Religious Education Forum  

Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!
Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates / General Religious Debates
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-20-2010, 05:16 AM
Misty Offline
Title:BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 1,287
Frubals: 60
Misty thinks frubals grow on treesMisty thinks frubals grow on trees
Default

horntooth people like you who are prejudiced against gays for instance, are as bad as those who are prejudiced against non white people, imo!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-20-2010, 07:57 AM
MysticSang'ha's Avatar
MysticSang'ha Offline
Religion: Keisaku
Title:Big Squishy Hugger
Shield of Love: Awarded for demonstrating great love and kindness to all around - Issue reason: The kindness award has been given to you by your peers and is well deserved. Congrats! Shield of Labour: Awarded for admirable hard work and development of a cause - Issue reason: This award has been given to you by your peers and is well deserved. Shield of Valour: Awarded for heroic and decisive victory in the battlefield of debate - Issue reason: For your excellent skills in debating different topics Shield of Peace: Awarded for exceptional effort in upholding and promoting the peace - Issue reason:  Shield of The Ambassador: Awarded for being a true herald of a belief system - Issue reason:  Shield of the Veteran: For continued service and valued contribution over the years - Issue reason: For your excellent contributions to the forum over the years. Shield of 20,000 Thoughts: Awarded for contributing 20,000 posts - Issue reason: Here, now quit whining. (:p) 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Trampolines of love
Gender: Female
Posts: 24,498
Frubals: 3862
MysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the driveway
MysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the drivewayMysticSang'ha accidently backed over frubals carelessly left on the driveway
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
OT

i look at it this way- there are two types of sexual activity, the one that is done for and can result in reproduction, and the one that is not done for it, and can't result in it.

i see the first type as natural, and the second as unnatural. socrates/ plato called it "para-natural" in the sense they exist in nature (being that humans are a part of nature), but are not legitimately natural.

so unnatural sexual activities are
- dendrophile and zoosexual acts (acts with other species)
- necrophile acts (acts with corpses)
- paedophile acts (acts with children)
- homosexual acts (between the same gender)
- autosexual acts (masturbation)
- sexual acts between male and female that cannot result in reproduction (oral/ anal sex), and
- coitus that is not done for the sake of reproduction (coitus interruptus, coitus with contraception).
Ah, blatant male ejaculatory bias. Just get it off your chest and let the healing begin.
__________________
Love you all. Peace out.

No one gets ahead by holding another back. - Reverend Rick
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-20-2010, 08:30 AM
Mestemia's Avatar
Mestemia Offline
Religion: Apathetic Agnostic
Title:Advocatus Diaboli
Shield of Valour: Awarded for heroic and decisive victory in the battlefield of debate - Issue reason:  Shield of the Veteran: For continued service and valued contribution over the years - Issue reason:  Shield of 30,000 Thoughts: Awarded for contributing 30,000 posts - Issue reason: For 30,000 poasts. Congrats Mes! 
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michiana
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,091
Frubals: 2394
Mestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you dropped
Mestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you droppedMestemia digs through couch cusions looking for frubals you dropped
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
actually, the "consent" would still not exclude paraphilia, necrophilia and bestiality, because all can be practiced with arousing "pleasure only", without any harm resulting from it.
Thank you for revealing your low level of honesty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:20 AM
I Keep Unicorns's Avatar
I Keep Unicorns Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Freshman Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK.
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Frubals: 13
I Keep Unicorns will work for frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
for example? would you be kind to explain why are my opinions bad? what are the "bad" consequences of holding opinions like mine?
I'd say it's more "ridiculous" than "bad".
I would feel sorry for someone who never masturbated because they were under the impression it's "not natural". How horrific to be so oppressed by your own beliefs that you can't even pleasure your own body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
eh, would you name one? :S necrophilia doesn't harm anyone, and bestiality is a type of sexuality that has it's supporters among university professors (which are vegetarian, and stand for "animal liberation", btw) e.g. Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what harm comes from necrophilia? no one is hurt. also zoosexuality can be practiced without hurting anyone. so says peter singer..
Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone? If you're having sex with a corpse, what kind of germs and bacteria could one obtain by having sexual intercourse with a deceased human being? I'm guessing quite a lot.
There will be those who attempt to justify beastiality. I haven't researched beastiality myself, so I don't know what kinds of harm could be done by beastiality specifically, but the fact that it's so unaccepted in society is reason enough to abstain from sexual relations with an animal alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
if you have coitus for reproduction only, STDs are not a problem, especially if you get lucky and don't get divorced, so you have coitus with your (one and only) spouse in your life (the same applied to the spouse)- and the possibility for getting an STD is non-extant.
In what kind of fantasy world is this, in which two people stay together for life and never have sex with more than one person?
If there's anything unnatural, it is your belief or perception that one should abstain. Nature does not work like that. It would be most impossible to stick to one partner for your entire life. Everybody wants to think they've met "the love of my life" whom they will be with forever; reality is quite different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
and i didn't say that homosexuality is bad for the reason of STDs, but for the reason it is unnatural, being that it cannot result in reproduction.
How much of your life is made up of things which aren't "natural"? Do you drive a car? Do you visit a dentist? Have you ever taken medication? Do you wear clothes made from factories? Nature would have us live in absolute minimal means, dying in our twenties from some infection or another. If you're going to argue that homosexuality "Isn't natural", what else do you apply this "not natural" logic to? Are some things which aren't natural okay in your eyes, while others not so much? Why is that? Why make allowances for some "unnatural" things and not others which you call unnatural?
Just because homosexuality doesn't result in reproduction doesn't, for one second, equate it to being unnatural. Sexuality and autosexuality is varied in humans and other animals (and birds, and fish) alike. And people will always masturbate, because it's fun and completely harmless.

