Suppressing sexual desires

[columbus]

It's a fact that we have too many people? No, unfortunately, we could feed and house all, except for greed.

What's unfortunate is that we're made that way. Whether God shaped us or evolution, human nature is greedy and shortsighted.

The single biggest reason that I don't believe in your God is that I cannot believe in God being such a bumbler. I cannot believe that humans, as they are, is the best God can do.

"Even over the course of several generations, the possibility that all humans will cease to be interested in potentially procreative sex is ludicrous."

You mean, "a negative population growth rate" is ludicrous?

I was referring specifically to your quote, which I quoted.
What's ludicrous is the notion that negative population growth, achieved peacefully, is a bad thing. It's not. The alternative is negative population growth resulting from war, starvation, and pestilence. That looks to be in our foreseeable future. And the immoral teachings of you and your religion will help bring it on. Dragging the primitive ethics and world views of ancient people, instead of adapting modern morality to the modern situation, will probably result in Armageddon. Violence and destruction and suffering, but it won't have anything to do with God. It will be human stupidity that destroys us. Modern people fighting over the remnants of earth's resources with the kind of horrible weapons only we can devise.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Left Coast @lewisnotmiller

Natural purpose of sex is procreation, family, upbringing in family. And procreation is inherently heterosexual. It's a biological fact. Natural law is about what something is by nature. It's not what you do all the time, every time, in every circumstance. It also isn't always what someone intends or thinks about. Sometimes people can't have babies because of health problems or some other limitations. Sexual act also can have all sorts of ouvertures before reaching climax. This all doesn't change the before mentioned purpose.

Why would I care if it's 'inherently heterosexual', or if it's 'purpose' is procreation, even if I agreed? I'm not here to moralise against consenting adults. I don't care who wants to stick their bits where. I get to make my own choices on such matters. So do they. The line is drawn where informed consent is possible.

What about "not hurting others" argument? For example if a pedophile doesn't hurt anyone and just masturbates to photos of toddlers, it's still considered a sick behavior.

Why do you think that is? Would it be different if a man masturbated over pictures of women being beaten?

What to do if you know all this but desire for opposite sex is not there and desire for same sex is so strong that it's hard or even impossible to change it? No one can be judged. This is an extremely difficult situation. We all want to love and be loved. Being unable to have an intimate relationship with a partner of opposite sex is still not something to celebrate. There are also some (hetero) people who don't desire to have kids. It's not something to be proud of. One can only humbly admit it as a weakness like C. S. Lewis (in Abolition of Man):

It is the doctrine of objective value, the behef that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not. I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself — just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind.​

I'll do a hard pass on seeing people who don't desire to have kids as having some sort of weakness. That seems an exceedingly strange and needlessly judgemental way to live, to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's this idea around among those who believe in God, but reject God's prohibition of homosexual acts, that because people, they say, don't become homosexual out of their choice, homosexuals cannot be required to suppress their sexual desires.

What I would like to know, is where does that leave pedophiles who, too, do not become pedophiles out of their choice? If it was unfair to require homosexuals to suppress their sexual desires 'because they were born that way', wouldn't it be unfair to require pedophiles to suppress their sexual desires if they, too, were 'born that way'?

I think the reason why can be nicely summed up as "the freedom to swing my arm, ends at your nose".

Not all forms of homosexual or heterosexual sex are considered ok. Rape for example, isn't. And I'll assume that I don't need to explain why.

So there's that already... I think it's safe to say that most children don't really like what pedo's would want to do with them and are pretty much forced to comply.

Then there's the minor thingy. The fact that children are easily manipulated as well as uninformed about a lot of things, makes children unable of rational / responsible decision making. This is also why we treat them differently in court when they did something wrong, why parents are responsible for them, why they aren't allowed in bars at the age of 14, why they can't drive a car till 18 (or 16 in the US), etc etc.

This means that you can't trust their consent to certain things. Meaning it is deemed impossible to get consent. Non-consensual sex is called rape.


