You're right, I could have put that better.
That you would choose a lifestyle that is counter to the perpetuation of the species is abnormal.
Yep, I believe vows of celibacy are abnormal. In fact, I think they can be blamed for much of the abnormal behavior coming from the Catholic Church such as pedophilia and sexuality.
Every species has an innate drive to perpetuate. When you thwart that fundamental purpose you end up with weird stuff.
In my religion, Jesus is God and therefore not driven to perpetuate his species since he's omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal...without beginning or end and singular in nature.
What about your religion?
Your point?
I didn't say Jesus couldn't have had sexual intercourse and impregnated a woman. But, I'm thinking his agenda here on Earth was somewhat different than perpetuation of the species He created...
Are you really drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ and sexuals?
You know, on second thought, I concede the point.
As far as lifestyle choices go, Jesus Christ's was abnormal for human beings.
However, seeing as how he was fully human and fully God, you would have to produce another case of someone being fully human and fully God before we could judge the normalcy of His particular lifestyle choice.
I'm thinking the singularity and unique nature of His being will preclude you from finding another example against which you can compare...
Perhaps the perpetuation of the species requires that not everyone procreate, due to risks of overpopulation. I'm not so sure it's counter to perpetuation at all. It could be a component of it.That you would choose a lifestyle that is counter to the perpetuation of the species is abnormal.
That's a theory. Maybe you should explore it. However, all that I've read says that species are hardwired to procreate so they may perpetuate the species.
abnormal.
They're all theories, and it's already been explored. Maybe you're choosing what you read based on the conclusions.
Here's viewpoint counter to what you've read:
The New Scientist - "The In Crowd"
Actually...no. That's not true any more than saying the Wright Flyer can be compared to a Space Shuttle. They both fly, but their purposes for flying are completely different and defy comparison.
I disagree and, further, I believe a majority of the world's Christians would as well. The point of Jesus Christ becoming fully human would take several courses in multiple theological ideologies but, I can assure you, comparitive purposes wasn't high on the list. Even though I will grant you that he did lead a life of love and compassion that is to be admired and modeled.
But, Jesus Christ was an exceptional case.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you.
Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 04-28-2005 at 11:39 AM.
That's an interesting read... may I present a theory. Sexual behavior for pleasure (not just for the purpose of mating) is a trait of only the most intelligent species known (humans, primates, perhaps dolphins). Of course, the higher the level of intelligence, the more a species can "pick and choose" its behavior, knowing about cause and effect. Wouldn't that indicate that sexual behavior is indeed a "choice" of the more intelligent species?
Interesting.
One, there is nothing to support that sexuality is indeed genetic and, two, the article only tends to support the original notion I proposed that sexuals have no business parenting...particularly since you seem to believe it may be a natural function to control the population.
Okay, you've officially reached the stage of "forum babbling." What on earth are you driving at?
But, he wasn't ONLY fully human. Again, back to my Wright Flyer/Space Shuttle comparison. Both are fully aircraft -- however, one is much, much, much more.
Now. What I want to know, since we're on religion and sexuality, is how Christian gays square the following two passages:
Jesus didn't seem to think so.
Matthew 19:11 -12
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (New International Version)
So, give me the Cliff Notes on the debate...
Other than claiming the Scriptures are fabricated -- which, obviously has been forwarded and of which you won't be able to convince me if others haven't -- I can't see a possible argument that would have any Christian religion accepting sexuality as a normal behavior.
First of all, that passage doesn't proclaim those cir stances as normal just as conditions that should be accepted. It also doesn't speak to sexuality or their fitness for parenting...which, by the way, is the genesis of this debate.
Personally, I accept sexuality as a behavior that exists in society. I don't hate sexuals. I don't think sexual are less human than heterosexuals. I don't believe sexuals are any worse than the rest of us in the sin department, either -- we all fall short. We all need salvation.
I simply don't believe a person who chooses that lifestyle should be parenting. It's my opininon and I don't see it changing unless the two scriptures below magically -- maybe I should say miraculously -- disappear from the Holy Bible.
I went and read the website from which you drew your "analysis" and I can't say that I disagree with anything substantive that Mr. Johns says. As for the analysis to which you referred as "Liberal" and "Conservative," he more appropriately characterized it as "Considerations suggesting that God does
accept sexual unions" and "Considerations suggesting that God does not accept sexual unions," respectively.
The analyses are just that -- analyses by learned professionals (I presume)...and, they disagree. However, the most telling analysis is the final one in which Mr. Johns summarizes the debate, "In summary, the Bible says nothing explicitly positive about sexuality, and what it does say is almost exclusively negative or critical." Okay, that's Mr. John's assessment.
How do your "Conservative" and "Liberal" analysts see it?
"Conservative" first:
At least he sticks to the topic. Now, your "Liberal" analysis:
A couple of things about this "analysis." If your point is well-founded, there is no need for diversion to other topics such as slavery and suffrage. In fact, the diversion isn't even well done...notice the use of the phrase "...does not often explicitly address..," which really means, the Bible does explicitly address slavery and suffrage.
I notice the analyst doesn't make the same claim about sexuality. Further, I disagree with the analysis that "the trajectories" of the biblical message suggest we accept gays and lesbians as equal partners in the church [language to mean gay clergy and gay marriage]. You won't find any such suggestion in the Bible.
elpimpo is dropping some knowledge
i guess 8 years of private and university catholic education is good for something
Des, and anyone else who might be interested, I have four articles from medical and science journals that support the idea that sexuality is a biological condition, and not a "choice" - they're in PDF format, so I can email them to you if you want to PM me with an address.
Everything in life is a choice. Hetrosexual relationships and sexual ones are all choices people make. No one is born with a woman attached to their . Who cares what other people do with their lives, it's not any of your concern.
The actual acts of engaging in any type of sexual activity are choices, but the inherent pointing in either direction is not. You don't choose to be attracted to what you are attracted to, you just are.
Either way, when I get back to Jess' I'll post the PDFs if I can, or you can PM her and she'll email them to you.
I know. I just don't understand why people think it's their business to get involved with other people's lives.
If the state deems that a person or persons can adequately care for a child, then that person or persons should be allowed to adopt that child. This shouldn't be based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. It should totally be based on the abilities of the peopl to care for that child.
I don't know if it's biological or not! It's just a theory. But sure, I'll read them.
I couldn't agree with you more Chris.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote