faerhyne

I think it means you buggered someone and got them knocked up.

Anyway, I suppose that those other things (incest, adultery, etc.) could also be construed as God looking out for our best interest. If you sleep around too much, you can get diseases, etc. I'm not sure about the incest part--as far as I know, there are no side effects from incest unless it's been going on for generations. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

aychamo

It must be easy to write things like the above when you have, in fact, not studied animal behavior or reproduction. Everything you said regarding animals is so entirely incorrect that I would have to spend hours pouring over a post that you probably wouldn't read to point out the errors and instruct you of the correct way of thinking.

Alternatively, you can continue to write lies in defense of your god, or you can get a textbook on animal behavior and study it.

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.

Ojuice5001

Aychamo,

I think the chances are that you misinterpreted what I was saying about animals. Of course, I don't know for sure, but I think it's likely. Look at the context.

The first thing to note is that the OP was about a large-scale trend in the policies of Yahweh and Allah. Namely, their interest in human sexual practices, and their (so it seemed to Hinduwoman) indifference to those of other animals.

Now, the stuff I said was about trends on that same time-scale--amounts of time that are measured in centuries and millenia. Therefore, when I said that animals' sexual behavior doesn't change (which was about the only point I made about animal behavior, so you must have meant that), I meant that it doesn't change on that time-scale. I meant that humans' sexual practices are different today than they were a thousand years ago, but seagulls are more or less the same. It is true that individual animals change their sexual habits, and the gods do sometimes take an interest in this, but that's not the kind of thing that shows up in a god's revelations. It is also true that evolutionary pressures change their sexual habits, but that's on a larger scale than that which the Abrahamic revelations were designed for, and again, isn't the kind of thing you'd expect to see in them.

What I actually meant was that animals' behavior doesn't change on the centuries-and-millenia time-scale. I sometimes badly phrase statements like this, and it becomes more likely that I will, the less central it is to my main point. In this case, what I was saying was indeed somewhat peripheral to my point. You may have thought it was more central than it was.

Also, it is false that I have never read a book on animal behavior. If you correctly understood what I was saying, and it was as wrong as you said, there still must be some other explanation of why I was this wrong. For instance, maybe I didn't understand the book. But as I said, the most likely explanation is that I badly phrased the thought I had in mind.

mrmoderate

Incest does weaken the immune system. Just look at some of those goofsfrom Medeviel royalty.

I would assume the not sleeping with your father's wife even if she is not your mother is a respect thing. It could also be for health reasons. If your father caught you sleeping with his wife it could be very unhealthy for you.

jenergy

It's glaringly obvious to me that all "God's" rules regarding sex have to do w/ humanity's discomfort w/ it AT THE TIME THE RULES WERE WRITTEN. The men (and I mean MEN here, not humans) who wrote all that crap figured, "Hey, if it feels this good, it must be bad," as they thought about nearly everything (I think this answers the alcohol/narcotic question too). Sadly, those self-depricating ideals haven't changed much since those dudes first came up w/ them.

And you want to know the biggest, most beautiful proof AGAINST the idea that sex is for procreation only? The clitoris. Thank you.

Ojuice5001

Aychamo,

I don't know if you know how it works, but here's what's supposed to happen. Say I do make a factual error about a subject along the lines of animal behavior. What you should do is post actual facts, or links thereto, to correct me, and do so with a minimum of insult. I really think you should do that now.

Of course, some people are closed-minded, refusing to be corrected about even factual, scientific matters. You appeared to think I was one of them. Maybe this will convince you otherwise.

Pre-Christian France

In this thread, I make the observation that Wicca is a strongly Celtic religion. Now, this could be described as a half-truth, and many people with a passing acquaintance with Wicca are under this impression. And it was moderately important to my point. All of this is true of the thing I said about animals' sexual behaviori n this thread. So what happens when Heathen Dawn corrects me, saying that Wicca has only a superficial connection with actual ancient Celtic religion? I accept that my claim, as I set it out, fell short of being accurate.

There, that proves that I sometimes allow myself to be corrected about factual matters. And there was really no reason for you to think that I wouldn't be in this case. So how about it? Was I wrong, and if so, why?

You'll probably ignore this, like you have previous times. But if so, this may not be the last time I bump this up. It's likely that I will feel like it again. I will not bump it up again if either the moderators tell me not to or close the thread, or you actually come back to defend your derogation of me. Further bumpings, if such there are, will probably not be a reiteration of what I've said to you before, but rather, some kind of other words. But the message is there.

orpheus last chant

He just loves overpopulation, women breeding themselves to sickness and death, families with too many children to support for them, and preventing ourselves from exercising that powerful instinct that he himself has given us. Hmmm....

So lesbians are fine with God? Ooh, how reasuring.

Apart from "non-productive" so is hetero sex. In fact, so is blood donation. Many, many people end up having happy productive lives out of it, but some very small percent get, I don't know, infected with a needle. Driving a car has a potential of bodily harm. Should that be a sin?


And keep in mind that what you have said so far to the question "Why is concerned God with human sexuality?" is "Cuz God is concerned with the aspect of human sexuality related to reproduction" That isn't more of an explanation then the proverbial "Goddidit".


Can't he just recommend condoms and explain safe procedures? That seems a lot easier than denying a hole class of people's desires, that he himself has created!

