and that its adherents were fanatical enough to risk death for their beliefs

Get out of here, no one dies for known lie, added with all the evidence, it makes you look like a fool. that's like telling me someone isn't a murderer despite the witnesses dying for that testimony that so and so was the killer.

and see again, you claim "myth" says who? you, I say who cares, provide your evidence, tired of "atheistic" fairy tale presuppositions.

myth theory is disproven as There WAS an Empty Tomb, Crucifixion, not legends that is your assumption. reread my whole post and throw presuppositions in the trash.

Anyone reading this let it be known that Despite the fact that I proved an Empty Tomb, Appearances, and crucifixion
Jane_the_Bane still denys those FACTS agreed upon and proven.

the hallucination theory is a myth, multiple people do not hallucinate about the same thing.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of course, God made it. God never condemns sex, only sexual immorality because sexual immorality(homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, rape, uncommited sex/promiscuity, sexual addiction, making life all about sex people make sex to be the be all end all) is not natural

[/QUOTE]

And here you commit the very popular mistake of equating your own particular morality with "nature".

Even though I agree with your general conclusion, (namely that sex isn't a problem in and of itself, but sexual immorality is,) the term "natural" actually has no place in a discussion about morality.
Why? Because "nature" in and of itself only describes the default state, regardless of its moral quality. It is natural for a male lion to kill all the cubs when it claims leadership over a pride. It is natural for orcas to drown baby whales. It is even natural for anti-social humans to seek personal advantages that cause harm to others - just as it is natural for socially minded humans to react negatively to such actions.

What's more, I doubt that we'll agree on what constitutes sexual immorality. (In fact, I'd even go so far as to claim that your view is quite distinct from that of the people who wrote the books of the Bible, and that there are also considerable differences between your stance and that of, say, your great-grandparents or people from a different country.)

 

[SavedByChrist94]

And here you commit the very popular mistake of equating your own particular morality with "nature".

Even though I agree with your general conclusion, (namely that sex isn't a problem in and of itself, but sexual immorality is,) the term "natural" actually has no place in a discussion about morality.
Why? Because "nature" in and of itself only describes the default state, regardless of its moral quality. It is natural for a male lion to kill all the cubs when it claims leadership over a pride. It is natural for orcas to drown baby whales. It is even natural for anti-social humans to seek personal advantages that cause harm to others - just as it is natural for socially minded humans to react negatively to such actions.

What's more, I doubt that we'll agree on what constitutes sexual immorality. (In fact, I'd even go so far as to claim that your view is quite distinct from that of the people who wrote the books of the Bible, and that there are also considerable differences between your stance and that of, say, your great-grandparents or people from a different country.)

Nope when I say natural, I'm saying what God made, God made us to have sex, but not go crazy with it therefore addiction or an over glorfication of it is wrong, promisculity is wrong. God made sex between man and woman, anything else(even on a "naturalistic" worldview is not natural and wrong) is not natural. rape is definitely not natural, it's plain wrong but under "naturalism" would be no different than burping at the dinner table, therefore "naturalism" is false.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Get out of here, no one dies for known lie, added with all the evidence, it makes you look like a fool.

Jim Jones. Heaven's Gate. Joseph Smith. The WTC-pilots of the Quaeda.

In most of these cases, it might not even be a question of "dying for a lie" so much as "dying for absurd beliefs". Religious movements have a way of developing a dynamic all of their own, to the point where individual members will do just about anything, including dying and killing.

myth theory is disproven as There WAS an Empty Tomb, Crucifixion, not legends that is your assumption. reread my whole post and throw presuppositions in the trash.

Citing the Book of Mormon in order to defend Joseph Smith does not constitute proof, or even evidence.
Neither does citing the Bible and just claiming that everything written therein actually happened.

As far as I'm concerned, the historical Jesus died somewhere around 30 CE by means of a cruel execution - and his followers just kept on going, like many religious sectarians before and after them, rationalizing their apparent defeat in a way that allowed them to stick to their beliefs. And then, the tale just started to grow in the telling, Paul appeared on the stage of world history, and by the time the vast bulk of the New Testament was penned, Jesus had grown from a potential Jewish messiah into God Incarnate, modeled after the dying and rising gods of the hellenic mystery religions.

Anyone reading this let it be known that Despite the fact that I proved an Empty Tomb, Appearances, and crucifixion
Jane_the_Bane still denys those FACTS agreed upon and proven.

