Morality Without The Bible and Homosexuality

[QuestioningMind]

"Animals have been observed to engage in sex for social interaction, demonstration of dominance, aggression relief, exchange for significant materials, and sexual stimulation." Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
there is a purpose in doing that in nature.

And since human beings are a PART of nature... there's good reason for non-reproductive sexual behavior in humans beings as well. Why is that SO difficult for you to grasp?

 

[leov]

And since human beings are a PART of nature... there's good reason for non-reproductive sexual behavior in humans beings as well. Why is that SO difficult for you to grasp?

so it is domination not ejuculation, i've got it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Animals have been observed to engage in sex for social interaction, demonstration of dominance, aggression relief, exchange for significant materials, and sexual stimulation." Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
there is a purpose in doing that in nature.

As there is for humans.

Lots of mammals go into heat - they only get aroused when they're fertile. Humans can get aroused any time.

Lots of mammals - including some of our closest related species - have overt ovulation: when the female is ovulating, there's an obvious outward sign. Humans have covert ovulation: there are no obvious signs that a human female is ovulating.

If you're trying to infer intent behind our "design," you have to conclude that humans were made to have lots of non-procreative sex.

 

[leov]

If you stop farming, what would happen to humanity? If you stop religious ministry, what would happen to humanity?

Obviously, it violates natural law to be a priest or religious minister. They should give up their callings and become farmers.

what human does to feed self is prerogative of consciousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what human does to feed self is prerogative of consciousness.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't disagree with you. You took my comment a step further. My comment was not considering anything beyond whether or not to take part in a faith that you disagree with.

I freely admit I often come across as anti-theist. That would be true--within a certain value of "theism". More accurately, I'm quite happy to Live and Let Live with respect to the majority of theists, indeed, I have many friends and family who are happy theists, some of whom are way off the charts so to speak: paganism, earth worship and so forth. I have nothing but respect for these people and their beliefs. For they do not feel it needful to impose their faith onto anyone but themselves. I can respect that.

My only real beef with theism? Comes when it's imposed from without, and no choice is given. I am especially incensed with those styles of theism which teach that it is somehow "moral" to teach that everyone is born broken to the point it's acceptable to send them on an infinite torture journey.

Think about that: A baby is just born-- but some religion teaches that this innocent is full of some magical elixir that makes it worthy of being condemned. What? The child just got here-- what could it have possibly done?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Did you seriously just reply the above to the question:
???

You know who you get to declare "natural law" for? YOURSELF. And then, if you want the rest of us to be willing to examine your definition and summation of "natural law" and adopt it ourselves then you are going to need some pretty darn convincing and compelling argumentation that HAS TO BE based on a whole lot more than "why not?"

Do you understand this? Otherwise, when you ask me why I think everyone should stop believing in God, I can just simply say "I think belief in God goes against natural law." And when you press me with "Who gets to establish natural law? You?" I can just reply with "Why not?" - and apparently that would be sufficient to your mind, and then BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, you should simply accept whatever I define "natural law" as from that moment on. That's what you are asking the people in this thread to do... and that's the reason you are catching all this flak.

Any of this registering?

Hunnh? I think you have confuzzled me with a theist.

I do not subscribe to the very silly concept of "natural law"... it's a meaningless babble-phrase.

The closest thing you could come up with to "natural law", IMO, is Natural Selection, and Descent With Modification. These twin observed phenomena have been observed to the point they may as well be called "Law".

It's pretty conclusive that all life came about-- however it got started -- by the blind application of these two "laws".

Do you need intelligence for ice crystals to form into snowflakes? Nope. The shape of a water molecule, the balance of the positive and negative charges of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms determines that. Like tiny little triangular Lego bricks, at 104.5 degrees...

 

[QuestioningMind]

so it is domination not ejuculation, i've got it.

Not sure WHAT you THINK you got... but you didn't.

Homosexuality is a NATURAL occurrence is nature. Human beings are a PART of nature, thus homosexuality in human beings is just as natural as heterosexuality. It's really a VERY simply concept... though for some reason you seem to have great difficulty with it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In another thread, the topic of homosexuality is being discussed. In the condemnation of homosexuality, I satated:



To which, @InChrist stated:



So, I will start this thread.

I can tell you why homosexuality is "wrong" without using a Bible. You mean you don't know?

 

[InChrist]

There are a lot of topics and I don't want to be here for an hour, so I will be brief.



There are exceptions to "killing is wrong" as many will agree; but the bottom line is that killing others takes something from them that is not ours to take. It hurts people.



Stealing is wrong because it is ultimately dishonest and takes something from another that is not yours to take. It hurts people.