Can you outline what is so unnatural about autosexuality / masturbation in particular? Why do you feel that way, honestly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
yes, they exists as a part of human nature, but that doesn't make them natural. anger, rage, and urge for violence is a much more integrated and much more prevalent part of human nature, but that doesn't mean it's natural or good.
Anger, rage, and the urge for violence are all completely natural. Are they "good"? Imagine a world with absolutely no rage or anger whatsoever. Personally, I think that'd be pretty boring. I like variety in emotion. Above anything: It's natural to have both positive and negative emotions. It's just how we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
it's not. does that mean that i cannot have an opinion about sexuality and what types of it are good or bad?
Of course you can have an opinion, but don't expect to be taken entirely seriously.

Last edited by I Keep Unicorns; 08-20-2010 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:22 AM
Jeremiah Offline
Religion: Cowintology
Title:BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalispell, MT
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,369
Frubals: 311
Jeremiah is a compulsive frubal lickerJeremiah is a compulsive frubal lickerJeremiah is a compulsive frubal lickerJeremiah is a compulsive frubal lickerJeremiah is a compulsive frubal lickerJeremiah is a compulsive frubal licker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke View Post
I was able to learn it without any help at all.
Well, Smoke, if you need any hands on pointers (from a very experienced hand) let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-20-2010, 12:16 PM
Agnostic75 Offline
Title:Esteemed Member
Shield of Research: Awarded for meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive reading around a subject - Issue reason: For your extensive reading around different topics 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 4,407
Frubals: 93
Agnostic75 gargles with frubalsAgnostic75 gargles with frubals
Default

Message to horntooth: Are you a Roman Catholic?

Do you promote reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy for homosexuals?

I doubt that even the majority of conservative Christians accept your "sex should only be for procreation" argument. There is in fact too much procreation going on in the world, which increases global warming, and increases food and water shortages. It is an absurd notion that a young heterosexual couple who are in their mid-twenties, and have two children, and do not want to have any more children, should never have sex again for the rest of their lives solely for pleasure.

