by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends
Well, if someone is going to cop out and use the all purpose "Church Lady" answer of "Could it be SATAN!?" then you're not going to have a very productive conversation.
I think you need to ask yourself what you're REALLY afraid of if you're constantly thinking that demons are responsible for every fear you have.
while working next to a horse field years ago, i personally witnessed one male horse orally engage another male horse's ... er ... parts.
and........these were mennonite horses!! hahaha
LOL...I worked on a sheep ranch for two summers when younger and personally witnessed a lot of queer rams ramming each other.
Male sheep are one of your more homosexual animals, actually.
And remember, these were among the "clean" animals Noah was told to take more of on the ark. LOL
Look,
The argument goes like this:
P1. Were either theism or naturalism true, then any action taken by an agent is either naturally necessary, random or teleological.
P2. Homosexual actions are not random.
P3. At least some homosexual actions are very probably the result of natural necessity.
P4. Were God to exist he would posess at least the following traits:
A. Loving humans.
B. Having created humans as naturally heterosexual.
C. Having a desire for humans to freely choose a relationship with him.
then.
C5. From 2-4 it is very unlikely that God exists.
P6. If naturalism were true, then humans and animals are very probably more similar than under theism.
C7. Therefore we would expect to find natural instances of homosexuality in other animals.
P8. A posteriori: We do find such instances.
C9. Therefore it is both very unlikely that theism is false and also we observe an instance of evidence for naturalism.
Bingo bango.
The two defenses to my argument are the "free will" defense and the "fallen flesh" defense. The former is false because at least some homosexual actions are natural. The latter can be defeated as follows:
Were God to exist he would posess at least the following traits:
1. Having a strong desire for humans to freely choose serving him.
2. Not wanting anything more importantly, with respect to free will, than (1).
It is very unlikely that either of the following would obtain were God to exist:
1. Demons exist and their free will is more important to God than is the free will of humans.
2. God created humans in such a way as to purposefully stack the deck against them, making it natural for them to become naturally homosexual.
The last one relies on an assumption that God is rational, and the biblical position that homosexuality is unnatural. God would not create something natural and then call it unnatural, all things considered, were God a rational being.
The "animals are homosexuals too" argument is wrong for a few basic reasons:
1. From a religious view, humans are supposed to be "above" animals, so using animalistic behavior to justify human behavior is ridiculous.
2. In the JW view, animals are also 'tainted' since man's fall... remember in the new system lions won't eat meat.
3. Animals also have sexual activity with immature animals... yet we don't claim that pedophilia is OK because animals do it. Same goes for murder, cannibalism, or any of the other things that animals do that are unacceptable among humans.
Arguing that homosexuality is natural because it's found in animals is confronting the JW argument as if its basic premise had any validity, which it doesn't.
I get what you're saying fadeout, but maybe we're talking about different conotations. The literal meaning, engaging in sexual behavior with same sex species members is at issue in comparison to a judgement about animals.
I would argue in a discussion about ethics that while we don't condone the other acts you mentioned, we at least know they have a natural foundation. I'd use this as an argument for secular values, whereby a natural solution or prevention is more likely to be effective in preventing these negative common traits than a religious one.
This is the "is / ought" problem. Saying something "is" the case doesn't mean it "ought" to be encouraged or left as is. Hell, there are some naturalists who are opposed to gay rights. I'm not one of them, but they are out there.
My friends in England had two homo dogs. They would grin big doggy grins while buggering each other.
JWs and other fundies are so incorrect when they say homosexuality is unnatural.
P1 Please explain.
P3 How are homosexual actions a natural necessity?
P4 What is your basis for knowing the nature of a non-existing god if he did exist?
C5 Why? Are you saying that God can't exist if there are homosexuals?
P6 What is the basis for this assumption? How did you observe both conditions? How do you make a comparison when only one set of conditions are known to exist? How do you know that this isn't a "less similar" condition?
C7 So? You can choose any similarity you want.
C9 Reading this as written, you are saying that theism is likely true (double negative) and we have one instance of evidence for naturalism. This contradicts C5.
As for "Bingo bango," you seem pretty proud of your self for proving something, but I have no idea what.
The "animals are homosexuals too" argument is wrong for a few basic reasons:
1. From a religious view, humans are supposed to be "above" animals, so using animalistic behavior to justify human behavior is ridiculous.
First off you're not justifying any action, you're asking why would something God created be condemned. When they say humans are "above" animals, that's when you talk about instinct and how humans show this same instinct. An instinct shown in animals could've been instilled in us as well.
2. In the JW view, animals are also 'tainted' since man's fall... remember in the new system lions won't eat meat.
Which brings up an excellent question which can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCj7g6U6xw
For those who don't want to watch, essentially animals are being tainted for man's sin. Which since they don't have a chance at resurrection this would bring up an argument about the justness of God. Punishing and killing animals for the sin man had committed. It's essentially giving someone life without parole in prison for a crime someone else committed.
3. Animals also have sexual activity with immature animals... yet we don't claim that pedophilia is OK because animals do it. Same goes for murder, cannibalism, or any of the other things that animals do that are unacceptable among humans.
Which again you don't say that these things are "unnatural", they are against our current ethic code. If you look in the Bible there is no age of consent, people can marry a six year old if they wanted to and it would be completely acceptable. The key here is that we're arguing the theory of being "unnatural" if something occurs in nature then it by definition cannot be unnatural. If this were me arguing I would ask for a scripture that says pedophilia is wrong and to be condemned. When they can't find one I would ask why pedophilia is condemned in society. When they give their reasons I would say "Well why is it we can condemn things that are not mentioned in the bible, but we can't uncondemn things that are mentioned as condemned in the bible"?
Arguing that homosexuality is natural because it's found in animals is confronting the JW argument as if its basic premise had any validity, which it doesn't.
You're not exactly showing how invalid the argument it, your arguments here have been gone over numerous times and in every case has ended up being abandoned for some other line of defense. If you want to go over it point by point I would love to. I put that video up a year ago and in that year have gone over these arguments ad nauseum at least 100 times.