Children need guidance of those older and wiser. Children need adult supervision for their survival. Children need to be taught the rules of society so that they can exist within those rules and have a good life.



Bearing false witness ruins another person's reputation and life. It hurts people.



Sexual abuse is wrong because it hurts people.



Where polygamy is practiced, there is a direct correlation to misogyny and denial of women's rights. There seems to be a correlation here that is difficult to ignore. I value "informed consent" so it can be successfully argued that if all members were consensual to this arrangement, another has no right to tell them they can't live this way. I'd like to subscribe to that idea, but not until there is a way to unlink the link so explained.



Fidelity and faithfulness builds trust and happy, healthy marriages. People in these arrangements tend to be happier.



IN short, if everyone pursued these values, the world would be a better place.



It hurts people and other living creatures.

I find it curious that the moral outrage against homosexuality can not be explained without invoking religion, yet so many still insist it is immoral.

Basically I see that you believe there are some behaviors which are wrong and hurt others, as well as some behaviors which are beneficial. Yet, I think your thoughts about morality are stolen from the Bible and/or the moral standard stamped on the human conscience by a Creator God.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is aberration of natural laws.

These "natural laws"; Are something elusive and undefinable; a concept of religious doctrine, as in pre-flood, Garden of Eden stuff? If so, it is no more than religious doctrine where people twist natural laws to conform to their religious beliefs; and are thus, not "natural laws".

Homosexuality occurs with an 11% frequency accross mammalian species.

Fun fact! And those species are obviously not going extinct because of lack of procreation.

If you stop natural law procreation, what would happen to humanity?

Who said anything about stopping procreation? That is a ridiculous assertion. Less than 12% of the population is gay. So I don't think humanity has anything to worry about.

I do not judge this part, I just stated that homosex. serves no purpose except hedonic pleasure.

This same standard is not applied to heterosexual sex, where it is said that heterosexual sex can serve to strengthen the bonds and intimacy between a couple. So heterosexual sex, in this context, is not judged by the same standards.

I know atheists who regard the practice as filthy and reprehensible, immoral.

I'd like to talk to them, too, and try to figure out where they're coming from.

Moral and immoral are becoming, for society as a whole, meaningless terms.

No they're not. Morality is highly relative, thus moral codes change over time. That doesn't make them meaningless.

I often wonder if this continual rehashing of homosexuality, or homosexuality v. Christianity/Judaism is a form of reassurance to those who worry about the morality of what they choose, or support.

No. The reason is explained by @Jainarayan below.

However, I'm still affected by it when those who make laws base them on their religious beliefs. Or they have a loud enough voice they influence the lawmakers and policymakers. That is a problem.

Exactly! What one believes about a given topic affects how they will legislate or vote on them.

Much truth in this. Y'know, those tests where men had electrodes attached to their man-parts, shown homoerotic images, and their "responses" measured. They rose to the occasion and showed how "stand up" they were.

Why does God dislike homosexuality, I really don´t know.

Then maybe its something you should think about.

If they are in need, I have the same duty to them, as anyone else, to help where I can.

Duty? If your altruism comes from a command or sense of duty, then its not altruism. The values of altruism, kindness, generosity, etc. are not intrinsic to you if you act on them because "you have to".

I can tell you why homosexuality is "wrong" without using a Bible. You mean you don't know?

Please, enlighten me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hunnh? I think you have confuzzled me with a theist.

I do not subscribe to the very silly concept of "natural law"... it's a meaningless babble-phrase.

The closest thing you could come up with to "natural law", IMO, is Natural Selection, and Descent With Modification. These twin observed phenomena have been observed to the point they may as well be called "Law".

It's pretty conclusive that all life came about-- however it got started -- by the blind application of these two "laws".

Do you need intelligence for ice crystals to form into snowflakes? Nope. The shape of a water molecule, the balance of the positive and negative charges of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms determines that. Like tiny little triangular Lego bricks, at 104.5 degrees...

Sorry Bob... I wasn't responding to you... your account name/reference was just still on the quote I included of yours. I should have taken it out. I was responding to @leov, who responded to your question about whether he thought he should be the controller of natural laws with a "why not?"

I never meant to implicate you! Apologies. I'm actually going to go back and edit your account reference out of the relevant quote so that there is no further confusion.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Basically I see that you believe there are some behaviors which are wrong and hurt others, as well as some behaviors which are beneficial. Yet, I think your thoughts about morality are stolen from the Bible and/or the moral standard stamped on the human conscience by a Creator God.

I would state the opposite; that which a society believes to be moral or immoral, they impose on their deity, write in their scriptures, then attribute that moral standard to their deity. The bible is thus a moral code that is not divine, but a reflection of what the people in that time and place believed about morality.

