The "born Gay" Hoax

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1523042' date='May 9 2008, 04:06 AM']If you produce a book that says that God is offended to homosexuality and if I produce a book that says that GOD [b][i]is not [/i][/b]offended to homosexuality, where does logic and reason go from there?
Where is this truth? Who told you that homosexuality is immoral? What real truth do you have that God has any concern that homosexuals are committing sin?
The GOD that I desribe does not require worship and my understanding was obtained in [b][i]exactly the same manner[/i] [/b]that your primitive authors proclaim that they received their inspirations.
I have read everything that has been presented in this thread and yet reality dictates to me that homosexuality is permitted to continue. There are not any laws, rules, judgment or retribution forthcoming from God. Does your reality remotely indicate that God is offended by homosexuality or could you just be faithfully hoping that there is a judgment for these “sinners” that awaits them upon death that would justify that you are living a “good,” "right" or “natural” life?
No reason to be uncharitable. All you had to say was “I do not know the answer to this question.”
Were/Are they immoral? Were/Are they damnable?

It is good to have to beliefs but eventually you will have to compare them to what you
K(NOW) today?
Who is “us”? The response was addressed to Phatmass member ironmonk on the erroneous belief that the morals of the God he is describing do not change.
The examples I have cited were referenced from a study guide that ironmonk could relate to. I have effectively shown that not only do God's morals change but that God does not seem to have any strong (or the same) moral (or immoral) opinions to human's sexual preferrences as ironmonk believes.
But it does have everything to do with sin, which I noticed was mentioned quite frequently in this thread. The subject was not whether "homosexuality is a sin" but whether people were born gay. Are you preparing to correct and respond to every Phatmass member that introduced sin to this conversation or do you have a specific purpose or reason why you are just selecting my responses?[/quote]

I guess it is a mistake to assume that you give credence to any authority outside yourself in this life. But since you ask for a book, I will go out on a limb and quote the Bible as its the only book with the authority you are asking for. See [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html[/url] for a compilation of scriptural passages referencing homosexuality and its inherent offensiveness to God. Actually get a Bible out and read the passages, even if [i]you [/i]don't think they are authoritative you have to recognize this is the basis for most the posts on this thread. I know homosexual acts are immoral and distasteful to God because of Scripture and the consistent teaching of the Church on the issue. I'm not sure what 'other book' you would have to offer that shows [i]my [/i]God is not offended (becaus as Aloysius said, you and us do not follow the same God). Pointing to apparent discrepancies in other sexually natured sins doesn't count, I've already addressed how this has little application to homosexuality.

If you are concerned about logic and reason and natural law, see Aloysius post immediately above mine. I think he did a very good job. The alternative is that you have decided that sperm are for pleasure and procreation is the side-effect, in which case I would ask you to cite a credible authority to legitimize this claim.

I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.

The reailty is that Scripture is FULL of references to laws, rules, judgement for actively participating in homosexuality (see the website above). Beyond that, I think it requires a juvenile intellect to base all view of reality on immediate retributive justice. Thoughts like: God isn't shooting lightning at homosexuals so he must not have anything wrong with it. God isn't shooting lightning at kids stealing cookies from the cookie jar so he must not have anything wrong with it. God didnt' shoot lighting at Hitler and the Nazis so there must not be anything wrong with genocide. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at satanists so they must be okay in God's eyes. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at abortion clinics so he is obviously not offended by abortion. God didn't shoot lightning at slave owners, so racial subjugation is apparently okay with God. Now most people would logically and emphatically agree that these preceding statements are outright garbage...which they are. But basing your view of God's morality on the observability of immediate retributive justice is equally fallacious. We don't have to get caught stealing cookies from the jar in order for it to be wrong. We don't have to get caught cheating on our taxes for it to be wrong. These are wrong by its very nature regardless of an immediate supernatural retribution. Ignoring your imagined views of [i]my [/i]God, if you cannot accede to this basic human reality then there is little point in furthering this conversation after my post.