Last edited by Agnostic75; 08-20-2010 at 01:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-21-2010, 10:21 AM
horntooth's Avatar
horntooth Offline
Religion: Philosophical Theism
Title:Sextian
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Serbia
Gender: Male
Posts: 120
Frubals: 17
horntooth gives frubals to the homeless
Default

Quote:
misty
horntooth people like you who are prejudiced against gays for instance, are as bad as those who are prejudiced against non white people, imo!
yeah, right, comparing gays with zoophiles is appalling, but comparing heterosexualists with racists is just fine. <_<

Quote:
mestemia
Thank you for revealing your low level of honesty.
i gave the example of Peter Singer. the guy has PHDs, and is a university professor (in bioethics, btw), who says that animals should have an inalienable rights to life and liberty.
he also says that zoophilia can be smthn good, and that animal can "give consent" and enjoy such sexual acts.

Quote:
ikeepunicorns
I would feel sorry for someone who never masturbated because they were under the impression it's "not natural".
i did masturbate (innumerable times), and nevertheless, i now think it's not natural

How horrific to be so oppressed by your own beliefs that you can't even pleasure your own body.
it was me who "imposed" beliefs on myself with no outside help. my parents are an atheist and a formal christian/ practical atheist, and are liberal on pretty much every issue.

Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone? If you're having sex with a corpse, what kind of germs and bacteria could one obtain by having sexual intercourse with a deceased human being? I'm guessing quite a lot.
wasn't it you that mentioned contraception? you find a corpse that doesn't have a family that would object to you having sex with it, you buy a few condoms, and you f* away.. no harm done.

There will be those who attempt to justify beastiality. I haven't researched beastiality myself, so I don't know what kinds of harm could be done by beastiality specifically, but the fact that it's so unaccepted in society is reason enough to abstain from sexual relations with an animal alone.
homosexuality was once unaccepted in society in the same way. it was even punishable by death.
and i will again remind you of peter singer (who lives today, and teaches in universities- today). in support of zoophilia he said:
"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong"
as i said- every excuse you find to justify homosexuality, it can also be used to justify zoosexuality and necrosexuality, and there's no way i could ever accept those as natural, or good.

In what kind of fantasy world is this, in which two people stay together for life and never have sex with more than one person?
it's called a religious fundamenalist world, and it's very real across the world. among the sedevacantist catholics, zealot orthodox, fundamentalist mormon, puritan baptists, wahhabi muslims, haredi jews, bibeki sikhs, revival iskcon, and many other ultra-conservative, "dedicated to the extreme" groups. the point is, it can be done. if they can do it, why couldn't i too. they're no better then me.

It would be most impossible to stick to one partner for your entire life.
i just gave examples that prove you wrong.

Everybody wants to think they've met "the love of my life" whom they will be with forever; reality is quite different.
exactly. that's when you merry "out of love", which doesn't exist. when you marry because you have the same world-view to which you are both fanatically committed (like in those religious groups i mentioned) and the same definition of the point of marriage, it's a different situation.

How much of your life is made up of things which aren't "natural"? Do you drive a car? Do you visit a dentist? Have you ever taken medication? Do you wear clothes made from factories? Nature would have us live in absolute minimal means, dying in our twenties from some infection or another.
actually, the opposite. as a rational being, it's natural for humans to be rational- invent new stuff such as car (preferably electrically powered- i drive a hybrid), advanced tooth-brushes and floss (which i use both, and do visit a dentist), more advanced medicines (not just plain medicant herbs), and so on, so on. i also wear factory made clothes, but not clothes with anything of animal origin.

If you're going to argue that homosexuality "Isn't natural", what else do you apply this "not natural" logic to?
concerning sexuality, i enumerated it earlier.
"- dendrophile and zoosexual acts (acts with other species)
- necrophile acts (acts with corpses)
- paedophile acts (acts with children)
- homosexual acts (between the same gender)
- autosexual acts (masturbation)
- sexual acts between male and female that cannot result in reproduction (oral/ anal sex), and
- coitus that is not done for the sake of reproduction (coitus interruptus, coitus with contraception)."
concerning other topics, many things, such as killing and hurting people and animals (except for self-defense), lying, stealing, getting drunk, overeating, wearing cosmetics, wasting money, and similar. read the buddhist "eight precepts", siddhartha got it mostly right.

Are some things which aren't natural okay in your eyes, while others not so much?
nope. if it's clear that it's unnatural, it's bad.