So more easily put:
Consensual homosexual or heterosexual sex is victimless.
Pedophile sex is harmfull and traumatizing, both mentally and physically, and thus does have victims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because paedophilia is inherently abominable whereas homosexuality is not. It's a question of public morality. Being "born that way" has nothing to do with it, and is in my mind a poor argument for LGBTQ rights in part because it could open the door to accepting paedophilia and other depraved practices such as the sexual abuse of animals or corpses.

Agreed. Nevertheless, when people call it a "life-style choice", as if it is some trivial decision comparable to wearing jeans or shorts, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the mistake.

But yes, it can not be the only argument. And it certainly is not the only argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Homosexuality has been considered inherently abominable by the majority of the world's population for thousands of years. It still is by some.

Not universally by all cultures do.

I don't think I can post the pictures here, but I got a set of playing cards at home that I bought at some gift shop in Crete, Greece.
Every card features a pornographic drawing from ancient greece and about half of them are same-sex. Both gay and lesbian. Bisexual orgies as well.
It's a pretty nasty deck of cars, LOL!

The real fun part is that these pictures were discovered on....dinner plates.
Similar art work from ancient rome also exists in abundance.

So it certainly wasn't the case in those two cultures...

 

[BilliardsBall]

God didn't say in the bible. but then, God doesn't only speak through the bible. God also speaks to God's Apostles and to the Church through her leaders. The Gospelers only knew what they knew. Since homosexuality wasn't on the social radar at that time, of course Jesus didn't mention it. But, as a leader of the Church, I believe that if he were here today, he'd have much to say about it, and most of it would be to support those who identify as homosexual who wish to have committed and sacred relationships.

My Jesus is omniscient and, being God, made gender and straight marriage. Jesus also affirmed marriage is between Adam and Eve.

But liberal or conservative regardless, Jesus still would not do what you've said--it's not biblical. He said He came to fulfill every letter of Torah, which includes prohibition against same sex sex.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What's unfortunate is that we're made that way. Whether God shaped us or evolution, human nature is greedy and shortsighted.

The single biggest reason that I don't believe in your God is that I cannot believe in God being such a bumbler. I cannot believe that humans, as they are, is the best God can do.

I was referring specifically to your quote, which I quoted.
What's ludicrous is the notion that negative population growth, achieved peacefully, is a bad thing. It's not. The alternative is negative population growth resulting from war, starvation, and pestilence. That looks to be in our foreseeable future. And the immoral teachings of you and your religion will help bring it on. Dragging the primitive ethics and world views of ancient people, instead of adapting modern morality to the modern situation, will probably result in Armageddon. Violence and destruction and suffering, but it won't have anything to do with God. It will be human stupidity that destroys us. Modern people fighting over the remnants of earth's resources with the kind of horrible weapons only we can devise.
Tom

God can do better than humans, yes. He will change those who trust Him to be morally perfect, ready for Heaven, IMHO. "Unless you become a NEW CREATION in Jesus, you shall perish."

 

[sojourner]

My Jesus is omniscient and, being God, made gender and straight marriage. Jesus also affirmed marriage is between Adam and Eve.

Jesus was a product of his culture. Jesus had to work within the confines of the culture within which he found himself. In that culture, men and women were not equal, and marriages were not contracts of equity. Men married women for, not only procreative reasons, but cultural reasons. Husbands owned and cared for their wives, and their wives found honor through them and the ways in which they were righteous. Women could not support themselves, and had to live under some man's roof. It just ain't that way in our culture. Here, marriages are relationships of equity; wives are equal to their husbands -- legally and spiritually. Husbands do not own their wives, and the wives find their own righteousness, apart from their husband. That's why it's possible, in this culture, for homosexual marriages. They, too, are relationships of equity, both legally and spiritually.

But liberal or conservative regardless, Jesus still would not do what you've said--it's not biblical.

I believe he would; I believe the biblical tenets of welcome, love, mercy, forgiveness, forbearance, equity, right relationship cross cultural barriers, and it's those tenets that Jesus championed.

He said He came to fulfill every letter of Torah, which includes prohibition against same sex sex.