Despite your apparent preocupation with retributive justice as a sign of God's will, I am not looking forward to any punishment for sinners of any sort. God wills all people to achieve salvation and sanctification; everyone on this board is expressing their views to this end because we recognize that living as closely to [i]our [/i]God's law is the best way to achieve this sancification. We submit to scripture and follow its precepts. That is how we 'know' our answer.

You state that it is "good to have beliefs" but you have, to be honest, done a shoddy job of backing your own beliefs. Furthermore, if you read the preceding posts you will see that I SPECIFICALLY address the issue of 'being born gay' in a concise post concerning genetics and the potential science of asserting the existence of a 'gay gene' that causes people to be 'born gay.'

I am sorry if you feel offended that I singled you out in my subsequent responses. By the time I entered this thread the issue of 'born gay' and 'sin' were already on the table...I just responded. As you mentioned above, it is good to have beliefs and I felt that mine were being sloppily trodden over. So I responded in as rational of a way as possible in order to try and offer an opposing view to your a priori assumptions about God, morailty, and the purpose of sexaulity. In my response to the existence of 'gay genes' I relied almost entirely on a scientific basis for refutation. However, most of the members of this forum (myself included) also turn to scripture and their belief systems to help them address the possiblity of 'being born gay.' And since for us homosexuality as a practice [i]is [/i]sinful and homosexual orientation by its very nature [i]is [/i]disordered, these issues will inevitably come into play during the discussion.

Peace

Edited May 9, 2008 by Veridicus

[Didacus]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1523212' date='May 9 2008, 10:31 AM'][snip]
I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.
[snip]
Peace[/quote]

I second taking offense.

It is my firm belief that those who hold doctorate degrees in philosophy, science and others in this modern era would be stunned at the coherence and intelligence of the 'ancient thinkers' if ever they were able to meet.

It is a wide brush that paints ancient times as simply being ignorant, stupid or superstitious as a whole. Anyone, in my opinion, who has taken the time to read and genuinely attempt to understand their ideas will forceably admit these people had brilliant intellect (although at times misused and at other times in error).

[carrdero]

[quote]Alysious writes: "natural law" in this case means that nothing can be used contrary to its natural purpose.[/quote]
I understand that.
[quote]Alysious writes: biologists the world over agree: the natural purpose of sperm cells is to enter into a woman to potentially become a baby. it is designed to enter into that environment and no other environment.[/quote]
Whether one agrees that homosexuality is natural or unnatural, whether one agrees that there is more sperm that is spilled to the ground to sperm that actually gets introduced to the vagina, whether Les Paul intended the invention of the guitar to be played or whether he intended Jimi Hendrix to sleep in the same bed with it, the fact remains evident, that it is not a natural (or unnatural) act that can be ascribed (currently) as a law that is an offense to God, punishable by God.

[quote]Alysious writes:you can say that you don't think natural law must be followed in this case, but you cannot disagree that natural law says that sperm are intended according to natural law to swim and seek out eggs. your position is simply that we do not have to follow natural law... it's a fine enough position if you'll just be honest that that's what it is.[/quote]

I can be honest with that correspondence but I am also indicating that this particular natural law is a preferred choice with no right or wrong. God knows and understands that through a homosexual act that homosexuals cannot produce children and homosexuals know through their sexual performances that they cannot produce children. Does this mean that homosexuals cannot have children? No of course not, they can adopt children if they want to. Is adoption unnatural?

[quote]Alysious writes: but everyone ought to agree it's not natural whether or not they're in favor of it.[/quote]

The point that I am trying to understand is how anyone can attribute or conclude from this natural (or unnatural) law that homosexuality is a right or a wrong. I can see how one can conclude whether the sexual practice is right or wrong for them but I do not see how others can conclude that this sexual preference is right or wrong for others.

