DiscussMormonism.com

JAK wrote:harmony,

What is required here is a working and workable definition of sin.

We do not have one.

Sure, we do. Sin is whatever the religious group under discussion says it is. The different groups may not agree on degrees or specifics, but they certainly agree that it exists.

You have in no way refuted that analysis by example or by definition. You have not addressed it.

And I see no reason to. Sin is a religious concept. You don't believe in religion. How can you discuss something when you have no frame of reference? I could quote scripture, prophets, and apologists, and you would still not have any dog in the fight... because you are not a believer. So why would you care what believers believe? Or which is correct? You think we're all wrong.

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.

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

Hi Josh!

My, but it has been a while since I've had a discussion with you.

First, I agree that reproduction is a hard-wired compulsion. Right down to cell meiosis, organisms do what they must in order to survive as a species and that entails reproduction. Sure, it sounds a little unromantic to strip sex down to the bare nuts and bolts of it, but that is indeed the basis. It is also a very good thing that the pleasure thing is built in as well. (As a tangent related sidenote, I was watching the TV show Dirty Jobs a couple of days ago and the guy was sheering llamas and assisting them with "mating." We learned that the female llama is self-ovulating. If she is not pregnant, whenever approached by a male llama she will graciously submit to being mounted. Once she has a fertilized egg, she will not allow the male to be anywhere near her and will spit and kick at him, even if that egg has been fertilized only a week. I actually know some women who are like this. *smile*)

Now as to mechanism failure. I think this is a bit more complex. If you look at it broadly, I'm not so sure it is a mechanism failure, but a mechanism maintenance. Mankind as a social group has evolved. We are no longer in danger or becoming extinct due to lack of numbers. We are overpopulated. Is it possible that certain sexual deviancies exist in a minor percentage of the population to try to control the balance of numbers in any given species? Is mother nature that smart? Would you allow for that possibility?

Just thinking aloud here. I hope all is going well in your world.

Trinity

Trinity wrote:Hi Josh!

My, but it has been a while since I've had a discussion with you.

First, I agree that reproduction is a hard-wired compulsion. Right down to cell meiosis, organisms do what they must in order to survive as a species and that entails reproduction. Sure, it sounds a little unromantic to strip sex down to the bare nuts and bolts of it, but that is indeed the basis. It is also a very good thing that the pleasure thing is built in as well. (As a tangent related sidenote, I was watching the TV show Dirty Jobs a couple of days ago and the guy was sheering llamas and assisting them with "mating." We learned that the female llama is self-ovulating. If she is not pregnant, whenever approached by a male llama she will graciously submit to being mounted. Once she has a fertilized egg, she will not allow the male to be anywhere near her and will spit and kick at him, even if that egg has been fertilized only a week. I actually know some women who are like this. *smile*)

Now as to mechanism failure. I think this is a bit more complex. If you look at it broadly, I'm not so sure it is a mechanism failure, but a mechanism maintenance. Mankind as a social group has evolved. We are no longer in danger or becoming extinct due to lack of numbers. We are overpopulated. Is it possible that certain sexual deviancies exist in a minor percentage of the population to try to control the balance of numbers in any given species? Is mother nature that smart? Would you allow for that possibility?

Just thinking aloud here. I hope all is going well in your world.

Trinity

I am discussing it in the "Celestial" forums. This area is for the birds (and wierdos like Itchy and Scratchy)

JMS

jskains wrote:(and wierdos like Itchy and Scratchy)

Scratchie doesn't hold a candle to Mr. Itchy and his blog. Be thankful you missed out on that nightmare.

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!

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

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). ;)

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