See above. Jesus said that all the Law and the prophets depend upon loving God and neighbor as self. It's the tenets of faith listed above that are what the Law that Jesus came to fulfill seeks to have us embody -- not its particulars. Jesus was not a pedant. Cultures change. The particulars of the Law change with them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus was a product of his culture. Jesus had to work within the confines of the culture within which he found himself. In that culture, men and women were not equal, and marriages were not contracts of equity. Men married women for, not only procreative reasons, but cultural reasons. Husbands owned and cared for their wives, and their wives found honor through them and the ways in which they were righteous. Women could not support themselves, and had to live under some man's roof. It just ain't that way in our culture. Here, marriages are relationships of equity; wives are equal to their husbands -- legally and spiritually. Husbands do not own their wives, and the wives find their own righteousness, apart from their husband. That's why it's possible, in this culture, for homosexual marriages. They, too, are relationships of equity, both legally and spiritually.


I believe he would; I believe the biblical tenets of welcome, love, mercy, forgiveness, forbearance, equity, right relationship cross cultural barriers, and it's those tenets that Jesus championed.


See above. Jesus said that all the Law and the prophets depend upon loving God and neighbor as self. It's the tenets of faith listed above that are what the Law that Jesus came to fulfill seeks to have us embody -- not its particulars. Jesus was not a pedant. Cultures change. The particulars of the La with them.

I understand your passion to understand the culture of the Ancient Near East, and your desire to not see the past with presentist bias.

However, the omniscient Lord Jesus Christ, who wrote the Tanakh, was the one who gave the prohibition against homosexual behavior. The scripture doesn't say, "Slay offenders in non-committal relationships," (although the death penalty comes for discovered adultery), rather, it says, "Men who have sex with men are committing abominable acts, and found publicly to be doing so, are to die."

I also appreciate your desire to believe the best about Jesus and His commitment to love, tolerance and peace, however, He is the same OT and NT God who will "take vengeance in flaming fire upon all who have disobeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ". Jesus did trigger a new revolution of love and perpetually leads His people to love, but will return to end Armageddon and judge all people for sin.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I'll do a hard pass on seeing people who don't desire to have kids as having some sort of weakness. That seems an exceedingly strange and needlessly judgemental way to live, to me.

(Nonsexual) affection for babies and little kids is the most natural thing. If you go for a walk with a baby carriage you see smiles and adoring comments from strangers passing by. How cute! This is a nature's way of preservation of human species. If someone doesn't feel this affection it's a defect - if everyone had this defect the species would die out. This doesn't mean there aren't any normal people who renounce family life for some other goals/affections despite this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(Nonsexual) affection for babies and little kids is the most natural thing. If you go for a walk with a baby carriage you see smiles and adoring comments from strangers passing by. How cute! This is a nature's way of preservation of human species. If someone doesn't feel this affection it's a defect - if everyone had this defect the species would die out. This doesn't mean there aren't any normal people who renounce family life for some other goals/affections despite this.

A 'defect'?
I stand by my original comments.

 

[Piculet]

So it certainly wasn't the case in those two cultures...

That most likely, imho, is not about homosexuality at all. Just a general perversion — like the insistence of a woman to not put on clothes when going out or to hold hands with and to kiss her girlfriend. Just like alcohol, a society without morals, makes some immune to shame regarding the way they behave.

 

[Piculet]

It's the tenets of faith listed above that are what the Law that Jesus came to fulfill seeks to have us embody -- not its particulars. Jesus was not a pedant

Personal interpretation with no basis, in order to make unlawful lawful. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That most likely, imho, is not about homosexuality at all. Just a general perversion

You are wrong.
See, to have sex, especially as a man, you need to be sexually aroused to get an erection.
For a man who's not gay or bisexual, the erection won't hold very long if other men are touching it.

— like the insistence of a woman to not put on clothes when going out or to hold hands with and to kiss her girlfriend. Just like alcohol, a society without morals, makes some immune to shame regarding the way they behave.