[quote]Alysious writes: I will not discuss this in relation to God with you because when I use the term God, you interpret that to mean the being whom you refer to as "GOD" who is in fact some form of pagan monotheism but is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing I am referring to,[/quote]

With the obvious derogatory misunderstanding of the GOD that I describe already implied, I could not see you qualifying or enduring a reasonable discussion in relation to GOD on this topic.

[carrdero]

[quote]Veridicus writes: I know homosexual acts are immoral and distasteful to God because of Scripture and the consistent teaching of the Church on the issue.[/quote]

I am aware of these teachings but unfortunately you and Alysious do not seem to know if this knowledge is truth or untruth. Gathering and fortifying faith behind your responses does not conclude the belief that homosexuality is immoral or distasteful to God.

[quote]Veridicus writes:I'm not sure what 'other book' you would have to offer that shows my God is not offended (becaus as Aloysius said, you and us do not follow the same God).[/quote]

And it is the “followship” of this God that I am trying understand. As I have clearly demonstrated with your own resource, the God you describe does not seem to have a problem establishing relationships with primitive humans of questionable sexual preferences and morals.

[quote]Veridicus writes: The alternative is that you have decided that sperm are for pleasure and procreation is the side-effect, in which case I would ask you to cite a credible authority to legitimize this claim.[/quote]

And you would assuredly be pleading the impossible. Credible authority does not exist, just ask any religion that is not your own.

[quote]Veridicus writes: If you are concerned about logic and reason and natural law, see Aloysius post immediately above mine. I think he did a very good job.[/quote]

Yes, he related it to biologists very succinctly but had forgotten to emphasize and evidence where this law is an offense to GOD.

[quote]Veridicus writes: I take offense to your pretentious and 'uncharitable' claim that Catholicism and Judaism have at their root 'primitive authors' incapable of seeing truth in God. I also take offense to this maxim being applied to the early Church fathers or later theologians like Augustine an Aquinas. This literary and theological tradition is anything but 'primitive' in its breadth and scope.[/quote]

Which part are you taking offense at. The fact that I described them as primitive or the fact that they did not conclude the truth (or untruth) about God?

[quote]Veridicus writes: The reailty is that Scripture is FULL of references to laws, rules, judgement for actively participating in homosexuality (see the website above). Beyond that, I think it requires a juvenile intellect to base all view of reality on immediate retributive justice.[/quote]

Would you prefer that I stretch my imagination and surrender to faith that there is a judgmental, punishable consequence for homosexuality at the hand of a loving and forgiving God?

[quote]Veridicus writes: Thoughts like: God isn't shooting lightning at homosexuals so he must not have anything wrong with it. God didnt' shoot lighting at Hitler and the Nazis so there must not be anything wrong with genocide.[/quote]

And yet some would have me believe God’s claim to fame for bringing down Sodom and Gomorrah. This God cannot even keep his anger and offense consistant. Is He offended or not?

[color="#000080"][b] Genesis 19:24 [/b]
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at satanists so they must be okay in God's eyes. God doesn't shoot lightning bolts at abortion clinics so he is obviously not offended by abortion. God didn't shoot lightning at slave owners, so racial subjugation is apparently okay with God.[/quote]

And yet this God would immediately react and respond to other offenses.

[color="#000080"][b]Exodus 4:23 [/b]
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

[b]Exodus 15:6 [/b]
Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: God isn't shooting lightning at kids stealing cookies from the cookie jar so he must not have anything wrong with it.[/quote]

How about cursing and striking a parent?

[color="#000080"][b]Exodus 21:17 [/b]
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.[/color]

[quote]Veridicus writes: But basing your view of God's morality on the observability of immediate retributive justice is equally fallacious.[/quote]

It is not my view but the perception of primitive Biblical authors. Are you admitting that these views are also fallacious?

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: You state that it is "good to have beliefs" but you have, to be honest, done a shoddy job of backing your own beliefs.[/color]

Would you prefer that I document them in a book so that 2000 years after my death these beliefs could become validly seasoned and acceptable?

