Why do it here? If you are seriously interested in debating the question, you should open a thread in GD, framing the terms of the debate better than Wildfire did. But this question has been debated any number of times in GD already.
The only reason I think criticizing Wildfire here wouldn’t be warranted is that he appears to be too stupid to make it worthwhile. He keeps pulling this same old shit repeatedly. And remember, Wildfire opened this thread himself after the reasons for closing the original thread were explained by tomndebb. Anything he gets here he well deserves.
Ok, here is an honest question. Why is God’s Law considered “natural” to you? This opens up a lot of debates but, to me, “natural” would mean what humans do of their own accord. If following God’s Law is natural, why are we not all Saints? Humans have weaknesses. Even assuming that homosexuality is a sin or a flaw, why isn’t the flawed human condition considered to be the “natural” one? Otherwise, the doctrine teaches that all humans are sinners so we must all be “unnatural” by that logic.
OKay, so it’s unnatural, ‘against Divine Law’, for; people who have become sterile due to accident or illness, post menopausal women, and people with fertility problems to have sex?
It only makes sense if God is a part of nature. Is he?
Before you answer, let me caution you that God caused a virgin birth. Was that natural? Can virgin women naturally reproduce without the services of a man?
Hey hey, I only posted my views because I thought the entire reason people were upset in this thread was that Wildfire posted a lame and contentless debate. If people wanted to debate, then we can debate about something, I figured.
However, I dont desire to defend my viewpoints tooth-and-nail and to the death, a la The Pit. Things get very ugly here, very fast. I just thought I’d get things started, since that’s what everyone was complaining about. No desire to troll, honest!
If people really want to hear my opinions and see me do my best to try to explain and defend them, then that person is free to start a thread in GD. It’s not my cup of tea, but I made my bed and I’ll sleep in it, politefully and in GD, if that’s what people desire.
Sorry if I pissed anyone off. I guess I was trying to help Wildfire a bit, and it backfired :smack:
Try reading some of his prior threads before trying to help him too much. He has repeatedly proved himself a simple minded, misogynistic, waste of air that those with rational thoughts could be using. His most recent locked thread leads me to think he’s also a homophobe.
It isn’t that we can’t, its that we don’t in most cases.
Ever had a blowjob? That would be unnatural and agaist divine law since it can’t result in reproduction.
I like your take on this, but want to additionally respond to the original supposition.
I’d add that if “natural” is what we’re after, wouldn’t that which is more “manifest” be more natural? I mean, I’ve seen homosexuality manifested quite convincingly; seen it, smelt it, touched, felt it, tasted it, caressed . . ., oh, what were we talking about again?
Bottom line, homosexuality quite manifestly exists; god and all his purported laws don’t. Which is more natural – that which you can see, or that which you have to take a giant leap in order for it to be real to you?
Gods are unnatural. They, according to their own supposed official life stories, violate the laws of nature at every turn and expect us to worship them for upsetting the system. Natural law is orderly, divine law is capricious. Divine law, in addition to the gods themselves, is unnatural and therefore inferior to nature. Humans and the acts of humans are consistent with natural law and therefore a part of nature. Gods, assuming they do exist, should take their rightful places as servants of humanity or prepare to be destroyed.
I love this kind of argument. The concept “normal” is totally artificial; an entirely manmade abstraction. But somehow it’s more logically acceptable than homosexuality . . . which happens in nature every day.
I am interested in hearing your opinions on this, so I’ll be starting a thread in GD about this. I’ll link it to this post if I get back within the 5 minute window. If not, I’ll provide the link further in this thread.
Well, I am a man of my word. Forgive me if I dont post right away, because I want to make sure I express myself in a crystal clear and non-offensive manner.
The last thing I want to do is get pitted over a thread in the pit where I opened up my big fat mouth and went to GD, and then go back to the pit. or something like that…
Actually, he didn’t; “virgin” was a mistranslation by the Greek authors of the Septuagint, or pre-Christian translation, of the Hebrew almah in Isiaiah: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…”. Almah should have been rendered as “young woman”, but mistakenly became the Greek parthenos, meaning “woman who has not had sex”. To quote Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, “It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciple in order that the {mistranslated} prophecy should seem to be fulfilled.”
Just to be clear, are you saying that it is a generally accepted Christian tenet that Jesus was the product of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary? I’m not arguing; I’ve just never heard that before.