If ancient greece and rome didn't have a sence of morals and ethics, they'ld have never become the great empires that they were.

And sexual orientation has nothing to do with morals and everything with biological make-up.

 

[sojourner]

However, the omniscient Lord Jesus Christ, who wrote the Tanakh, was the one who gave the prohibition against homosexual behavior.

Wrong. There's no evidence to suggest that "Jesus wrote the Tanakh." None. People wrote the Tanakh, and they did so from their understanding and their beliefs, and their bias. Therefore, we have to read past that bias if the texts are to have any kind of relevance for us.

The scripture doesn't say, "Slay offenders in non-committal relationships," (although the death penalty comes for discovered adultery), rather, it says, "Men who have sex with men are committing abominable acts, and found publicly to be doing so, are to die."

Why does it say that? Because "men who have sex with men" are, according to their understanding committing abominable acts. But the reasons for the "abomination" most likely do not apply to our cultural understanding, because we understand that men are capable of feeling the same attraction and love toward other men as they are toward women, and that that attraction is natural. The ancients didn't understand that.

He is the same OT and NT God who will "take vengeance in flaming fire upon all who have disobeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ".

No. That's an ancient cultural understanding of God that we need not share.

Jesus did trigger a new revolution of love and perpetually leads His people to love, but will return to end Armageddon and judge all people for sin.

Only if you're a dispensationist. I don't believe in that hokum.

 

[sojourner]

Personal interpretation with no basis, in order to make unlawful lawful. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

Have you ever read the bible?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong. There's no evidence to suggest that "Jesus wrote the Tanakh." None. People wrote the Tanakh, and they did so from their understanding and their beliefs, and their bias. Therefore, we have to read past that bias if the texts are to have any kind of relevance for us.


Why does it say that? Because "men who have sex with men" are, according to their understanding committing abominable acts. But the reasons for the "abomination" most likely do not apply to our cultural understanding, because we understand that men are capable of feeling the same attraction and love toward other men as they are toward women, and that that attraction is natural. The ancients didn't understand that.


No. That's an ancient cultural understanding of God that we need not share.

Only if you're a dispensationist. I don't believe in that hokum.

Jesus is omniscient God. The OT contains demonstrably fulfilled prophecy. Such prescience is the province of God. The NT further claims that Jesus is the Word of God and the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are the Word of God.

Both testaments according "to their understanding" condemn homosexuality and certain other sex sins--as did mankind since the beginning. Jesus affirmed a marriage is a man, a woman and God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong. There's no evidence to suggest that "Jesus wrote the Tanakh." None. People wrote the Tanakh, and they did so from their understanding and their beliefs, and their bias. Therefore, we have to read past that bias if the texts are to have any kind of relevance for us.


Why does it say that? Because "men who have sex with men" are, according to their understanding committing abominable acts. But the reasons for the "abomination" most likely do not apply to our cultural understanding, because we understand that men are capable of feeling the same attraction and love toward other men as they are toward women, and that that attraction is natural. The ancients didn't understand that.


No. That's an ancient cultural understanding of God that we need not share.

Only if you're a dispensationist. I don't believe in that hokum.

Of course, your concept that morals evolve--that the ancients didn't understand morality--belies your denial that some morals are absolute.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus is omniscient God.

Immaterial.

The OT contains demonstrably fulfilled prophecy.

Immaterial.

Such prescience is the province of God.

Immaterial.

The NT further claims that Jesus is the Word of God and the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are the Word of God.

Immaterial. And circular reasoning.

Both testaments according "to their understanding" condemn homosexuality and certain other sex sins--as did mankind since the beginning.

They also have both touted that the earth is flat. Does that make them right?

Jesus affirmed a marriage is a man, a woman and God.

Incorrect. The Gospel writers had Jesus say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Plus, even if Jesus did say that, he was working within the bounds of the culture in which he found himself. Same reasoning as for his advocacy of slavery.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, your concept that morals evolve--that the ancients didn't understand morality--belies your denial that some morals are absolute.

I don't think all morals are absolute.