 

[columbus]

I can tell you why homosexuality is "wrong" without using a Bible. You mean you don't know?

No you can't.
I've read a ton of your posts, I know better.
Tom

 

[InChrist]

I would state the opposite; that which a society believes to be moral or immoral, they impose on their deity, write in their scriptures, then attribute that moral standard to their deity. The bible is thus a moral code that is not divine, but a reflection of what the people in that time and place believed about morality.

There is no way you had time to watch the videos or consider the points made, I don't think you are really thinking this subject through thoroughly.

 

[osgart]

Morality stands on its own basis independent of anything. Why does anybody need a reason to be moral in the first place? The only good morality is the desire to actually be moral.

Chances are if you need reasons to be moral then you never were moral to begin with.

Nature itself does not really provide any moral basis for doing anything moral. There is no moral code in nature.

Morality is something we create, but it is also something that becomes self evident. It becomes a truth. Why is morality a truth? Because vices harm people and no civilization can be civil, nor is any peace possible without morality. Without virtue there is no love. Everybody survives on love. Its either love, or fear of consequences and/ or punishment that keeps people in line, imo.

Anyways the Bible indicates that mankind can not be moral of their own accord. Secularity seems to say that mankind is quite capable of decency. Imo, morality is considered on an individual basis and generations come and go, and each generation will either create a moral or immoral society. Our survival literally depends on our choice of morality.

The battleground issues are environmental, homosexuality, abortion, charity and how we choose to make peace and war.

 

[David1967]

they do not feel it needful to impose their faith onto anyone but themselves. I can respect that.

Me too.

 

[shmogie]

There is a lot of immorality in the Bible, much of it attributed to, or instigated by the god character.

Evidence, please.












No they're not. Morality is highly relative, thus moral codes change over time. That doesn't make them meaningless. Moral codes related to a plethora of behaviors in our society are meaningless, because some find them moral, others do not.

Within that framework, the codes have no meaning.



No. The reason is explained by @Jainarayan below.



Exactly! What one believes about a given topic affects how they will legislate or vote on them.

Then maybe its something you should think about.



Duty? If your altruism comes from a command or sense of duty, then its not altruism. The values of altruism, kindness, generosity, etc. are not intrinsic to you if you act on them because "you have to".



Please, enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
I served in law enforcement. One of my duties was to possibly lose my life in the protection of others. Do you think I did that just because the job description said I should do it ?

Think it through ..................................................

I would state the opposite; that which a society believes to be moral or immoral, they impose on their deity, write in their scriptures, then attribute that moral standard to their deity. The bible is thus a moral code that is not divine, but a reflection of what the people in that time and place believed about morality.

 

[leov]

I don't know what you mean.

Morality stands on its own basis independent of anything. Why does anybody need a reason to be moral in the first place? The only good morality is the desire to actually be moral.

Chances are if you need reasons to be moral then you never were moral to begin with.

Nature itself does not really provide any moral basis for doing anything moral. There is no moral code in nature.

Morality is something we create, but it is also something that becomes self evident. It becomes a truth. Why is morality a truth? Because vices harm people and no civilization can be civil, nor is any peace possible without morality. Without virtue there is no love. Everybody survives on love. Its either love, or fear of consequences and/ or punishment that keeps people in line, imo.

Anyways the Bible indicates that mankind can not be moral of their own accord. Secularity seems to say that mankind is quite capable of decency. Imo, morality is considered on an individual basis and generations come and go, and each generation will either create a moral or immoral society. Our survival literally depends on our choice of morality.

The battleground issues are environmental, homosexuality, abortion, charity and how we choose to make peace and war.

There are cases we have no answers, I remember years ago there was a case of young wolf taking care of sick old wolf, bringing him food, protecting him.

Evidence, please.












No they're not. Morality is highly relative, thus moral codes change over time. That doesn't make them meaningless. Moral codes related to a plethora of behaviors in our society are meaningless, because some find them moral, others do not.

Within that framework, the codes have no meaning.



No. The reason is explained by @Jainarayan below.



Exactly! What one believes about a given topic affects how they will legislate or vote on them.

Then maybe its something you should think about.



Duty? If your altruism comes from a command or sense of duty, then its not altruism. The values of altruism, kindness, generosity, etc. are not intrinsic to you if you act on them because "you have to".



Please, enlighten me.

I served in law enforcement. One of my duties was to possibly lose my life in the protection of others. Do you think I did that just because the job description said I should do it ?

Think it through ..................................................[/QUOTE]
Bible often displays immorality to teach moral points.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, it came from the East as enhancement of transcendental meditation practice as well as fast. Ignorant manipulate that.

what? I'm so sorry... I only read English, and cannot make head nor tails of the above.

My bad.