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: Furthermore, if you read the preceding posts you will see that I SPECIFICALLY address the issue of 'being born gay' in a concise post concerning genetics and the potential science of asserting the existence of a 'gay gene' that causes people to be 'born gay.'[/color]

I never accused you of not addressing the point what I have pointed out is that people could not resist debating their personal opinions about whether homosexuality was a sin or not.

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: I am sorry if you feel offended that I singled you out in my subsequent responses.[/color]

I am not offended but was more curious as to know why. I had already addressed my position to the OP and didn’t mind engaging in a active discussion of why people believe homosexuality to be a sin.

[color="#2E8B57"]Veridicus writes: I just responded. As you mentioned above, it is good to have beliefs and I felt that mine were being sloppily trodden over.[/color]

By who? Me? The only thing that I did was compare and challenge them.

[carrdero]

[quote]Didacus writes: It is my firm belief that those who hold doctorate degrees in philosophy, science and others in this modern era would be stunned at the coherence and intelligence of the 'ancient thinkers' if ever they were able to meet.[/quote]

There is no doctorate or degree that one can receive or display to validate inspiration from GOD.

[quote]Didacus writes: It is a wide brush that paints ancient times as simply being ignorant, stupid or superstitious as a whole. Anyone, in my opinion, who has taken the time to read and genuinely attempt to understand their ideas will forceably admit these people had brilliant intellect (although at times misused and at other times in error).[/quote]

It is a wide brush that paints a God that doesn’t inspire, relate and reveal revelation to modern humans or that primitive Biblical prophets hold claim to truth or authority. As far as I am concerned, the knowledge and understanding of GOD is an open field of study, the verdict about GOD and his attributes and preferences remain unproven.

Edited May 9, 2008 by carrdero

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1523341' date='May 9 2008, 02:18 PM']And you would assuredly be pleading the impossible. Credible authority does not exist, just ask any religion that is not your own....
...There is no doctorate or degree that one can receive or display to validate inspiration from GOD.
It is a wide brush that paints a God that doesn’t inspire and reveal revelation to modern humans or that primitive Biblical prophets hold claim to truth or authority. As far as I am concerned, the knowledge and understanding of GOD is an open field of study, the verdict about GOD and his attributes and preferences remain unproven.[/quote]

If you don't believe in objective truth than how can you objectively state that 'credible authority does not exist.' Your assertions all lie outside your authority to base them. Your entire theological position is a logical fallacy.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1523344' date='May 9 2008, 03:33 PM']If you don't believe in objective truth than how can you objectively state that 'credible authority does not exist.'[/quote]
Because no one has come forward with objective truth, in many cases they have just stated personal faith, which as you should well know, is not truth.

[quote]Veridicus writes: Your assertions all lie outside your authority to base them.[/quote]

I do not disguise my beliefs as truths and I am not bound by faith in an effort to support them. The conclusion of my beliefs to a truth or untruth shall be my authority.

[quote]Veridicus writes: Your entire theological position is a logical fallacy.[/quote]

I do not believe that you have enough knowledge and understanding about my position to make such assertions. All you really know is that some of my points are contrary to yours.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1523352' date='May 9 2008, 02:44 PM']Because no one has come forward with objective truth, in many cases they have just stated personal faith, which as you should well know, is not truth.
I do not disguise my beliefs as truths and I am not bound by faith in an effort to support them. The conclusion of my beliefs to a truth or untruth shall be my authority.
I do not believe that you have enough knowledge and understanding about my position to make such assertions. All you really know is that some of my points are contrary to yours.[/quote]

Further discussion is pointless.

[Didacus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1523341' date='May 9 2008, 02:18 PM']There is no doctorate or degree that one can receive or display to validate inspiration from GOD.
It is a wide brush that paints a God that doesn’t inspire and reveal revelation to modern humans or that primitive Biblical prophets hold claim to truth or authority. As far as I am concerned, the knowledge and understanding of GOD is an open field of study, the verdict about GOD and his attributes and preferences remain unproven.[/quote]



Wow! You really like stretching things don't you?

