Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

Post by _Moniker »

jskains wrote:
Moniker wrote:
jskains wrote:
Moniker wrote:
jskains wrote:Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it.

Just my thoughts...

JMS



My thoughts: Bah!

How absurd. Sex is for so much more than procreation. Fun! Intimacy! Orgasm! Spirituality! Love! Just a good ole wiggle in the sack does a world of good, I think!

Goodness, I haven't read the thread but I sincerely feel for your wife. Do you not have intercourse when she's pregnant? How about after she goes through menopause?

Good gawd!


Like I said.. Maturity runs low here.

JMS


I bet nookie runs low there (at your house). ;)


Even though I know we hijacked nature and now abuse the pleasures of sex, nowhere did I say I didn't partake. I also recognise God's master artwork... The female form :)

JMS


Nature intended sex to be pleasurable -- or else we wouldn't do it. :)
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

Post by _jskains »

Nature intended sex to be pleasurable -- or else we wouldn't do it. :)


Exactly.. Sex is enjoyable so we would do it and continue the species.

JMS
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Analysis of Claims regarding "sin"

Post by _JAK »

harmony wrote:
JAK wrote:The issue is not what someone likes. The issue is definition upon which there is consensus. No consensus has been established for “sin.”


In the LDS church, there is certainly a consensus for what is sin. What is considered a sin outside of the LDS church does not concern members of the LDS church. I'm not sure you understand that.

And religious notions (in the plural) of “sin” lack consensus as my post demonstrated.

JAK


Only in your mind. In the mind of LDS, and much of the conservative EV world, religious notions of sin prevail.


------------------------------------
harmony states:
In the LDS church, there is certainly a consensus for what is sin. What is considered a sin outside of the LDS church does not concern members of the LDS church. I'm not sure you understand that.


Let’s see that “consensus” in a list of “sins.” You can hardly argue with any integrity that sin is sin. Killing your wife/husband hardly equates to stealing a package of gum. While you may contend both are “sin,” you would be in a most indefensible position to contend that they are equal.

Hence, harmony, you continue to beg the question which I have posed.

You have established no LDS consensus let alone general religious consensus.

Are you aware that only today a Muslim woman was executed for a “sin.” The “sin” was that she was riding in a car with a man (just two people in the car) who was not a relative or hers or her husband. In Islam, that was “a sin” which received fatal punishment.

As I stated previously and to which you have offered no refutation: SIN IS RELATIVE.

So, let’s see your list.

Objectively speaking, LDS is but one of more than 1,000 groups which regard themselves as Christian. And as you have failed to offer any refutation: These groups do not agree on religious doctrines and dogmas. LDS is only one of the many dogmas.

I’m skeptical that there is as much agreement as you claim.

See this series of discussions on Mormon validity.

See Marg’s discussion here and elsewhere regarding the dishonesty in the evolution of Mormonism.

Of course if one lives in one’s own cave only, one can pretend there is nothing outside the cave. It appears to me that you are at least attempting to do that.

You’re unresponsive to questions. You substitute assertion for discussion.

Keep in mind the the emergence and evolution of religious myths including myths about “sin” have taken place over extended periods of time in human evolution and cultural evolution within civilizations.

Mormonism is a very late comer to the Protestant Reformation (1517).

You appear to be oblivious to the historical realities of evolving religious perspectives over many centuries.

But, based on your statement, you should be able to provide a list of sins in order of severity as you claim consensus in Mormonism.

I’m skeptical that you can do it. You dodge the issues regarding consensus and merely claim they exist. I have given you an example from Islam which is far different from any examples you can cite in LDS let alone Christianity in general in which “sin” is RELATIVE not absolute.

JAK
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Analysis of Claims regarding "sin"

Post by _harmony »

JAK wrote:But, based on your statement, you should be able to provide a list of sins in order of severity as you claim consensus in Mormonism.


I am not about to give you a list of something with which you have no connection. If you're that curious about a list of sins according to LDS doctrine, I suggest you contact the bishop of the ward in your area, or church headquarters. I am not about to be backed into a corner and get into a debate about anything doctrinal, especially with a known atheist whose frame of reference is limited to his own experience. You are not a believer; you have no dog in any discussion of "sin" since you don't have any applicable frame of reference. Any definition that I work with is applicable only to myself, as I don't set myself up as a judge of Isreal, and have no authority nor do I claim such. I gave you a general concept of sin, as I understand it within the LDS framework. If you want more than that, I suggest contacting someone who has the authority to declare doctrine; that would not be me.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

jskains wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
jskains wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Posts like the one that started this thread are fine examples of why I tend not to discuss things like homosexuality with Mormons, and simply dismiss the person as "just another Mormon dumbass." It's not worth the effort to try to force common sense on lower life forms.


And it is comments like that where I don't discuss legit issues with blockheads like yourself.

JMS


Judging from your posts on this board, you can't discuss your way out of a wet paper bag. You actually make charity seem coherent... well, almost.

I appreciate the blockhead comment, by the way. Anytime an idiot calls me a name, it's a validation of my intelligence.


Go back to pre-school. Recess is over.

JMS


Ooooo, zinger. *rolls eyes* This is the best you can do?

I suppose I should quit imagining religious types can come up with decent come backs. So much for the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Post Reply