Doesn't this only serve to undermine your whole argument?It doesn't matter whether you're talking about nature's order as being a result of "God's will" or simple chance as ordained by practical feasibility. It is ultimately the same thing.
Assuming that God actually exists in the first place, and was the creator, and therefore designer, of the physical universe, it logically follows that nothing in that universe would have occurred without his knowledge or foresight. In short, if the world works a certain way, it is only because he made it that way in the first place.
You've never made the conscious choice to NOT have sex and then acted on that?Okay, but what does that change?
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't really think about why they want sex one way or the other. They seek it out more or less innately.
They do so, because they are being driven primarily by instinct and biological programming which is almost completely beyond their control.
A person can think whatever pretty thoughts they want. At the end of the day, however, they are still ultimately beholden to their physical body, their physical mind, and all the intrinsic wants, needs, and limitations that come along with them.
It is not "objectively observable". You're discussing motivation and intent how is that objectively observable? It would be objectively observable it you punched someone in the nose or crashed your car but why you did either of those is not objectively observable.In this case, it simply happens to be an objectively observable fact that the primary reason why the human body and human instinct so strongly desire sexual activity in the first place, is because the act serves a reproductive function which ensures the survival of the species as a whole, and of an individual's own genetic lineage in particular. Sexuality wouldn't exist at all without that greater purpose. It would simply be a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
This is one of the top ten most ridiculous things you've ever said. Lot's of things human beings do exist without a higher purpose. I thought of about 20 sarcastic things I could say in response to the "was of time...." thing but let's just say we disagree and the majority of the population would disagree also.Sexuality wouldn't exist at all without that greater purpose. It would simply be a waste of time, energy, and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Yes, I do. If you choose when you do and when you don't you are controlling the impulse.I mean... Really, do you not see the intrinsic irony of suggesting that human beings are "evolved" enough to overcome their animal instincts, while, at the same time, lauding the virtues of messily smooshing up against one another for basically no other reason than instinctual drive and the natural chemical "high" that goes along with it?
it's a simple issue of self control which,as I recall, you advocate on a regular basis............. I wouldn't say that dignified and restrained "conquest of nature" is really one of them.
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway
Could you please define "normal". Maybe I can help. Does "normal" mean you just go along to get along? Does "normal" mean you just try to act like most people around you? If these things are true, I'd like to propose that "normal" actually means "boring."