Just because homosexuality doesn't result in reproduction doesn't, for one second, equate it to being unnatural.
it does in my book. god/ nature made us that way so that the natural consequence and the purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and using it for smthn else in unnatural.

[u]Sexuality and autosexuality is varied in humans and other animals (and birds, and fish) alike. And people will always masturbate, because it's fun and completely harmless. [/quote]
and people will ALWAYS kill each other because of food, land, money and sexuality, also. it's doesn't make murder okay.

Can you outline what is so unnatural about autosexuality / masturbation in particular?
i've already said why i think it's unnatural. the point of the sperm is to inseminate, the point of sex in to reproduce, to use them not for that, but for something else- is unnatural. it's that simple.

Anger, rage, and the urge for violence are all completely natural. Are they "good"? Imagine a world with absolutely no rage or anger whatsoever. Personally, I think that'd be pretty boring.
yeah, there's so much "fun" in physically hurting someone. i just don't see how are not torture or rape legal.

Above anything: It's natural to have both positive and negative emotions. It's just how we are.
if you think that's the good way to stay, okay. i have the right to have the opposite opinion. just like on the subject of sexuality.

Quote:
agnostic75
Message to horntooth: Are you a Roman Catholic?
nope. i've been raised by secular/ liberal parents in a secular society;
i'm a philosophical theist (smthn similar to deism), and my opinion can be formally classified as "sextian" (a school of quintus sextius).

Do you promote reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy for homosexuals?
i think a radical change of thinking (into a rationalists one) and commitment to mindfulness meditation (not yoga or anything with mysticism, but simple mental "askesis" with the purpose of strengthening the will) would suffice. i overcame my "normal" sexual desires (and also the "not so normal") that way.

I doubt that even the majority of conservative Christians accept your "sex should only be for procreation" argument.
don't really care. i think that christianity is an irrational, and thus a false religion.

There is in fact too much procreation going on in the world, which increases global warming, and increases food and water shortages. It is an absurd notion that a young heterosexual couple who are in their mid-twenties, and have two children, and do not want to have any more children, should never have sex again for the rest of their lives
i don't find it absurd.

Last edited by horntooth; 08-21-2010 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-21-2010, 11:40 AM
bain-druie's Avatar
bain-druie Offline
Religion: Druidry
Title:Tree-Hugger!
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay
Gender: Female
Posts: 367
Frubals: 70
bain-druie is a Frubal Whorebain-druie is a Frubal Whore
Default

One point, Horntooth: if the gods / God / Nature did in fact create human beings with the intent that they only have sex to procreate, please explain the female clitoris. An organ with thousands of nerve endings going to the pleasure centers of the brain, with absolutely no biological function or procreative value.

No. Sex is clearly intended for pleasure as well as procreation, provable by the neurological structure of the reproductive system.
__________________
"I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible." -- Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Misty Offline
Title:BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 1,287
Frubals: 60
Misty thinks frubals grow on treesMisty thinks frubals grow on trees
Default