Where did you establish these facts? Your post merely repeats the tale being told in the Bible, uncritically assuming that everything written therein constitutes historical fact rather than embellished religious legend.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nope when I say natural, I'm saying what God made, God made us to have sex, but not go crazy with it therefore addiction or an over glorfication of it is wrong, promisculity is wrong. God made sex between man and woman, anything else(even on a "naturalistic" worldview is not natural and wrong) is not natural. rape is definitely not natural, it's plain wrong but under "naturalism" would be no different than burping at the dinner table, therefore "naturalism" is false.

Your lines of reasoning are atrociously ill-conceived, and you are merely repeating your previous misuse of "natural" as a moral term, prescriptive rather than descriptive.

In summary: you are wrong, and you are not even especially good at arguing the point.

 

[Skavau]

Nope when I say natural, I'm saying what God made, God made us to have sex, but not go crazy with it therefore addiction or an over glorfication of it is wrong, promisculity is wrong. God made sex between man and woman, anything else(even on a "naturalistic" worldview is not natural and wrong) is not natural. rape is definitely not natural, it's plain wrong but under "naturalism" would be no different than burping at the dinner table, therefore "naturalism" is false.

Suppose God set these edicts and standards for what he considered "natural sexuality".

Why should we pay attention to them? If a sexual act between two consenting adults harms no-one then why does it matter whether or not God considers it natural or unnatural?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Jim Jones. Heaven's Gate. Joseph Smith. The WTC-pilots of the Quaeda.

In most of these cases, it might not even be a question of "dying for a lie" so much as "dying for absurd beliefs". Religious movements have a way of developing a dynamic all of their own, to the point where individual members will do just about anything, including dying and killing.

That was slick, no one said die for beliefs, anyone can do that, but to die for a known lie, Apostles whether you like the fact or not really believed The Resurrection happened as I proved, yet you ignore that fact, this proves Jesus Christ appeared to them after His death. you did not refute anything, I refute you point by point with logic and evidence and you reply to what you pick and choose with your opinion. no one is here to here your opinion, it has no relevancy in this debate, only proof and evidence.

Citing the Book of Mormon in order to defend Joseph Smith does not constitute proof, or even evidence.
Neither does citing the Bible and just claiming that everything written therein actually happened.

Actually it does, just like you just witnesses in court, you examine the evidence and testimony and after examining The Bible and ancient history Jesus Christ without doubt rose from the dead, each one of your "naturalistic" theories is a fairy tale, I made a myth of them.

The Only Explanation is, Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

As far as I'm concerned, the historical Jesus died somewhere around 30 CE by means of a cruel execution - and his followers just kept on going,

Basically admitting He was crucified. now The Apostles preached His Resurrection where He was crucified, Jerusalem so if the body was still in the tomb, they could not preach The Resurrection in Jerusalem. there had to be an empty tomb.

No one could have stolen the tomb and The Apostles were genuine, appears to Paul, James, and The Women were authentic, Apostles had nothing to gain, and died for their beliefs after many many chances to be relieved of their martyrdom, despite the fact that they were mere peasants, Jesus Christ appearance after death changed their lives, they believed despite every predisposition to the contrary.

like many religious sectarians before and after them, rationalizing their apparent defeat in a way that allowed them to stick to their beliefs. And then, the tale just started to grow in the telling, Paul appeared on the stage of world history, and by the time the vast bulk of the New Testament was penned, Jesus had grown from a potential Jewish messiah into God Incarnate, modeled after the dying and rising gods of the hellenic mystery religions.

All assumptions disproven. also Gospels are just as The Apostles wrote them, read William Lane Craig about this. you went from hallucination theory and I disproved that, now you choose conspiracy and I just disproved that above, you're running out of your "naturalistic" myths.

Where did you establish these facts? Your post merely repeats the tale being told in the Bible,

See what you did, you just assumed they were tales, you can't do that, if you do you become a hypocrite, get out of here with that logic, has no place in court of law.

uncritically assuming that everything written therein constitutes historical fact rather than embellished religious legend.

when? I proved a Crucifixion, Empty Tomb, Appearances, and Apostles Authenticity. I suggest you read Gary Habermas.

I didn't assume anything, I USED historical facts to prove The Resurrection, you become a hypocrite by using the assumption of "guilty no matter what".

I don't know, an "atheist" is easy to use witnesses in court which are completely reliable despite the witnesses having no basis for truth, yet deny The Apostles despite proven genuine. it's presupposition.

add this with The Shroud and "atheist" make themselves really look bad because if you believe in the unscientific myth of "macro-evolution" and are truly honorable to science and are fair you cannot that The Shroud is Supernatural.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Your lines of reasoning are atrociously ill-conceived, and you are merely repeating your previous misuse of "natural" as a moral term, prescriptive rather than descriptive.

