if it is possible then how can it be unnatural?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I say technology is bad. That's my 2 sense. Lol Im broke

originally posted by: SatansPride
a reply to: howtonhawky

That's what makes it complicated. Google might not show it, there are hundreds of definitions for each word. Natural is one of the most rampant discussions through history.

yes many there are

it goes by power

which ever definition we give the most power to is the ruling one.

in our case google chooses for us

a reply to: howtonhawky

Time chooses for us. Honor, what did it mean 2000 years ago, what does it mean today? We don't think killing a person for rape is honorable anymore, to lock them up is honorable. Time changes definitions.

a reply to: SatansPride

that is all power at the time

as far as on her perhaps they should not be able

originally posted by: SatansPride
a reply to: howtonhawky

Time chooses for us. Honor, what did it mean 2000 years ago, what does it mean today? We don't think killing a person for rape is honorable anymore, to lock them up is honorable. Time changes definitions.

correct
because 2k years ago we all agreed to follow a specific definition of it.
its funny cause we made it all up. we made up honor. we made up the definition.
2k years from now it will not mean what it does now

it is whatever value we attach to it because it is our creation

a reply to: TinySickTears

This is why I say without words, Satan wouldn't be a bother to us, deciete wouldn't be a problem & technology would have not happened. Words were are first trait of deciete, then came the fun stuff. Words are what the Eden's apple was. Unless you can think of something that was deceitful to us before words & will last longer than words?

a reply to: SatansPride

maybe not just words but certainly the ability to imagine and weave together fiction.

"Gay" has been around almost as long a human (at least it seems that way- maybe a difference description). It's still happening.

a reply to: TinySickTears

We cant think without words, it's just called feeling. Thinking is using words in the head, without words it would just be feeling. I just walked inside & the first thing I heard on the TV was body language. Don't let me forget body language, becuase that has to mean something when it comes to language arts.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Which is why I say words are the first step to tech. & we are on the path to feeling less. That is Satan's want, to make us feel less. Without feeling, do we have any power on earth? Or just in heaven?

reading further into your mess here it seems you have hit the lowest common denominator in order to justify negative actions.

ate up with it.

whats wrong with doing it if i am able to do it

sounds much like do what thy will

and not at all far from your op

i would recommend a compass or a map

a reply to: howtonhawky

Lol I don't take meds. People torture animals for medication & it's disgusting. Like millions & millions of animals for meds. I don't justify torture at all, do you?

a reply to: tovenar

(Kind of a long post, I get carried away)

Well cannibalism is natural for sure; it happens a lot in nature, right? If we decide that cannibalism is unnatural then any kind of immoral act should be unnatural too, like a cat playing with a mouse before killing it for example -- is that also unnatural? And I'd say rape qualifies for this too, and also incest, even though as far as I know they are less common. I bet there have been groups of humans or animals who have resorted to incest, and if they did not then their line would have died out. So, would that have been more natural?

Murder is a specific form of killing, basically it's killing without social sanction or without good reason, and also a certain degree of premeditation is implied, so it's not just killing in a flash of anger or in self-defense. So I think the answer to this question is inconclusive; whether or not a killing is natural can't depend on any law or social convention, I think. We have to look for a deeper definition for "natural" than laws or social mores, otherwise its all arbitrary. (I mean, is the whole concept of murder even natural? Animals don't have murder I think.)

Bestiality is a human act of having sex with an animal. To me this is the most unnatural one so far, hard to argue for it being natural, except by saying that animals sometimes have sex with the wrong animals too. And of course really everything is natural because everything is part of nature. For example, is a black hole unnatural? A black hole is pretty unnatural in my opinion. I'd say bestiality is more natural than a black hole. But still a black hole obeys the laws of nature (assuming the theories aren't all wrong somehow). Unless nature only consists of tigers and trees and stuff like that. But that's a pretty narrow definition.

Obviously we could take natural to mean something like "good for us" or "healthy" or "strengthens the species". Then bestiality could be unnatural because it doesn't produce children, you can't get consent from an animal, animals aren't designed to have sex with humans, etc. But if we take these arguments at face value and apply them fairly to all human activity, then things like contraception, eating meat or masturbation would also be unnatural. So, I think bestiality is wrong but I'm not sure if it's unnatural.

Adjustable rate mortgages I'd say are as natural as any cultural meme, like a religious practice or the idea of murder. I guess it's a good candidate for being unnatural, for sure. Genetically modified food is absolutely natural though. It's just changes in DNA; what could be more natural than that? It doesn't matter if a human being is doing it intentionally or not. This is a very interesting one, though. Is selective breeding natural?

