Faith and politics[W:398]

[Barny]

That is a good question...your desire is not to pro-create however...you mis-stated there...I do think that is all JM is trying to get across...admit it and move on...

Why are you and JM hung up on my choice of words. You both know what I was implying. Get off your high horses and the two of you move on!!!! Typical JW.

I was raised a JW and had a lifetime of religion shoved down my throat and have seen the hypocrisy within the JW church itself. My older brother is an elder in the church but couldn't even get off his arse to visit his dying mother in hospital because she wasn't a good enough JW.

 

[Barny]

Um everything...you are putting your desires ahead of what you know is right...

Had a life of that rammed down my throat to. Flip the coin. How would you like a life fighting against a very strong God given desire to have sex (procreate) and companionship. And NO I do not believe what JW's believe is right. Why does God allow gay people to be born into a life of misery, and don't give me 'because we are sinners'. Why should some have it easier than others from the get go!

 

[Daisy]

Had a life of that rammed down my throat to. Flip the coin. How would you like a life fighting against a very strong God given desire to have sex (procreate) and companionship. And NO I do not believe what JW's believe is right. Why does God allow gay people to be born into a life of misery, and don't give me 'because we are sinners'. Why should some have it easier than others from the get go!

We all have our stake to bear in order to follow Christ...you have no idea of the things I cope with on a daily basis either...

 

[blarg]

I did not miss-state anything... I was not talking about MY desire. I was talking from a collective point of view. God created man, all people with a 'desire to pro-create' (sex). What does a gay man do with that desire?

not the same thing even if hetero sexul sex can often lead to procreation and the drive for it exists because of it

but any one could want kids

 

[Wessexman]

Sure there are. Sexual urges for heterosexual sex are procreative urges because heterosexual sex is an act of procreation.

They are correct. Our sexual urges are part of our sexual faculties whose end is procreation, but the subjective sexual urge itself is not aimed at procreation.

 

[Wessexman]

The sexual urge is the same, regardless. There is no urge to procreate that is separate from sexual urges. Sexual urges are the driving force behind procreation. There is no separate, discrete urge to procreate.

Actually, this is just wrong, phenomenologically. Sexual urges are just that, urges for sex. We may also have desire for procreation we couple with our sexual urges, but the latter are simply for sex.

 

[Barny]

We all have our stake to bear in order to follow Christ...you have no idea of the things I cope with on a daily basis either...

After being raised a JW as you would know I have studied the bible from end to end in depth. After all that I then sat back and contemplated it all and to be frankly honest if the Bible is true God is a child and we are caught up in is game of childishness.

Getting back to what I think the original OP was partly about. Religious people are prepared to condemn other people to a life of misery based on their beliefs that are only based on faith not 100% verifiable proof. How would you feel as a JW if the Muslims where to force their beliefs on you and condemn your way of life as a Christian based on their religious beliefs as they believe as you that they are right.

I was thinking about this last night. What stops Satan from directly revealing himself to mankind. I know the scriptures say Satan and the demons were stopped from taking the form of man but what stops him from communicating directly with us. If the Bible is true and Satan is trying to deceive us from following God why doesn't Satan just communicate directly with man and claim he is God. I'm sure everyone would follow him then.

 

[Barny]

not the same thing even if hetero sexul sex can often lead to procreation and the drive for it exists because of it

but any one could want kids

ALRIGHT. For everyone hung up on the actual words used instead of the overall implied meaning - Our God given desire to have sex for procreation.

My understanding is that the Catholic church believes that the only acceptable sex is that in which procreation is a possibility, hence contraception is banned. Some religious people do not separate sex from procreation. As I said above, God said "go therefore and fill the earth" not "go therefore and have sex".

I'm out of here, I've got better things to do than nit pick over words.

 

[Daisy]

After being raised a JW as you would know I have studied the bible from end to end in depth. After all that I then sat back and contemplated it all and to be frankly honest if the Bible is true God is a child and we are caught up in is game of childishness.

Getting back to what I think the original OP was partly about. Religious people are prepared to condemn other people to a life of misery based on their beliefs that are only based on faith not 100% verifiable proof. How would you feel as a JW if the Muslims where to force their beliefs on you and condemn your way of life as a Christian based on their religious beliefs as they believe as you that they are right.

I was thinking about this last night. What stops Satan from directly revealing himself to mankind. I know the scriptures say Satan and the demons were stopped from taking the form of man but what stops him from communicating directly with us. If the Bible is true and Satan is trying to deceive us from following God why doesn't Satan just communicate directly with man and claim he is God. I'm sure everyone would follow him then.