I was not relating that a doctorate degree or any degree is required to validate inspiration from God; onlyu that the 'brilliant' minds of today are generally at par with 'brilliant' minds of long ago and to simoply disreguard somarily writtings from the past jsut because its 'ancient' or 'old' or considered 'primitive' is is certainly not a recommendable practice.


I believe, as a Catholic, that God to this day, every day, inspires and reveals revelation to 'modern' humans. It is church doctrine that Jesus and GOd the Father is not in a corner of heaven watching us from afar but lives with each and everyone amongst us every day of our lives. He does not only inspires and reveals, but sustains, shares our joys and sorrows, heals, defends and affects every mintue of our lives weither we admit it or not (siome may abandon God, but God NEVER abandons us).

And I agree that stating Biblical prophets as having claim to Truth or authority is completely incorrect. Maybe a church scholar can correct me on this but prophets reveal God's Truth but DO NOT OWN IT, and the only true authority in the world belongs to GOd and to God alone; prophets simply exercise the authority within God's license.

finally;

[quote]As far as I am concerned, the knowledge and understanding of GOD is an open field of study, the verdict about GOD and his attributes and preferences remain unproven.[/quote]

The knowledge of God shall forever remain open since we cannot conceive within ourselves the vaastness contained in God.

HOWEVER; If God reveals Himself with certainty to one of us, as He can per His will, then this would be known with certainty. God would not change once he reveals Himself the next time to a next person, and the next and the next and the next.

After a while, all those people get together and write; as per God's will, a book with their certain observations of God. This would be a volume of knowledge contained with certainty.

If someone reads the book later, and does not believe it; is this person right in saying that God cannot be known with certainty? Or should he say God remains unknown to me with certainty?

Your statements come close to saying; "I don't believe anything is proven about God because God has never revealed Himself to me personally." - like a doubting Thomas. Those people before whom God has revealed Himself is telling you; "But He has revealed Himself to me and I know for sure!" -- to which you basically reply "I don't believe you."

Like Thomas, you will have to place your hand in His bleeding side befofe believing. I don't think you're an evil person because of it; we have ALL passed by this before ourselves, and still do. You're not evil, but I will say that until you seek out genuinely the truth for the sake of the truth and not for the sake of yourself, you will never find what you're looking for. For so long as you aim to destroy the other's belief rather than seek the truth it contains (full truth or even partial truth) for the sake of the truth rather than the sake of yourself, you will never know truth with certainty.

[Aloysius]

[quote]The point that I am trying to understand is how anyone can attribute or conclude from this natural (or unnatural) law that homosexuality is a right or a wrong. I can see how one can conclude whether the sexual practice is right or wrong for them but I do not see how others can conclude that this sexual preference is right or wrong for others.[/quote]

because that is the nature of our philosophical system. it is quite ambitious: we see the solution to man's dillema of evil as being found in following the natural order as best as is possible. you seem to not take issue with my assertion that homosexuality is not natural. therefore, according to our ambitious philosophical system of attempting to rehabilitate human nature, we obviously would oppose it as well as anything that spilt the seed anywhere other than where it's meant to go.

you think our system is not needed, but at least see that it makes sense and is consistent. in our estimation, man's natural tendency towards things which are destructive to himself and others is caused by the fact that man contradicts what is natural. so we say he ought to cease to contradict what is natural. you don't think he has to.

I'm not trying to convince you it's wrong here, just trying to get you to understand where we're coming from. it's the same thing as our radically ambitious plan to rehabilitate human nature by insisting upon monogamy. now, actually it's harder for us to prove monogamy is natural than it is to prove heterosexuality is natural; but the point is that we assert that both of those are the natural thing and that's why we insist that those are the things which must be done if we are to fight against man's natural tendency towards destruction of himself and others. plenty of people take exception to our insistence against homosexuality the way plenty of people take exception to our insistence against polygyny (polygamy or polyandry) or fornication (there's a lot more people on our side against adultery since it involves going back on a clearcut vow that's been made)

