Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...

by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  reniaa

  tuesday firstly your words 'beneficial for populations of animals' is a large exageration they have found a few cases in the animal kingdom and use these as examples but also there is the element of humans anthromorphising animal behaviour sexually take the following.

  Is dogs sniffing each other bums sexual behaviour? No! Unless an action directly involves a complete sexual act things like grooming and suchlike behaviour between animals samesex or otherwise could be us sexualising what is just social behaviour between animals. Humans tend to mark certain body areas as purely sexual in context and any contact with them as sexual but animals do not reason like that so smelling a bum would have no sexual meaning for them.

  the point has been made that man is held to a higher standard than animals by God and so animals cannot be used as an excuse no-one has shown a credible alternative to this point.

  the bible as I said above is very clear that the only sexual contact God approves of is between a man and his wife and people try to blur this by taking individual scriptures out of biblical context but this is a complete bible truth.

  this theme runs through both the hebrew scriptures and the greek scriptures. Jesus completely followed the husband has one wife viewpoint.

  So i'm not sure why you think trying to make a point that the hebrew scriptures are obsolete is relevent even if it was true WHICH IT ISN't. Jesus fulfilled the law and so many parts we didn't have to follow but we still very much had to keep our standards if anything Jesus was strictor since it was principle.

  Matthew 5:27-29 (New International Version)

  27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' [a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

  Romans 6:15-16 (New International Version)

  15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
• 

  quietlyleaving

  reniaa

  Renaiaa, I was amazed to learn that at one time there were several species of humans on the earth - only one specie, homo sapiens (us) survived. Climate change and disease mainly, but also aggression and territorial fighting etc all took their toll.

  The verses from Leviticus you have quoted seem, to me, to be nation building instructions for survival. In this light the sexual drive would need to be focused ruthlessly on reproduction as the main aim. I can understand why the laws set out in the Pentateuch would be attractive to the FDS as they always insist that they want to establish themselves as a new nation of people globally ... but I'm not sure they know what to do with the sexual drive as it seems to have a mind of its own

  edit: I like this verse from your post on page 3

  Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 (New International Version) 18 "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [a] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

  meaninglessness can be a deadend or it can represent a new start - "all go the same place, all come from dust"
• 

  reniaa

  Hi quietlyleaving I am very much a fan of pick one road and walk it viewpoint. a mix of cherry-picked bible portions and evolution as belief is not for me, it's trying to walk two apposing paths that causes more contradictions than answers. We end up only following our own views and wishes.

  lillith made the point she believes in God but not the bible which I think is foolishness since it invites making a god after your own image and desires of what you want God to be like.

  The bible provides me with knowledge of God that all the personal speculation cannot but I use the whole bible and place scriptures within the context of themes the run throughout the bible both the hebrew and greek scriptures.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

  16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
• 

  Spook

  As a dispassionate observation, it seems that you tend to set up these hypothesis for the purpose of arriving at a predetermined conclusion.

  Hey Mad Dawg. That's accurate here, because it is not the argument I might make about it. I was trying to capture some of the previous posters thoughts more succinctly.

  I'd maintain two things:

  1. If it is true that homosexuality is sometimes natural, then any theism which entails the claim that homosexuality is always a moral failing is false. That seems obvious but it certainly doesn't apply to all or most modern theisms. Whether it applies to a strict reading of the bible may be a different question.

  2. If it is true that homosexuality and some of the other "deviant" sexual behaviors have a natural basis then the fact that these are observed in other species serves as some confirming evidence for the naturalistic hypothesis.

  3. Evidentially (not a logical proof) whether or not the presence of homosexuality in animals is more likely under naturalism than theism is an additional line of argument. Most theistic defenses, while logically possible, are ad hoc or else not well supported by the bible or by the traditional beliefs of the churches. Assuming God exists, these theistic defenses are sound. But from a neutral standpoint it is false to say they are rational evidence against naturalism.

  4. This is all non-normative from naturalism with respect to homosexuality. It has nothing to do with whether or not something "should" be encouraged "if" it is natural.

  I make a very similar argument about alcoholism. There is a strong medical consensus that alcoholism has a large genetic component, a large environmental component in developmental psychology and a small component which would represent "bad choices." This can be a strong argument against some forms of theism.
• 

  Tuesday

  Tuesday, just because something records an event doesn't, it cannot be assumed that the event is condoned by said record. Would I be correct in saying that you approve of what Lot did just because you have a reference to it in your post? God doesn't care what animals do. Your comments about rape are amazingly twisted. If you can be bothered to do so, try putting the relavent verses in their proper textual, social, and historical context.

