I don't believe in sin and I don't think it is artificial. It occurs naturally, so it's natural.
I never mentioned other animals sexual practices, I only mentioned humans. And humans practice homosexual behavior without artificial interference, or help, so therefore it is natural. And like I said, just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good, like cannibalism, and alot of unnatural things are good, such as how me and you are communicating right now.
Is homosexuality sinful or unnatural? Why?
Do you think it sinless and natural? Why?
I don't think the sexuality of other animals can be equated to human sexuality. My definition of unnatural is how the reproductive system of the human species is designed. The reproductive system was designed for the opposite sex. Even though I believe homosexuality is unnatural and a sin I still support homosexual rights, those are just my beliefs on the matter.
I believe that it is a sin according to the Bible. I also believe it's unnatural.
Sin does not exist? None, at all?
Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?
If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?
Sorry, I mistook your "nature" comment to mean animal life.
I don't think if humans do something it automatically makes it natural. Some humans have sex with children and others have sex with objects, I don't think those are natural. My definition of unnatural is more from a biological standpoint and not necessarily a social one. I do agree though that not all unnatural things are bad. Treating people with synthetic medicines is unnatural but it isn't bad.
Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.
Sin does not exist? None, at all?
Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?
If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?
Sin does not exist? None, at all?
Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse?
What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?
Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.
In nature, some animals will eat their mate or mate before they die. My arguments come from biology and the design and function of the human reproductive system.Right, let's avoid creating a rigorous definition that makes the propaganda phrase fall flat.
The sexuality of other animals (especially mammals, primates and apes) is most definitely useful in understanding human sexuality. It's certainly not the only thing we should consider, but in the cases where it does not apply you need to provide a valid reason why it should not apply. You have not done so. Gay sex in bonobos does not lead to reproduction. It does not lead to reproduction in bison. It does not lead to reproduction in penguins. Is gay sex in those species unnatural?
Your definition of natural is totally dependent on the idea that human nature was determined by God and therefore is not comparable to what is natural in other animals.
I define natural by something that occurs in nature, without artificial interference, or help. So yes, I think those examples you listed are natural.
One can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin. Sin is a religious idea, and if one is not religious, then believing in sin is something absurd to them.
What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?
Nonreligious people can have legions of beliefs uinproven, as well. Yours is no exception.
What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?
Nonreligious people can have legions of beliefs uinproven, as well. Yours is no exception.
What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?
I have a sense of right and wrong and don't believe in sin.
In nature, some animals will eat their mate or mate before they die.
My arguments come from biology and the design and function of the human reproductive system.
Most everyone has a sense of right, and wrong, and the belief in sin has no bearing on that.
And if your asking for scientific proof, scientifically prove sin. I eagerly await this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?