How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument

[POI]

(U) God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc. Just because God has an attribute doesn't mean all the attributes mean the same. With your argument, then mercy makes right, love makes right, just makes right, etc.

POI According to who or what? His say-so, or, because of reason(s) outside of his say-so? It cannot be both, I'll explain below.

(U) Don't follow your logic. What exactly did Turek state that makes me creating the forum to set what is right arbitrary?

POI Did you arbitrarily make up some rules, or did you make up rules based upon reasons outside of your arbitrary choosing? I'll give you an example...

I create a board game. A rule in which I created states that every time one rolls a '5', you take one step forward. Did I create this rule arbitrarily, or because of reason(s) outside my own personal whim(s)?

(U) The why doesn't matter. Did I the provide the justification for the rules on the rules page? No. Do they still define what is the right behavior that is expected on the forum? Yes. Are they actually right for this forum? Yes. Has anybody asked for the why for the rules before? No.

POI Pointing to the WHY is what demonstrates my point. As I told you prior, we know why the said bullies and mafia bosses did what they did, for money! Why does God hate anal sex? Is it because he says so, or, does he abide by reason(s) outside his necessity? It cannot be both. I'll explain below.

I asked you why, to demonstrate a point. I already know it is not merely because you say so. You abide by reason(s) completely outside your say-so. Which then means, the authority, you in this case, is no longer necessary. I honestly do not look at the ruleset in this forum. I abide by my own set of 'morals' to assure I do not get kicked off this forum. It is not necessary for you to tell me the rules. For the most part, if I break a rule, I usually know I'm doing it ahead of time without reading what rules you put in place. And if you happen to place a rule in there, in which I do not agree with, you, being the authority of this forum, is not what makes the rule actually right, unless you can substantiate the given rule, using reason(s) outside your whim(s) to decide to create the said rule in the first place.

(U) At a minimum, it is subjectively right for that particular area of domain (US, a kingdom, this forum). What would make something objectively right? The only basis would be if it could be traced back to God.

POI Negative. God states what is right, based upon his own nature, or whim(s). If his nature happened to be that raping every firstborn child is a necessity, then this would also be what is "right". God's nature happens to be to think that anal sex is an abomination. Hence, it is truth?

(U) God's nature is not arbitrary

POI Does this mean God bases his laws upon reason(s), which no longer necessitates him at all? Arbitrary - "based on a personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

(U) Yes, I've given both religious and secular reasons why anal sex is bad.

POI Then you do not need God to justify the position. We only need to evaluate the reason(s) or systems to determine if anal sex is objectively bad or not.

(U) Providing both does not mean the other is nullified, but rather provides additional support to each.

POI It kind of does. If you take away the reason(s), all you have left is God's whims or God's nature. If you take away God's whims or God's nature, you are left to critique the reason(s).

(U) And I have to ask again, what is exactly stated that I have not addressed?

POI Did you watch the 1st video at least? It's only 3 minutes long. He gives a third asserted option. But this option is circular, as the 2nd 4-minute video explains. I asked if you had a 4th option - (outside of the three given options)? I do not recall much of any follow up here?

(U) "Rich" is not a moral term. Where does the Bible say it is wrong to be rich?

POI It is to Jesus. 'Rich' becomes a moral construct merely because Jesus weighs in on it. (i.e.):

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter." James 5:1-6

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:25

(U) There is no normative claim about being rich in the Bible (or in any human laws), so being rich is not even relevant to morality.

POI Yes it is, to Jesus. Jesus tells folks that being rich is bad. Just like the OT God tells folks that 'anal sex' is bad.

(U) You're not even talking about morality when discussing being rich.

POI Yes I am. The Bible God weighs in on it, so it becomes a moral construct. And as I've stated, theists will tell unbelievers that their assessment about 'morals' cannot be justified without the assertion of a supernatural agency telling them what is right or wrong. And yet, they will trip all over themselves by justifying the rightness or wrongness of something, using reason(s), which falls outside the scope of God's say-so. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

(U) Yes, I'm providing more rubberstamping of corrections of your false attributions. Here's what I stated: "I'm not saying anything not explicitly prohibited in the Bible is okay. Nothing is mentioned about many things, but that doesn't mean they are okay. But, if one wants to interpret the Leviticus passages as encompassing all sexual activity, they are free to do so. But, I believe it's specifically referring to anal sex."