and I'm sorry that I do not believe that the God I worship is even in the same philosophical category as the "GOD" you describe, but I see no evidence of a similarity other than the three letters we write to name the being we're talking about and as such it remains pointless for me to reference God in this matter to you... as far as my belief system is concerned: you are an athiest.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: because that is the nature of our philosophical system. it is quite ambitious: we see the solution to man's dillema of evil as being found in following the natural order as best as is possible. you seem to not take issue with my assertion that homosexuality is not natural. therefore, according to our ambitious philosophical system of attempting to rehabilitate human nature, we obviously would oppose it as well as anything that spilt the seed anywhere other than where it's meant to go.[/quote]

Alysious you are aware of the fact that even though the seed can be accurately, naturally directed to where it was “meant to go”, that there is no insurance or guarantee that nature is going to develop the required or desirable results don’t you?

Are premature infants natural or evil?

Are miscarriages natural or evil?

Are babies who develop health concerns, who are missing limbs and other physical senses or being diagnosed with mental incapacities natural or evil?

Where do these anomalies fit into your philosophical system of nature? Is it a Universal Nature or a Personal Nature? Is it a blessing or a curse?

Are you also familiar that sexual activity has other purposes within it’s origin that do not necessarily include the creative endeavor of producing other humans? In some parts of the world, humans use sex recreationally, to provide pleasure, as an expression and extension of each other’s love. Are you trying to tell me that this is an unnatural event as well?

[quote]Aloysius writes: you think our system is not needed, but at least see that it makes sense and is consistent. in our estimation, man's natural tendency towards things which are destructive to himself and others is caused by the fact that man contradicts what is natural.[/quote]

How do you see homosexuals expressing and extending act of love towards each other as destructive? To themselves? To others? How would you prefer that they share their love?

[quote]Aloysius writes: and I'm sorry that I do not believe that the God I worship is even in the same philosophical category as the "GOD" you describe, but I see no evidence of a similarity other than the three letters we write to name the being we're talking about and as such it remains pointless for me to reference God in this matter to you... as far as my belief system is concerned: you are an athiest.[/quote]

And from the understanding that I am receiving, you are leaving me no alternative but to believe that God is Catholic.

Edited May 11, 2008 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1523355' date='May 9 2008, 03:50 PM']Further discussion is pointless.[/quote]
Agreed.

[Aloysius]

actually, the god of monotheistic hindus, the god of muslims, the God of Protestants and the God of Jews are all at least in the same philosophical category of what a "god" is than the "GOD" you have proposed on these boards. from what I have read of you, I would probably classify the "GOD" you believe in in the same philosophical category as a space alien. I don't even mean to disrespect you by that statement; that statement doesn't even mean to comment on whether or not the GOD you speak of exists or does not exist, but as an idea it is on par with the idea of an immensely powerful alien being.

I am aware that there are sexual activities that do not involve the seed going where it has the possibility of procreation. The ambitious plan of our philosophical system is that only the sexual practices which result in the seed being placed in its rightful place are allowed the same way our other ambitious plan has insisted that only monogamous sex is allowed. both ought to be looked at as ridiculous from the standpoint of your philosophical system... but at least on monogamy can you not at least see and respect the ambitious plan we had to make human life better by restricting sex in the context of lifelong loyalty? so why can you not, even if you disagree with it, see and respect the ambitious plan we have to make human life better by restricting sex to the context of potential procreation?

both plans are ridiculously hard and end up with a group of people who say that they will not or cannot follow them. fine, but at least respect the ideal even if you think it's unnecessary and/or too hard. like, if someone said to me "all humans ought to work out so that they are capable of running marathons"... I would say "your ideal is respectable, but I do not think it can nor should be accomplished"... my entire goal in this debate is that you can find yourself at the same point as regards my ideal where you can say the same statement to me about the philosophical system of Christian sexual morality.