  Putting the texts into textual, social, and historical context is exactly my point. We don't use these scriptures because they no longer apply to our society, it was an absurd example to show how absurd it would be to try and follow the rules set forth in the old testiment.

  tuesday firstly your words 'beneficial for populations of animals' is a large exageration they have found a few cases in the animal kingdom and use these as examples but also there is the element of humans anthromorphising animal behaviour sexually take the following.
  Is dogs sniffing each other bums sexual behaviour? No! Unless an action directly involves a complete sexual act things like grooming and suchlike behaviour between animals samesex or otherwise could be us sexualising what is just social behaviour between animals. Humans tend to mark certain body areas as purely sexual in context and any contact with them as sexual but animals do not reason like that so smelling a bum would have no sexual meaning for them.

  Please do yourself a favor and research the studies. Homosexual behavior that is documented would be mutual masturbation and penetration. It's hard to mistake that for anything but homosexual behavior.

  the point has been made that man is held to a higher standard than animals by God and so animals cannot be used as an excuse no-one has shown a credible alternative to this point.

  Hello red herring, the question was not whether humans should be held to a higher standard. The question is why would God condemn something he created? I have not seen you show a credible answer to this question.

  the bible as I said above is very clear that the only sexual contact God approves of is between a man and his wife and people try to blur this by taking individual scriptures out of biblical context but this is a complete bible truth

  .

  Unless you talk about the raping Hebrew men inflicted upon their surrounding neighbors, which was done by God's command.

  So i'm not sure why you think trying to make a point that the hebrew scriptures are obsolete is relevent even if it was true WHICH IT ISN't. Jesus fulfilled the law and so many parts we didn't have to follow but we still very much had to keep our standards if anything Jesus was strictor since it was principle.

  So who gets to choose which OT laws we keep and which ones we discard? Do we have to keep all of them, some of them, none of them. Really what's the answer on this?
• 

  DaCheech

  reniaa, you have still not addressed my point: how can we use the bible for any law, when it contradicts itself more than the star trek saga?
• 

  truthseeker

  Interesting subject.

  I don't think God intended animals to behave that way; they generally act according to instinct coupled with random processes and environmental change.

  If you put all the male penguins on a small remote island, chances are some of them will be gay.

  I have never observed homosexuality in animals. The odd fluctuation in mating habits does not mean this is a common occurence.
• 

  truthseeker

  To compare homosexuality in animals and humans is like comparing apples with oranges.

  If we talk about homosexuality we should include the third group, ex-gays. They can change their behavior if they want to, they are not forced into doing so. Granted, not everyone who has gone down this route can change, but many have.

  I know a work mate who is single but struggles with homosexual tendencies. He hates it and himself for feeling that way. It's a constant struggle for him. He knows it is wrong and he is not a JW.
• 

  Tuesday

  If you put all the male penguins on a small remote island, chances are some of them will be gay.
  I have never observed homosexuality in animals. The odd fluctuation in mating habits does not mean this is a common occurence.

  The studies that have been done are in the wild, external tests aside. Please research the studies, 85% of all sexual relations between the American Bison are between same sex. This is not an odd fluctuation by any means.

  If we talk about homosexuality we should include the third group, ex-gays. They can change their behavior if they want to, they are not forced into doing so. Granted, not everyone who has gone down this route can change, but many have.

  We should discuss this. People can and do inflict tremendous amount of torture upon themselves, they can sever their own limbs the mind is an interesting thing. People can remain celebate their entire lives as well. If homosexuality is in nature as an instinct it could as well be in humans as well, just because we COULD override it by strong will-power doesn't answer the question if God created it why condemn it?

  I don't think God intended animals to behave that way; they generally act according to instinct coupled with random processes and environmental change.

  Where would they get this instinct from, did God create them without instinct and they came up with this on their own?
• 

  truthseeker

  Tuesday,

  I will research the studies - wow, 85% of American Bison...

  Ex-gays are often ignored in discussions about homosexuality, but their input can be valuable.

  You refer to this therapy as torture, and you are likely right - Jesus did say that we would have to keep on knocking, keep on asking and struggle through the narrow door - it wasn't meant to be easy.

  I don't think God directly created it, otherwise why does it provoke so much controversy? He would have made it perfectly clear in the scriptures that it was acceptable if he created it.

  For animals, I don't have an answer as to why it happens - I don't believe they are conscious of what they do, at least not in the way we are.

  If the Garden of Eden story is true, then eating the fruit gave them the knowledge of other possibilities.