Um I have been a JW for almost 42 years so believe me I have had my share of opposition and condemnation from many, including family members and so called friends...what it boils down to is who do I love more...God and His truth or mere humans...I choose God and His truth...I love the truth and thank Jehovah every day of my life for showing me what His truth is...not everyone has been granted that privilege...my own daughter wrote me a letter just this week to thank me for teaching her the truth as she was growing up...she said that was the best gift she could ever receive from me...she has been a pioneer, going on 3 years now...there is nothing better in life than serving Jehovah...

As for Satan revealing himself to humans...that would ruin his best tactic to get man to follow him...disbelief in him...one cannot be on guard or fight the tactics of someone they refuse to believe in so why should he want to spoil that? Simple...he wouldn't...

 

[jmotivator]

no petty sure it all matters a lot

allso pretty sure exception call into question your rule rather then prove it

Nope, assuming there is even an exception, which hasn't been established, it changes nothing about what I said.

 

[jmotivator]

This'll be my last post on the matter. Jmotivator, as I said before your 'straining the gnat but swallowing the camel'. Most sane people would understand what I was implying in my post. You're getting hung up on the strict use of a word and missing the overall implied meaning or just trying to be pedantic.

Why can't you just admit that you used the wrong word? You write a lot of pointless crap just to avoid admitting the obvious error on your part. It would be easier, and more helpful to your argument to avoid linking gay sex and procreation since the comparison and attempts to use the word only point to gay sex as a deviation from the natural purpose of sex.

Jesus admonished the Jews for doing the same thing. They took scripture literally instead of figuratively and literally put the law in a box and tied it to their heads and arms.

And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt. — Exodus 13:9

And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt. — Exodus 13:16

Pretty sure Jesus didn't admonish anyone for stating that only heterosexual sex makes babies... but maybe you have a Bible verse I am unaware of?

Also, no, Jesus didn't admonish anyone for following God's law to the letter. He didn't actually change any of the old laws. All Jesus did with the old law is take it out of the hands of man to enforce it on their fellow man.

I chose the words 'desire to procreate' because I was talking to a JW. A religious person would never say that God created a gay man with a desire to have sex with another man. I was saying that God created us with a desire (urge) to procreate, 'go therefore and fill the earth' not 'go therefore and have sex'. What does a gay man do with that desire when homosexual sex is forbidden in the bible?

No, you used the wrong word because you used the wrong word. Do you think that religious people don't know that gay sex can't make babies? :roll:

 

[blarg]

Nope, assuming there is even an exception, which hasn't been established, it changes nothing about what I said.

infertile hetero couple yes they exist

and not wanting kids and not being able to have kids both mean the urge for sex is not for children but for sex itself

 

[blarg]

Um I have been a JW for almost 42 years so believe me I have had my share of opposition and condemnation from many, including family members and so called friends...what it boils down to is who do I love more...God and His truth or mere humans...I choose God and His truth...I love the truth and thank Jehovah every day of my life for showing me what His truth is...not everyone has been granted that privilege...my own daughter wrote me a letter just this week to thank me for teaching her the truth as she was growing up...she said that was the best gift she could ever receive from me...she has been a pioneer, going on 3 years now...there is nothing better in life than serving Jehovah...

As for Satan revealing himself to humans...that would ruin his best tactic to get man to follow him...disbelief in him...one cannot be on guard or fight the tactics of someone they refuse to believe in so why should he want to spoil that? Simple...he wouldn't...

which is fair when directed at you as your position is shunning works

 

[jmotivator]

They are correct. Our sexual urges are part of our sexual faculties whose end is procreation, but the subjective sexual urge itself is not aimed at procreation.

They aren't aimed at procreation when there is zero chance of pregnancy. Disconnecting sex from procreation just turns it in to a vice the same way most natural urges become vices when disconnected from their natural purpose.

 

[Chagos]

I never said any of that. I responded to the stupid statement that under Christian rules gays fight their desires to procreate (bold mine):

Nope, you voiced the following claim

Sure there are. Sexual urges for heterosexual sex are procreative urges because heterosexual sex is an act of procreation.

YOU !!!

And it was you and your claim I was replying to.

Obviously they made a stupid statement and can't admit it.

I wasn't replying to any claim (stupid or not) of others, I was replying to a stupid claim made by YOU.

And if you project any further you'll more than likely burn yourself right thru the screen.

 

[Wessexman]

They aren't aimed at procreation when there is zero chance of pregnancy. Disconnecting sex from procreation just turns it in to a vice the same way most natural urges become vices when disconnected from their natural purpose.

I agree. I'm, indeed, attracted to a Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law position on ethics. But I was referring to the subjective desire. I don't think that itself is about procreation. It can be linked to subjective desire for procreation, and it functions as part of our sexual faculties that are aimed at procreation, but the pure urge for sex is not an urge for procreation.

 

[Barny]

Why can't you just admit that you used the wrong word?