As regards all your examples: the things which are not natural about those things are evils. The human beings are not. The fact that a baby gets born premature is an evil and it puts that baby's life at risk... if it is possible, premature births are to be avoided. The anomalies you describe are evils that medical science bravely fights against every day. That said, there is a huge difference between talking about natural and non-natural actions (which are definitively things which can be chosen for or against). Anyway, miscarriages are unnatural and evil, as a fetus is clearly naturally intended to grow and be born but are interrupted. there is no sin involved since no human or person actually does the evil, it is an evil that is a result of the subnatural state caused by the fall... like death and disease and natural disasters... again, unrelated to the question of natural/unnatural actions since actions can be chosen for or against.

Other aspects of sex can be enjoyed so long as they are in addition to placing the sperm where it is designed to go. It is designed to go to the place where it can swim towards an egg, and it is naturally disposed of if it doesn't make it to that egg. The death of a sperm in its rightful place (either inside of a woman or recycled back into the male body which produced it) vs. the death of a sperm in a place it was not designed to go is the same difference of natural and non-natural that natural death vs. death by murder would be on the scale of humans (I am not saying sperm constitute human persons or that wasting them constitutes murder, just making an analogy: the death of that cell which is much more insignificant than a human person is unnatural when it occurs outside its naturally intended location)

I'm not even necessarily saying that the non-natural acts in themselves are self-destructive. What I am saying is that our philosophical system says that if you restrict yourself to doing only things which are natural, it will benefit you and improve your human nature so that it is restored to a natural state that is less inclined towards sinful ('destructive to self or others' for the sake of discussion) behavior.

Not working out in a gym doesn't make you self-destructive, but if you do work out in a gym you become stronger.
So in this thread I am not arguing to you that engaging in sexual activity contrary to nature makes you self-destructive, I am arguing that not doing so makes you better in line with your human nature.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: actually, the god of monotheistic hindus, the god of muslims, the God of Protestants and the God of Jews are all at least in the same philosophical category of what a "god" is than the "GOD" you have proposed on these boards. from what I have read of you, I would probably classify the "GOD" you believe in in the same philosophical category as a space alien.
I don't even mean to disrespect you by that statement; that statement doesn't even mean to comment on whether or not the GOD you speak of exists or does not exist, but as an idea it is on par with the idea of an immensely powerful alien being.[/quote]


This misunderstanding may be due to the unwarranted attention of my avatar. My previous participation to Phatmass a few years ago had many members making similar mistakes and comparisons to the GOD that I describe to a moronic Starfish. Still, if this is not the case, I am aware of your current understanding and that this GOD must seem quite foreign to you.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I am aware that there are sexual activities that do not involve the seed going where it has the possibility of procreation. The ambitious plan of our philosophical system is that only the sexual practices which result in the seed being placed in its rightful place are allowed the same way our other ambitious plan has insisted that only monogamous sex is allowed.

but at least on monogamy can you not at least see and respect the ambitious plan we had to make human life better by restricting sex in the context of lifelong loyalty?[/quote]

I apologize, but no. This ambitious plan seems to disregard, disrespect and fails to take in consideration in encompassing everyone or the full purpose of the sexual nature between consenting adults. Since it stifles the right to explore, understand, share, recreate and extend the love between individuals at the expense of the freedom to express this love, I cannot incite the respect that you are requesting. I also cannot share or encourage hope that this plan will be successful, popular or universal.

Do you have a contingency plan?

Edited May 15, 2008 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

I base my assessment not on your avatar, but on all the descriptions of your "GOD" I have seen you make on phatmass.

Do you also not respect the project of monogamy on the same grounds?

your hypothesis is that an attempt to only use things according to their clearly designed purpose is restricting. therefore, you are of the position that we should not be restricted by the rules of nature. very well, but at least be clear: you support contra-natural activity because you think it is good. those of us who see only natural things as good are clearly opposed to you philosophically because you support contra-natural things as good.

there is no rational way of saying that sperm's natural end is anything other than swimming inside a woman, so you must admit you support a contra-natural activity.