hydrolythe:
For somebody trying not to be homophobic you sure do are pretty damn homophobic. Here are all my issues:
1: There are no innate laws of nature. We didn't even reproduce sexually until the algae came along, which is certainly a long time. There is definitely the Christian metaphysical statement that we are created male and female, but it remains just that.
2: Great that you're propagating the theory that being gay causes AIDS. I'd say that the main reason AIDS is so prevalent is because of religious rallies against the condom and comprehensive sexual education. The virus will spread regardless of what our sexual orientation is.
3: The Bible clearly says that it was because they wanted to distance themselves from other cultures where homosexual seks was prevalent. Why even adding AIDS to the equation?
4: For some reasons Christians like you don't seem to have trouble with people who lend at interest, despite it clearly being against the Bible. Why is that? I'd say because that doesn't disgust people anymore.
Jacob Harrison:
1. Well what cause Algea to evolve sexually was for reproductive purposes.
2. Lack of sanitation in a hot desert environment like Ancient Israel causes aids. Ass fucking is generally less sanitary than normal vaginal sex. And abstinence only sex education teaches people the harms of sex to scare people into not having sex. It reduces the amount of people who have sex and therefore reduces aids.
3. I was referring to why it was dealt with harshly in the Old Testament not why it is forbidden in the New Testament.
4. I have a problem with lending at interest but unfortunetely that has prevailed today. In Merry Old England, laws were passed against lending at interest.
hydrolythe:
1. There is no "higher purpose" in evolution. I'd say that it was because sexual reproduction offered advantages at the time of the evolution happening.
2: Nope. Ass fucking and vaginal sex are equally unsanitory. Also, you act like you've never heard of the condom.
3: I too was referring to this. We might have differing translations, but mine clearly states that it was because of this.
Jacob Harrison:
1. Since our sexual hormones evolved for procreation, we should use it for procreation.
2. I heard of condoms but heard that even condoms are not 100 percent effective at preventing infections. Besides it is better to teach abstinence so that people don’t accidentally forget to use a condom which happens.
In the harsh unsanitary environment in ancient Israel the buttcrack would be full of bacteria from the persons shit so back then, anal sex was less sanitary.
3. Does it say that in the Old Testament or the New Testament in your Bible. Show me the verses and I’ll see what those verses say in the Latin Vulgate.
hydrolythe:
1: It is not because something has evolved for procreation that we ought to use it for procreation. Just because something "is" it does not mean that we "ought" to do it.
2: And what when abstinence fails?
You're also delusional if you think that the butt is less sanitary than the vagina. Both are equally likely to get you an STD.
3: It does say in the Old Testament. Specifically Leviticus 18:3
Jacob Harrison:
1. But not using it for what it is supposed to do goes against the laws of nature.
2. Well it will fail less when people will be taught abstinence. And when it fails, well a new baby ?? will be born.
3. It does say that it is an abomination. But that was not the reason why it was dealt with harshly in Leviticus. Remember, it was a harsh desert environment and toilet paper has not been invented yet. Imagine all the bacteria from the dirty buttcrack. ??
hydrolythe:
1: What laws of nature?
2: Dude. Having a baby should not be taken lightly. You'll lose time and money raising it.
3: Leviticus 18:3 says this: "Don't live following the habits of Egyptians where you lived, nor those of the Kana'n where I'll bring you. Don't live your life according to their predicaments and commandments, "
Also, I never said it was harshly dealt with in Leviticus because they believed it was an abomination. I said it was harshly dealt with it because they wanted to differentiate themselves from the other people in their surroundings.
Jacob Harrison:
1. The laws of nature is doing what is most natural. Since sexual hormones evolved for procreation, they should be used for procreation.
2. The baby can be adopted.
3. It was forbidden because God saw it as an abomination. God did not want the Israelites to practice the abominations of the surrounding cultures. However the Bible never says that it was the reason why the punishment was so harsh in the Old Testament.
hydrolythe:
1: There is no "doing most natural". Things mutate first and only after they've mutated we know if they've a purpose or not. Sexual hormones didn't evolve for procreation, they evolved due to different physical-chemical bonds being combined to form a being that can reproduce sexually.
2: Don't you think that adoption clinics are already filled with children? Why add more?
3: Therefore you can't claim to know the answer either.
Jacob Harrison:
1. Yes sexual hormones evolved to produce a being that can reproduce sexually so that there would be genetic diversity. So they did evolve for procreation.
2. The reason why there are so many is because abstinence is not taught.
3. I don’t know all the answers but I try to make the best guesses. It is the most likely explanation because otherwise it makes God’s morality subjective to the context of the time.
hydrolythe:
1: Evolution is not a guided process, but, by our standards, a random process. Homosexuality is just as much a product of evolution as heterosexuality. And since you didn't propose me any moral argument against it, let me propose one in favor of it. Namely, that they have happiness acting upon it and that if you forbid it, that you don't maximise happiness.
2: So does abstinence. And besides you're commiting the perfect solution fallacy. It's not because a solution isn't perfect that we shouldn't learn how to use it.
I'll leave you with this: "The perfect is the enemy of good." - Voltaire
3: So you agree that if a dog does something right and decent, even if that dog has no knowledge of what is right and decent, that it is a moral agent. This is weird, but I'll go with it. I disagree, for one, that one needs God in order to be moral under the definition you propose. Utilitarianism, for instance, is an objective moral code without God under the definition you proposed, since it says that maximizing the human happiness is a goal in itself. I would even say that it is more moral than God under that definition, because there are several rules in the Bible that prevent you from doing good works to people, such as not allowing the Ammonites and Moabites to become citizens of Israel.
Jacob Harrison:
1. Regardless of whether you believe that God was the mastermind, guiding the process of evolution or not, we know that it is the environment that causes the organisms to evolve. I am aware of the evidence that some homosexuals evolved as population control, but that does not mean that all homosexuals are born homosexual. Besides, for the ones that are, well that makes their sexual hormones a useless holdover like the appendix. It cannot be used for it’s evolutionary purpose of procreation, so it must not be used. Homosexuals can have as much happiness master-bating.
2. I am not commiting the perfect solution fallacy. I am saying that abstinence is a better solution than contraception because it is the only way to prevent pregnancies.
3. God wants to maximize human happiness, but he sets righteous guidelines to prevent bad things from happening. The Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to become citizens because they were a threat to Israel.