by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends
Are there any Lesbian animals?
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere, but some biologists recently observed that female panda bears engage in an annual lesbian orgy.
Just imagine the little kids in Paradise Earth: "Look at the pandas, mommy! Why are they licking eachother like that, mommy?"
"It's on of Jehovah's wonderful homosexual creations! Let's watch!"
- Lime
This argument may convince some JWs, but it is inherently flawed. There are a number of "natural" behaviors in animals that most of us find debased, abhorrent, or unacceptable. For example, interspecies humping. For humans, the term is "bestiality." I doubt many of us are into getting freaky with barnyard buddies. Humping your mother/father, offspring, or a sibling. Many animals will do this, yet we deprecate incest almost universally in our society. Nearly all of these "natural" sexual behaviors are considered deviant to varying degrees when humans do them. A certain list of sexual rules exist in most successful cultures for a reason. Sexuality is more than mere pleasure, it is the means of transmission for future generations. A society that does not handle reproduction right will not last in competition with others, it is evolutionarily unfit. We derive pleasure from eating food also, yet few here would espouse eating without restriction or consideration for what is consumed. And we have not even gotten into other "natural" activities animals engage in, such as consuming members of the same species, or the offspring of a competing male. There have existed a number of cannibalistic societies, yet I am sure few of us would use these examples to justify the practice in our own.
You mean all the arguments that were addressed a page back or so. Animals perform incest...well look so do humans and it's been approved in the bible. Lest we forget Lot and his daughters. Homosexuality also has been proving as a bonding activity along with a population cap. It's actually been statistically shown that homosexuality can increase the percentage of mating. For instance in Dolphins there are both female/female and male/male relations. For the Male it is a bond that assists with bonding while hunting for food which increases the amount of food the new baby will receive. For the females, the young now has two females caring for them, and again the female relations between them continues the bond between them and a better link to caring for the offspring. This is a far more complex issue than anyone is giving it credit for. Again though the argument "Animals do alot of things that we don't does that justify it" doesn't hit the heart of the issue. If it is indeed instinct the question is why would God condemn something he created.
You mean all the arguments that were addressed a page back or so. Animals perform incest...well look so do humans and it's been approved in the bible. Lest we forget Lot and his daughters.
I am not discussing the Bible, Tuesday, but more recent standards. Why do atheists always have to bring the Bible into every discussion? They thump the Bible more than the Fundies!
BTS
I am not discussing the Bible, Tuesday, but more recent standards. Why do atheists always have to bring the Bible into every discussion? They thump the Bible more than the Fundies!
The question is about homosexuality in animals and why God condemns it, where does he condemn it? That's why I bring up the bible, I more-so find it funny is when the bible meets a theists point they will use it relentlessly, yet when it contradicts their point they'd rather you forget it. Rather ridiculous double standard if you ask me.
If we forget the bible, then it's an easier discussion. If homosexuality is in nature then it is a natural process. While cannibalism does occur and incest as well, the reasons for laws against these are simple. Cannibalism involves the murder of another human being, which would be causing harm upon another, therefore it would be considered wrong to do. Incest causes ill effects upon any offspring of the union, to prevent this is why there are laws to stop incest. Now, how do these rules apply to homosexuality between consenting adults? If it's due to the inability to produce offspring, should we make laws against heterosexual couples that marry with the intention of never having children? Should they not be allowed to marry unless they plan on having children? The whole argument against homosexuality boils down to one thing, it's condemned in the bible. I can't see any other reason why people have a problem with it.
I like the Pagan?Wiccan Way- instead of a long list of laws they say "if it harm none, do as you will". I fail to see who the victim is if sexual relations are between conscenting adults where they are "GLBT", homosapien/marsupial/reptile/mamal/fallen angels- you get the point?
The Bonus's of Being a Homosexual Sheep
God wants us to be perfect and pure,
No body is perfect. To be Pure you can't have sex, that means you can't be Married.
reniaa
quietly leaving the message is not a version of the bible I am familar with, from just reading it now its sounds perilously close to being a paraphrased bible which I personal don't like they are too subject to the opinion of the person paraphrasing but this aside. Homosexuality is not a law you can blur edges or find loopholes on however many translations you goto, the Jews Gods people for centuries clearly understood from God's original inspired writing that homosexuality was men having sex with men and this was completely condemned by God. this is fairly clear and undisputed. |
here is what Eugene Peterson, who wrote the message bible has to say about why he wrote it the way he did
Peterson is probably best known for The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language, which was written by him to make the original meaning more understandable and accessible to the modern reader. Peterson explains:
|
Also as has often been discussed here on JWN, the NWT is very subject to the opinions of the FDS but you don't seem to be prepared to consider this aspect. Another thing, as mindmelda points out, the context of the verses in question, does strongly suggest that Paul was censuring sex in worship. From the NIV (biblegateway)
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. |
I think that verse 20 is also very applicable to the discussion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
I would think that this suggests that the animal kingdom can be a productive source of knowledge and understanding of God's invisible qualities and eternal power. These qualities and powers, from a scientific point of view, are pre individuated and impersonal and can therefore be seen as pure or perfect. Once they are indviduated in man/ animals/plants for example, purity and perfection can't possibly come into it because what would you compare it to to make such a determination as each thing/form is unique. In verses 24 and 25, where Paul refers to sinful desire he seems to be making a judgement from a personal human angle regarding a worshipful frame of mind to be adopted both individually and as a group.
It looks to me that Paul is tussling with two different frames of reference - pre- individuated qualities and powers and individuated qualities and powers. If this is the case then we need to allow for a very very wide range of expression in love, sex, intimacy etc and this ties in with the diversity we see in forms and behaviours on the earth.
Also these are reasons why I like checking out the message bible and the NIV when the need arises.
the bible is very clear on this subject.
laviticus 20:13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
leviticus 20: 22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
romans 1:26-27 I noticed someone trying to use the old chestnut that this refers to male prostitution but the whole context of the scripture shows it for general relations between male and female and not specific to any occupation but the genders in particular especially given the context of the whole bible from the hebrew scriptures which like the greek scriptures show God condones only a marital sexual relationship between a man and woman alone.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [ a ] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
18 I also thought, "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.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Reniaa,
Didn't Christ get rid of the Old Testiment? I mean if we're supposed to abide by those laws I wouldn't be able to make a specific type of incence and I could kidnap a woman; have my way with her for a month then send her back home when I'm bored with her...as long as I shave her head before she leaves. Oh and if a woman is raped, she should marry her rapist.
The bible is very clear on the subject.
What the bible isn't clear on is why homosexuality is in nature, it shows as an instinct, it is proven as beneficial for populations of animals yet it is condemned in the bible?
Let's say I made a law that said no one could eat brown M&Ms. If someone asked WHY they couldn't eat brown M&Ms, and I responded with "the law is very clear here, no eating brown M&Ms", I would be doing the same thing you're doing here. Restating the law we're questioning doesn't answer the question, it just restates what's already been established in the hypothesis.
Spook, thank you for your response. You in no way come across as a "snot." I took your entire response as being honest and straight forward. I also do not want to get into a drawn out discussion - at this time. At some time I would like to continue the discussion that you mentioned, but alas, I am limited to 10 posts a day.
As a dispassionate observation, it seems that you tend to set up these hypothesis for the purpose of arriving at a predetermined conclusion.
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.
