Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 12-22-2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ojuice5001

I stand corrected; what's with the attitude?

I guess my point was that animals don't have cultural trends that change their sexual systems. They change on a larger time scale than human sexual practices. I know that there is both individual variability in animal sexual practices, and evolutionary change over time. I just don't think that the variations in the sexual behavior of one species of scorpion or bird are as striking as the pendulum of promiscuity and fidelity, late and early mating, and so on, that humans go through. Of course, for all I know there are other species that do go through changes of that magnitude, but surely the majority do not.

These are not "lies in defense of [my] god." Anytime a species of animal is going through changes in its sexual practices, that is material for the gods to work with, no more and no less than anything else. My comments were not so much an apologetic as an application of ideas about how the gods act to the facts of the world--facts which I apparently stated or believed wrongly.

Feel free to post any kind of data about the sexual behavior of nonhuman animals that you want, if you can do it without insults. For my part, I will allow it to change my ideas of the gods' dealings with animals in any way that the theoretical implications would indicate.

Basically, there are animals that are completely free of any sort of "captivity" and engage in oral sex, homosexual intercourse, etc in their natural environment.

Cynthia of Syracuse · 12-22-2004, 07:49 PM

Folks, this thread has been dead for eight months. Ojuice, the poster you address hasn't been logged in for the same amount of time. Why the necromancing?

Ojuice5001 · 12-22-2004, 08:28 PM

Sorry about the necromancy. The reason was that I was quite insulted by what aychamo said to me. I couldn't figure out what about my post was even wrong, let alone wrong enough that I deserved his tone. His post didn't make it at all clear what his objection was.

I didn't have in mind the same variations on sexual behavior that some other people might have had. My view is that although Yahweh does have a problem with homosexuality, the activity of a few alternative lifestyles is not the most important issue. He happens to be getting the Christians to talk as if it were, but that's mere demagougery.

The more important thing to consider is fidelity vs. promiscuity. Humans, and some other animals, are a species that forms sexual bonds. Our societies would be very different if they weren't based on this assumption. It may or may not be possible to have a viable human society founded on promiscuity, but it can't be easy.

Humans are a monogamous species that can depart from its monogamy. It makes a lot of difference if we do, and it tends to be for the worse. So most of the gods want to uphold the monogamous status quo, although there are probably gods who like the idea of promiscuity--certainly Pan is likely to be one. That's the concept I was speaking from primarily; homosexuality is mostly harmless, but widespread fatherless families are not.

The idea was that humans and geese are both best off being monogamous. But there's no danger that large numbers of geese will fail to realize this. That's the contrast I was trying to make.

Aychamo had a problem with my post, but I thought it was likely that he was reading something into it that wasn't there. I couldn't figure out what it was, though. I did not mean to imply that other animals never engage in non-reproductive sex, and had known that they did. My point was rather that if a species of animal doesn't ever engage in homosexuality, it starts only gradually, not suddenly. At least, most of the time.

I bumped the thread up because I don't like it when these things go unresolved. What show no mercy said probably was what aychamo had in mind, but I never would have thought of it on my own. Now it finally has been resolved, and I can forget about it. The occasion for doing it now is that I was 500 posts away in my post history from the time of the thread's origin.

hirotami · 12-22-2004, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

A great deal of God's laws seem to be obsessed with how to have sex, with whom to have sex. Disobey that and the punishment specially for women is terrible. But Why would God care what we get upto in the privacy of our bedrooms?

Since Jehovah preferred virgin birth for his son, it is obvious he does not swing either way. If he is not a hetero himself, why is he so bent out of shape about gays? And he did not marry Mary either when she became pregnant. So why all this fuss about unwed mothers?

Allah is even more abstract; never even cared to have a son. So why should someone who is formless and asexual have such interest? Maybe he is impotent in reality and this is the way he gets his jollies?
One surah even speaks of how if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, the angels sit up all night cursing her. They don't have anything to do except peep in at bedrooms? Maybe they curse the wife because they missed the free show?

So why would the Omnipotent Ineffable Lord of the universe bother about sexlife of his humble subjects? And I have noticed apparently he does not care about the sexuality of animals who are his creations too. So why does he get all hot and bothered about human sex?
Or O shocking thought! HE does not care, but those who write the books in his name do since they are human themselves.

Before I sate my thought about the restriction of sex out of marriage in the Bible, in many countries I know, (wo)men cheat the spouses, the Bible prohibits or not.
I don’t think there is any difference in the ratio of the act by country, religion or culture.
Because to men, their wives are God ? It seems the substance of marriage is more universal than race and religion.
Seems to me, Protestant is more strict than Catholic.
Because of Protestant divorce is easier than it’s of Catholic ?
No country is mentally strict than England and the USA, imo.
If anyone is expert about this matter or knows website I can visit, please let me know.

Ok, why does the Bible concern so much about our sex life.
The Bible loves to talk about our sin: our desires on this earth. God created us in that way. Then Bible talk about nothing but Jesus and love of Jesus.
Eating and sex were most important thing for ancient human, still is for a gay like me.
Without them we were not here.
And wealth, power, noble, fame etc. came to human after eating and sex.
I have an interesting study of ancient tombs about sex, wealth, marriage of that age.
Anyway, get back to the Bible.
The Bible denies all of our desires, we don’t know what to do.
Then here comes the Savior, our Jesus.
Jesus was for people at bottom of social layers,
he denied the rich, the powerful, the wise.
God thought how can I punish the poor ?
God must have known the proverb,
Rich gets richer, poor gets babies.

the shadow · 12-23-2004, 03:10 AM

When it came to inventing the United States, God took a step closer to his modern world. He said "How can I punish the poor?" Then he invented the IRS. This truly shows that God doesn't really love us.

braces_for_impact · 12-23-2004, 03:22 AM

Not to mention the whole foreskin thing. I mean, why the omnimax soveriegn ruler and creator of the entire universe has an obsession with the tips of men's penises I have no idea.

Lucretius · 12-23-2004, 06:29 AM

Because it's all about control
If you can control every aspect of a human beings life even down to the natural instinctive sexual urges just think of the power you have over them.

Chaupoline · 12-23-2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

A great deal of God's laws seem to be obsessed with how to have sex, with whom to have sex. Disobey that and the punishment specially for women is terrible. But Why would God care what we get upto in the privacy of our bedrooms?

Since Jehovah preferred virgin birth for his son, it is obvious he does not swing either way. If he is not a hetero himself, why is he so bent out of shape about gays? And he did not marry Mary either when she became pregnant. So why all this fuss about unwed mothers?

Allah is even more abstract; never even cared to have a son. So why should someone who is formless and asexual have such interest? Maybe he is impotent in reality and this is the way he gets his jollies?
One surah even speaks of how if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, the angels sit up all night cursing her. They don't have anything to do except peep in at bedrooms? Maybe they curse the wife because they missed the free show?

So why would the Omnipotent Ineffable Lord of the universe bother about sexlife of his humble subjects? And I have noticed apparently he does not care about the sexuality of animals who are his creations too. So why does he get all hot and bothered about human sex?
Or O shocking thought! HE does not care, but those who write the books in his name do since they are human themselves.

Everything we do has consequences. In the US, we are currently having a problem with underage pregnancies and some people who become too obsessed with sex. Sex isn't the most important thing in the world and yet currently people act as if it is the end all and be all of existance. I can see now why sex was such a taboo subject in the past and I regret that we ever broke down those social taboos. God's rule was a warning to watch out for anything that is taken to extremes.

The circumcision thing was for health benefits, like the dietary laws.

premjan · 12-23-2004, 08:23 AM

with modern hygiene levels, it seems advisable not to circumcise unless the health benefits are quite definite.

braces_for_impact · 12-23-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaupoline

Everything we do has consequences. In the US, we are currently having a problem with underage pregnancies and some people who become too obsessed with sex. Sex isn't the most important thing in the world and yet currently people act as if it is the end all and be all of existance. I can see now why sex was such a taboo subject in the past and I regret that we ever broke down those social taboos. God's rule was a warning to watch out for anything that is taken to extremes.

The circumcision thing was for health benefits, like the dietary laws.

Interesting. Europe, which is increasingly secular, and has much more sex education has less teenage and unwed pregancies than the U.S. Also, since "god's law" included multiple wives, how does that correlate with what we observe today? Some interesting statistics on the matter are here, you have to scroll down a bit:

Here

12-23-2004, 08:23 AM	#29
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	circumcision with modern hygiene levels, it seems advisable not to circumcise unless the health benefits are quite definite.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-22-2004, 07:49 PM	#22
Cynthia of Syracuse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vermont, USA Posts: 2,821	Folks, this thread has been dead for eight months. Ojuice, the poster you address hasn't been logged in for the same amount of time. Why the necromancing?

12-22-2004, 08:28 PM	#23
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Sorry about the necromancy. The reason was that I was quite insulted by what aychamo said to me. I couldn't figure out what about my post was even wrong, let alone wrong enough that I deserved his tone. His post didn't make it at all clear what his objection was. I didn't have in mind the same variations on sexual behavior that some other people might have had. My view is that although Yahweh does have a problem with homosexuality, the activity of a few alternative lifestyles is not the most important issue. He happens to be getting the Christians to talk as if it were, but that's mere demagougery. The more important thing to consider is fidelity vs. promiscuity. Humans, and some other animals, are a species that forms sexual bonds. Our societies would be very different if they weren't based on this assumption. It may or may not be possible to have a viable human society founded on promiscuity, but it can't be easy. Humans are a monogamous species that can depart from its monogamy. It makes a lot of difference if we do, and it tends to be for the worse. So most of the gods want to uphold the monogamous status quo, although there are probably gods who like the idea of promiscuity--certainly Pan is likely to be one. That's the concept I was speaking from primarily; homosexuality is mostly harmless, but widespread fatherless families are not. The idea was that humans and geese are both best off being monogamous. But there's no danger that large numbers of geese will fail to realize this. That's the contrast I was trying to make. Aychamo had a problem with my post, but I thought it was likely that he was reading something into it that wasn't there. I couldn't figure out what it was, though. I did not mean to imply that other animals never engage in non-reproductive sex, and had known that they did. My point was rather that if a species of animal doesn't ever engage in homosexuality, it starts only gradually, not suddenly. At least, most of the time. I bumped the thread up because I don't like it when these things go unresolved. What show no mercy said probably was what aychamo had in mind, but I never would have thought of it on my own. Now it finally has been resolved, and I can forget about it. The occasion for doing it now is that I was 500 posts away in my post history from the time of the thread's origin.

12-23-2004, 03:10 AM	#25
the shadow Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chicago Posts: 65	When it came to inventing the United States, God took a step closer to his modern world. He said "How can I punish the poor?" Then he invented the IRS. This truly shows that God doesn't really love us.

12-23-2004, 03:22 AM	#26
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Not to mention the whole foreskin thing. I mean, why the omnimax soveriegn ruler and creator of the entire universe has an obsession with the tips of men's penises I have no idea.

12-23-2004, 06:29 AM	#27
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	Because it's all about control If you can control every aspect of a human beings life even down to the natural instinctive sexual urges just think of the power you have over them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.