Having a soul is surely also natural, if it only happens to higher forms of life, like humans or dogs. Otherwise we could say lobsters are unnatural compared to bacteria, right? And bacteria are unnatural compared to viruses, and viruses compared to rocks or whatever. I mean, I have to say that if people have souls then dogs do as well, and then the difference between a dog and some slightly dumber animal isn't that big either. BUT; the soul itself is unnatural! It is not part of nature, as far as I can tell, it's external somehow.

As for prayer, I don't think the uniqueness is enough to make it unnatural.

Of it's all semantics in a way, just depends on how we define 'nature', like people have said already. I guess most people use several, contradictory definitions.

EDIT: I mean, some of these are harder to prove to be natural because it depends on how you define natural. But some are easier because even by a very narrow definition they can be said to be natural.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I say do whatever you want, I'm just saying to whoever reads my posts are longer able to say, father forgive me for I know not what I do. Know what that means? I think we should just live in the woods naked with animals & survive (naturally) lol. So illegal though to live with god. In super powerful countries that go to thrid world countries, take their food cause they can travel worldwide to hunt, than profit money from trying to give back food from the same people they take offs. Lol now that is good business

It's possible for me to star and flag this thread, but it would be unnatural.

Wait... what?
If anything is possible than the possibility of something unnatural exists.
That's the literal definition of anything.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: wildespace

again
homosexuals can have kids.
happens all the time

i suppose if anything was natures mistake it would be people born infertile.

gay people can procreate.

But do gay people *want* to procreate?

And if gay people *do* want to procreate and/or raise children but are not attracted to the opposite sex, can you acknowledge that something is amiss?

Current evolutionary theory is that heterosexually reproducing organisms appeared 1.2 billion years ago. The model for reproduction is the heterosexual template we go by.

Is homosexuality natural? In so much that it is a deviation from normal hormonal and mental pathways, yes. But natural is not necessarily normal.

Notice I did not say 'evil' or 'aberration'. I'll stick with 'deviation from the norm'.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TinySickTears

But do gay people *want* to procreate?

And if gay people *do* want to procreate and/or raise children but are not attracted to the opposite sex, can you acknowledge that something is amiss?

i would say some gay people want to procreate because they do

i guess something would be amiss depending on how you think about it. i suppose

is it amiss because it might not make sense to some/most based on todays acceptable behavior?

maybe its not amiss at all?

the only requirements for conception is the sperm and the egg. attraction to the person you are procreating with is not a requirement.
only having sex with the opposite is not a requirement either.

peoples desires change over time too.
maybe for the first 30 years of john doe gay man he does not want to procreate. has sex for pleasure with other men.
then something changes. could be a million things.
now he has sex with a women.

still gay. still not attracted to the woman. still having sex. still procreating

edit on 31-3-2018 by TinySickTears because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i read that last night and i have been thinking about it.

if it is possible then how can it be unnatural?

i am talking from a biological perspective.
we see this argument a lot when it comes to homosexuality. we hear that is goes against what god says and that it does not happen in the animal kingdom so it is not natural and wrong..

but if its possible then isnt it natural?
take belief systems and myths out of it and just look it it biologically... why is it wrong?

You answered your own question: Because "God" said so.

No investigation, no curiosity - just blind faith in a manmade deity.

a reply to: wildespace

Be careful when you talk about cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

There are some of those cases that are conflated with the two male animals wanting to have sex with each other when that's really not what's taking place. I know people often talk about sneaker males in the cichlid kingdom for example as an example of gay fish.

But ...

I've kept many cichlids in my time, including having and directly observing sneaker behavior. And it's not what people think of as gay behavior.

What happens is that you have a dominate male who shows off and beats the crap out of the other male. The sub-dominant male would ordinarily leave if possible and establish his own turf. His other alternative is to adopt female color and behavior to avoid getting killed, but that doesn't stop him from wanting to breed. So when the dominant male is courting/spawning with a female, he sneaks in on the action acting as the female himself. All three fish participate and both males get a shot at fertilizing the female's eggs, so what he's really doing isn't trying to breed with the male like a gay fish, but instead trying to breed with the female himself like a hetero male. He's just very beta.

If the dominant male ever dies, the once "gay" fish colors right up and takes over like an alpha. No more acting like a gay fish!

So some of the reports of widespread gay behavior are just anthropomorphizing.