I am sorry for horntooth if he never had sex for pleasure, but if that worked for him, fine, most of the rest of us see it differently!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-21-2010, 12:01 PM
I Keep Unicorns's Avatar
I Keep Unicorns Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Freshman Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK.
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Frubals: 13
I Keep Unicorns will work for frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
i did masturbate (innumerable times), and nevertheless, i now think it's not natural
Is this in fact much more to do with what you believe God is telling you rather than it being unnatural?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
wasn't it you that mentioned contraception? you find a corpse that doesn't have a family that would object to you having sex with it, you buy a few condoms, and you f* away.. no harm done.
I see. So a sane human (or at least us gay enablers) wouldn't care about anything other than sexual pleasure, right? We wouldn't care about respecting a dead person nor the rights of their family, anything like that? Screwing a corpse is much different to having sex with a living person who gives their consent to engaging in sexual pleasure with another adult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
homosexuality was once unaccepted in society in the same way. it was even punishable by death.
and i will again remind you of peter singer (who lives today, and teaches in universities- today). in support of zoophilia he said:
"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong"
as i said- every excuse you find to justify homosexuality, it can also be used to justify zoosexuality and necrosexuality, and there's no way i could ever accept those as natural, or good.
If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, or a "kiss" from a dog and enjoys that, who the hell cares? No harm is done by someone enjoying either of those things. No. Harm. Whatsoever. It doesn't harm the animal; it doesn't harm the person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
it's called a religious fundamenalist world, and it's very real across the world. among the sedevacantist catholics, zealot orthodox, fundamentalist mormon, puritan baptists, wahhabi muslims, haredi jews, bibeki sikhs, revival iskcon, and many other ultra-conservative, "dedicated to the extreme" groups. the point is, it can be done. if they can do it, why couldn't i too. they're no better then me.
Of course it can be done. I don't deny the weight of force some individuals will choose to surpress themselves under by their faith in any god. But it IS a fantasy world they are attempting to live in.
Forcing a relationship with somebody you no longer love or are attracted to because you're under immense pressure by your own belief of a god is a terrible fear to be under, and is completely unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
i just gave examples that prove you wrong.
And do you think for a moment they are much happier and more stable than those who divorce themselves from unhappy marriages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
exactly. that's when you merry "out of love", which doesn't exist. when you marry because you have the same world-view to which you are both fanatically committed (like in those religious groups i mentioned) and the same definition of the point of marriage, it's a different situation.
When you marry out of love, which doesn't exist? Not sure I get what you mean there.
When you marry because you're both committed to the same world view, that makes no difference to the changes that would occur to any other marriage which can result in ground for divorce. There are strongly religious couples who seperate; there are atheists who have long marriages, and vice versa. Religion makes no couple an immaculate marriage; it just means you're more scared of divorce because it increases your chances of being sent to hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
actually, the opposite. as a rational being, it's natural for humans to be rational- invent new stuff such as car (preferably electrically powered- i drive a hybrid), advanced tooth-brushes and floss (which i use both, and do visit a dentist), more advanced medicines (not just plain medicant herbs), and so on, so on. i also wear factory made clothes, but not clothes with anything of animal origin.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
concerning sexuality, i enumerated it earlier.
"- dendrophile and zoosexual acts (acts with other species)
- necrophile acts (acts with corpses)
- paedophile acts (acts with children)
- homosexual acts (between the same gender)
- autosexual acts (masturbation)
- sexual acts between male and female that cannot result in reproduction (oral/ anal sex), and
- coitus that is not done for the sake of reproduction (coitus interruptus, coitus with contraception)."
concerning other topics, many things, such as killing and hurting people and animals (except for self-defense), lying, stealing, getting drunk, overeating, wearing cosmetics, wasting money, and similar. read the buddhist "eight precepts", siddhartha got it mostly right.
It's masturbation which baffles me the most about your views. Are orgasms by themselves not pleasurable? Why would it be possibly be unnatural to want to pleasure ourselves to orgasm? Reproduction is simply not a good enough answer. If it feels good to touch a certain body part, it's natural to want to touch it. Many health sources will tell you that masturbation is actually healthy. There would be more cause for concern if someone surpressed their feelings of sexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
it does in my book. god/ nature made us that way so that the natural consequence and the purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and using it for smthn else in unnatural.
Well he didn't do very much of a good job if orgasms and sexual pleasure is made possibly merely by touch of a hand (or tongue... or even rubbing one's thighs together, or sitting on something which vibrates, or even clenching muscles together...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
and people will ALWAYS kill each other because of food, land, money and sexuality, also. it's doesn't make murder okay.
Why are you comparing orgasms with murder? ...That is literally outrageous.
Initiating yourself to orgasm hurts absolutely no body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horntooth View Post
Anger, rage, and the urge for violence are all completely natural. Are they "good"? Imagine a world with absolutely no rage or anger whatsoever. Personally, I think that'd be pretty boring.
yeah, there's so much "fun" in physically hurting someone. i just don't see how are not torture or rape legal.
Wow, very nice twist & manipulation of words there! Too godly. Where did I say there was fun in physically hurting someone? Myself stating that negative emotions are natural does, in no way, equate to myself stating that torture and rape should be legal.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Copyright © ReligiousForums.com

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.