I've explained why I chose those words, I maybe wrong or right, move on!

 

[Barny]

Pretty sure Jesus didn't admonish anyone for stating that only heterosexual sex makes babies... but maybe you have a Bible verse I am unaware of?

Talk about writing crap. Were did I say anything close to that?

This conversation has moved on in a completely different direction just because of nit-picking over words and missing the overall intent. Whatever, have at it JM you're the man!!!

 

[Barny]

It would be easier, and more helpful to your argument to avoid linking gay sex and procreation since the comparison and attempts to use the word only point to gay sex as a deviation from the natural purpose of sex.

Mate, I wasn't linking gay sex with procreation at all. You're the one that is hung up on gay sex and procreation and have gone off on a tangent. I was simply responding to a JW saying God's laws are not burdensome. I simply stated as a gay man I do not believe that, as we have to fight a desire/urge for sex/procreation that God himself made us with, to be able to adhere to Gods laws. A very burdensome thing to do.

I'm not stupid enough to not realise that gay sex is not as God intended it. Nor do I think I'm going to get a man pregnant. And before you and Elvira judge me don't assume I've engaged in gay sex!!!!

 

[jmotivator]

Mate, I wasn't linking gay sex with procreation at all. You're the one that is hung up on gay sex and procreation and have gone off on a tangent. I was simply responding to a JW saying God's laws are not burdensome. I simply stated as a gay man I do not believe that, as we have to fight a desire/urge for sex/procreation that God himself made us with, to be able to adhere to Gods laws. A very burdensome thing to do.

I'm not stupid enough to not realise that gay sex is not as God intended it. Nor do I think I'm going to get a man pregnant. And before you and Elvira judge me don't assume I've engaged in gay sex!!!!

You are now claiming that your statement that gays are fighting the urge to procreate wasn't linking gay sex to procreation? :roll:

You probably should have stuck to your "this is my last statement" bit...

Or just admitted you used the wrong word in the first place.

 

[jmotivator]

Talk about writing crap. Were did I say anything close to that?

This conversation has moved on in a completely different direction just because of nit-picking over words and missing the overall intent. Whatever, have at it JM you're the man!!!

You are trying to use Jesus teachings to defend your stupid statement about gay procreation.

You got Jesus' teachings wrong (shocker) and tried to strengthen your argument for your wrong headed argument with passages from Exodus. You don't seem very equipped to argue either side.

 

[jmotivator]

I agree. I'm, indeed, attracted to a Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law position on ethics. But I was referring to the subjective desire. I don't think that itself is about procreation. It can be linked to subjective desire for procreation, and it functions as part of our sexual faculties that are aimed at procreation, but the pure urge for sex is not an urge for procreation.

Well, it is in a heterosexual urge, is what I am saying. Christian morality on sex is, put simply, that sexual urges and procreation should not be disconnected as it leads to vice. That isn't to say that people don't try to separate them all the time, but they have a purpose. It would be like trying to say hunger and nourishment aren't connected because a hungry person can swallow sand. Sure, it is possible, but that doesn't change the biological purpose of feeling hungry nor does it normalize eating sand because it stops hunger pangs.

 

[Wessexman]

Well, it is in a heterosexual urge, is what I am saying. Christian morality on sex is, put simply, that sexual urges and procreation should not be disconnected as it leads to vice. That isn't to say that people don't try to separate them all the time, but they have a purpose. It would be like trying to say hunger and nourishment aren't connected because a hungry person can swallow sand. Sure, it is possible, but that doesn't change the biological purpose of feeling hungry nor does it normalize eating sand because it stops hunger pangs.

I agree about the purpose of the desire, and you don't have to be Christian to accept it. I just don't think it is strictly true the sexual urge itself need carry the subjective urge or intention for children. Similarly, my urge for the cheeseburger in front of me need not be subjectively for nutrition. It is the form and function of the sexual faculties that orients them to procreation, whether we intend that outcome or not.

 

[jmotivator]

I agree about the purpose of the desire, and you don't have to be Christian to accept it. I just don't think it is strictly true the sexual urge itself need carry the subjective urge or intention for children. Similarly, my urge for the cheeseburger in front of me need not be subjectively for nutrition. It is the form and function of the sexual faculties that orients them to procreation, whether we intend that outcome or not.

I'm not claiming that the intent had to be to have children, only that desire and purpose are linked only when the desire is heterosexual in nature. The original post I was responding to tried to say that gay people were fighting the urge to procreate, which is obviously false because their desire is by definition divorced from the purpose.

 

[Wessexman]

I'm not claiming that the intent had to be to have children, only that desire and purpose are linked only when the desire is heterosexual in nature. The original post I was responding to tried to say that gay people were fighting the urge to procreate, which is obviously false because their desire is by definition divorced from the purpose.

I agree then.