POI wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 12:08 pm
POI Interesting, you actually believe '
the fall' is a thing, and not instead allegory/metaphor/other? Why do you believe this, besides the say-so in an ancient book?
Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later.
POI Sounds like intuition is no more or less trustworthy than any other feeling or emotion one may have. So why mention intuition if this is not the basis for objective morality?
Intuition is not the basis for objective morality.
Definition of intuition:
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge, without recourse to conscious reasoning or needing an explanation. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; gut feelings; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning. Intuitive knowledge tends to be approximate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition
Our sense of morality is a form of intuition, in which we have a sense of what is right or wrong without requiring anyone to teach us or have a rational thought process behind it.
POI If my intuitions do not align with God's pronouncements, is it even possible that my intuition can still be right?
You mean God is objectively wrong and you are objectively right?
(U) Actually, I'm doubtful that you'll ever answer my question.
POI Well, I answered your question many responses ago. At the bottom of post 4005, you asked:
"On what justification should it not be bad?"
And yet, I had already informed you that on the topic of 'gay sex', which includes anal sex, I'm agnostic. So why ask me why I think it is not bad? It is completely YOUR burden to demonstrate why anal sex IS bad. Before we do a deep dive here, I would admit there is some 'anal sex' which we could consider 'bad'. But not all of it. God states it IS an abomination.
So what you are "happy to address" is to simply claim agnosticism. This reveals the weakness of the skeptic position where they fail to defend a position, but have to resort to ignorance. The typical skeptic tactic is to attack and pose endless claims and questions while avoiding to take a position and defend it.
Which means it's all bad, all the time. Is this what you believe too?
Yes. Do you believe it can be good?
1. It is against the original design. The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.
POI Okay. Before we begin, I have to (again) point out video 2.
Yes, you keep on pointing to the videos, but fail to provide exactly what those videos state that is the relevant point.
Since you are a Christian moral realist, you do not get to appeal to consequentialism.
Makes no sense. I'm not even using consequentialism here.
If reasons exist to detour against anal sex, then there is no need for a God to ground it. You need to pick between the either/or: 1) God's say-so, <or> 2) your given reason(s) instead becomes the 'god' of this topic.
False dichotomy. Rather, I'm using
both to show male on male sex is wrong.
1. a) Prove it was designed. And once you prove that, please then illustrate why such a god would design female plumbing to so easily be cross contaminated (via UTI's, fecal contamination, etc), or why we share an airway with a food way (prone for choking), or why the prostate gland runs right through the middle of the urethra, or why we retain a useless appendix which can inflate and rupture. Let me guess, it's because of "evil"?
More presenting of endless claims and demands from skeptics.
b) Was the mouth designed for "oral sex"? Are the hands designed for "hand jobs"?
c) So, it's okay for a male and female to engage in anal sex?
Out of scope. I've already stated:
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:05 am
The Bible does not explicitly prohibit any other areas of sexual conduct, such as lesbian sexual practices, males and nipples, males french kissing, etc. This is not to say all other sexual practices can be considered morally acceptable, but it is just observing the Bible is silent on other practices.
d) How about if the male-on-male sex is consensual, are of age, and they practice monogamy?
Doesn't matter if it's consensual. If something is wrong, even if it is consensual does not automatically make something right.
(U) 3. It is linked to display of domination and control. This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.
POI Domination and control can be had through heterosexual sexual activity just the same, (via vaginal, anal, and oral), as well.
Of course.
(U) 4. Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.
POI The same risk applies when penetrating a female's anus.
Yes.
(U) Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.
POI Makes sense, if they were brought up in a Christian household. Let the shunning begin!
Do the studies say it is only from Christian households? Or is it simply just your claim?