In summary: you are wrong, and you are not even especially good at arguing the point.

you didn't explain why, you just said... "you are wrong" with no basis.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Suppose God set these edicts and standards for what he considered "natural sexuality".

Why should we pay attention to them?

No need to answer that question, self explanatory and clearly reeks rebellion. why should we pay attention to them? because He made us, what is with this going against The Creator illusory. put the rebellion done.

If a sexual act between two consenting adults harms no-one then why does it matter whether or not God considers it natural or unnatural?

So a mother and son should have sex because it harms no one? get out of here with that liberal crap. too hypocritical. there are certain things that are morally wrong and that's that, we shouldn't change it because someone does not like it. a murderer wouldn't like the fact that murder is wrong, doesn't change that, murder is wrong and should be condemned.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes it does, like the kid who gets mad when their parent doesn't let them go to a party, why should we follow His rules? because He made life. that shows your morals on how you would give more respect to yourself than The One(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) who made you.

Respect has to be earned. My parents have earned my respect. God, if He exists, has not.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Respect has to be earned. My parents have earned my respect. God, if He exists, has not.

Again with rebellion, who created you to say Respect has to be earned? God!

who's image are you made in? God!(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

you have not earned God's respect, don't act like your better than God, He put Himself down to help you, to help us.

 

[Skaloop]

Again with rebellion, who created you to say Respect has to be earned? God!

who's image are you made in? God!(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

you have not earned God's respect, don't act like your better than God, He put Himself down to help you, to help us.

Technically nobody "created" me, but if it was anyone, it was my parents. That has zero to do with why I respect them though. Creating something is not, in and of itself, worthy of respect. Parents, in and of themselves, are not worthy of respect. So God creating me is not worthy of respect, nor has He demonstrated why He should be respected. My parents have done a lot. Plus, I know my parents exist.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Technically nobody "created" me,

Yes whether you like the fact or not, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) did.

but if it was anyone, it was my parents. That has zero to do with why I respect them though. Creating something is not, in and of itself, worthy of respect.

Yes it is, especially when that person is Perfect. you inadvertanly show me that you don't like God.

Parents, in and of themselves, are not worthy of respect. So God creating me is not worthy of respect, nor has He demonstrated why He should be respected.

Yes He has, He did more than necessary too, dying for you.

My parents have done a lot. Plus, I know my parents exist.

God has done more for you, He made your parents, and you either know or don't know that God exists, that's what it comes down to because He objectively, exists. <edit>

 

[Skavau]

Yes it is, especially when that person is Perfect. you inadvertanly show me that you don't like God.

Being perfect doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to respect someone. In God's case the question would have to be asked how precisely he became "perfect". If he just is perfect then I don't see why he deserves some inherent appreciation.

He didn't earn it so to speak.

Yes He has, He did more than necessary too, dying for you.

In my case I didn't ask to be died for. A sacrifice done and assumed on my behalf before I was born does not tie me to its effects. Martyrdom can sometimes be done for a good cause, but it does not mean I personally endorse it and nor am I bound to anyone trying to do it for me.

<edit>

 

[Skaloop]

Being perfect doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to respect someone. In God's case the question would have to be asked how precisely he became "perfect". If he just is perfect then I don't see why he deserves some inherent appreciation.

He didn't earn it so to speak.

Good point. Who's more deserving of respect, the guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth who has millions in a trust fund, or the guy who grew up in poverty and starts a small business then builds it to achieve great success through hard work?

 

[Shane Roach]

Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?

People sometimes say that because all sin leads to death, but in fact the only sin that cannot be forgiven is "blaspheming the Holy Spirit", which tends to be interpreted as actively denying Christ. In the Old Testament, it seems fairly obvious that God does not consider all misdeeds equal.

There is no death penalty, for example, for wearing clothes of mingled wool and linen.

Holy cow this thread is long. I quoted this from page like ... 6.

I quit now.

 

[jminnesota]

yes sex is natural. we are sexual beings. god made us that way

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has gone through a clean up. Some good posts had to be deleted along with the bad. Sorry.

As a reminder

&#9679; Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[jminnesota]

i agree being married and sex should be a man and woman only its what god and the bible teaches. that is why a man has a penis and a woman has a vigina its the only way it works.