Oh, and let me point out how he simply looks for our best interest:
"Yo gay people, how dare you show affection one towards another, I'll show you my love by condemning you to be stoned to death", thus said the Lord.


But one spouse per life, and only one, Buddha forbid to be the same gender as you!


I find the "guidelines" in Leviticus and Deutronomy complete with the How's and Why's of execution methods TM a little too disturbing.

Ojuice5001

Aychamo,

Please come back and explain why I'm wrong. I said something that reflected my understanding of an issue, and you wrote a post in a rude tone that says I'm wrong, but without saying anything substantive about why I'm wrong. You also made the false assumption that I've never read a book on animal behavior (maybe other false assumptionsas well). Either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I misunderstood the stuff I've read on animal behavior, or the stuff I've read didn't cover the reasons why my comment was wrong.

My understanding is that human behavior is far more influenced by culture than other animals, and that makes it more changeable. Cultural trends can have an effect in a few generations that cannot be matched by genetic change in the same number of generations. It's true that other things, such as climate, can have a comparable effect, but for some reason I didn't think of that. Please don't hold that against me. :banghead:

I would think that an issue along these lines can be simplified a reasonably short length, like that of this post. I think you should try, anyway.

orac

Are you serious? Have you ever even read the bible? I'm afraid the christian God has a thing against lesbians as well. (He's keen on lions and lambs lying down together, though. I'm still a little worried about that one - full grown felines and baby sheep? What's up with that?)

It's so strange that god hates gay men, gay women, and shellfish eaters, yet modern christians do tend to focus their hatred on gay men. What is it with you people? Can't you please try a little consistency?

Personally I don't even care if you've got a perfect and inarguable explanation for why some of the rules in leviticus no longer apply and some do. What bothers me is that if your god is real, he keeps changing the rules, and never provides any explanation for why the rules are there. Still, at least he has his followers to put their words in his mouth.


Ah, so God is trying to save us from the beings that he created? Why didn't he just create diseases to be benign, then noone would care?

Sodomy can bring pleasure. Many forms of heterosexual sexual activity have the possibility of passing some of God's little creatures from one person to another. Life-saving blood transfusions can pass terrible diseases, er, sorry, I mean God's precious viruses, to virgins who've devoted their lives to serving their deity of choice (including the christian deity).

Fortunately some christians have worked that one out, and will let their children die rather than let them have blood transfusions. Um. On second thoughts, "fortunately" may not be precisely the best word to use there. Dammit. Do you really worship a being who gives you a choice between watching your children die or risking giving them a terrible and fatal disease? How can you justify that?

Yet somehow you think that commanding the death of homosexuals is a better plan than, for example, not creating disease in the first place, or designing the human body to be more resillient.

Are you quite serious? Can you not see any flaws in that argument at all?


Where? A moment ago we were talking about the christian god. I'll grant your point that some religions don't have such obsessive control freaks for deities though.


Ok, back to the christians. Cool. So what you're saying is that, at best, the christian god thinks that strictly controlled and limited sex is better than actually enjoying pleasure - and that sex is a distraction from important things that should be avoided if at all possible.

That's really the best you can do? Well, answer the original question: what is it that inspires God's need to control and restrict sex? Why is marriage essential? Is sex so distracting that Jesus is still waiting for us all to finish having sex and get the important work done before he can come back? Is that why roughly 2000 years after Paul was completely and totally wrong about the second coming we're still waiting? Sorry about that. I'll get right onto the important work right away - well, as soon as you tell me what the work is, anyway.

While you're at it, what complete and total moron could possibly decide that sex is a terrible distraction, and then make sex a requirement for procreation? Isn't that just asking for trouble?

Do you worship the universe's most retarded deity, or is there actually a sensible reason for that plan? Btw, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not impressed with that argument - it only makes sense if you assume that your deity couldn't come up with a better plan.


Really? Ah, so are you prepared to admit that the bible was written by men with issues, and is in fact not representative of God's views? Yes? Well, the alternative is for you to continue to claim that the Bible is giving us useful and valuable advice from God. Which is it? How do we tell what's meant literally, what's trying to scare us off doing dangerous things and what's the result of men with issues instead of being God's idea?


Really? Even though you've been arguing that it's right and proper for God to condem such evil behaviour?

I little while ago I asked for some consistency. I really would like you to make up your mind before trying to tell us what's on God's mind.

I would be interested to know why you think "jesus will be back any year soon" justifies you engaging in activities that you've been claiming are harmful to others and that the bible condems as "evil" rather than simply "dangerous".


Ah, so you subscribe to the "protection through threat" school, rather than "protection through factual education" plan? Yes?

That's quite interesting. Any thoughts as to why God describes these dangerous things as "abominations worthy of immediate (but painful) execution" instead of just explaining why they're dangerous?

Do you have any idea how much pain and suffering could have been avoided if God had actually been slightly clearer with his message?

Many christians claim that God "had" to give the Bible to us by inspiring people to write it and that He did the best he could with the people he had available - which would explain why it's so tainted with human prejudices and hatreds. It's a lovely idea, but I have to wonder why anyone would worship such a weak and impotent deity - anyone who can't even write a book (while allegedly performing great miracles on demand for many of his followers) just doesn't sound like a very impressive god.



The original question was "why does god obsess about people's sex lives" and apparantly the answer is "because the alternatives were to educate them, spare them from terrible suffering and death, or perhaps both."