POI Sure All other "gay sex" acts are fine by God then.

(U) God gives people their moral intuition, but that doesn't mean we all have perfect or identical moral judgments and behavior. We are still fallen and prone to sin and have skewed moral judgments. So just because some people have a certain stance on morality doesn't mean that is how God views it.

POI This is exactly what I stated prior: Post 3987:

Christian moral realism 101 -- If your morals agree with God, then God gave them to you. If they do not, then they are being intercepted by evil/other.

I guess this means that because I do not think anal sex is an abomination, I must be plagued by evil/other.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3996

Ancient societies more often had few writing materials and anything religious were kept for the priesthood.

There wouldn't have been any point in having a priesthood without a laity.

I’m afraid you’re making this up. You assume this. There are peoples who presented offerings to what they knew were evil beings and those creatures are never considered holy. Being a spiritual being is not automatically a holy one.

You're the one making assumptions. On what do you base the conclusion that people "knew" that they were making offerings to "evil beings"?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3996

Ancient societies more often had few writing materials and anything religious were kept for the priesthood.

There wouldn't have been any point in having a priesthood without a laity.

Doesn’t mean that the laity thought that the writings were sacred.

I’m afraid you’re making this up. You assume this. There are peoples who presented offerings to what they knew were evil beings and those creatures are never considered holy. Being a spiritual being is not automatically a holy one.

You're the one making assumptions. On what do you base the conclusion that people "knew" that they were making offerings to "evil beings"?

Ive read reports from those who practiced appeasing the spirits who otherwise did evil. They said they were evil, Muslims today are afraid of the “Jinn” whom they know is evil.

[otseng]

Anyone can provide indirect arguments for a claim. Nobody is saying using indirectness is not allowed. The issue is you making a indirect moral assessment on situations in the Bible by thinking God is unjust and commits atrocities and genocides.

You say "Nobody is saying using indirectness is not allowed" and then say using indirectness is an issue.
Not making any sense.

So you are then presenting a moral judgment, not a logical argument. If the Bible explicitly stated God is unjust, only then would it be a logical argument since it's simply stating what the Bible says without making any moral judgment.

It is logical sir no matter how many times you try to straw-man.
Some passages point to A. This happens directly or indirectly.
Some passages point to non-A. This happens indirectly.

Here is what you originally stated:

What I said is that skeptics do not say God is immoral or ought to behave in a certain manner but that the concept presented is illogical-contradictory.

Your argument would only show the Bible is contradictory if the Bible explicitly said "God is just" and "God is unjust". In that case, tt is simply presenting what the Bible says without any personal judgment that God is unjust. However, you have not presented any passages that directly say God is unjust, but presented passages that you make a personal moral judgment that God is unjust. So it is not purely a logical argument, but it also involves your personal moral judgment.

Who claims fairness is perfect justice or is a requirement for God?

So God is unfair in his punishments but that is perfect justice.
So God is unfair but that is compatible with "all his works are perfect".
Q: In what world? Delulu world?

In this world. Who says the world has to be fair? On what basis do you justify the claim that the world has to be fair? Who says God has to treat everyone fairly?

You can't extrapolate your own attraction to everyone. I can't understand or sympathize with homosexual arousals, but that doesn't mean gay people cannot get aroused by seeing other men. Likewise, we cannot make a statement that prisoners cannot get aroused in different circumstances.

I was not talking of my attraction. I was talking in general.
It can't happen(in general) while feeling disgust-> zero attraction, zero sexual attraction for the erection by its process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal.
Its a contradiction.

Whether it's you, or me, or anyone, people are all different in regards to sexual attraction. Are you saying everyone in the world has to have the exact same sexual attraction and orientation?

That does not answer my question. Please point to a specific argument I have not given a counter argument to.

You agreed God is omnibenevolent.
Then retracted.

This is what I stated:

Who's claiming God is "omni-perfect"? This is just another of the "omni" arguments that skeptics use to paint an imaginary straw man God.

You did sir.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Then I'll dispute it now. How do you define what it means that God is omniperfect?

I don't recall making the claim God is omnibenevolent. All I said is I'm not disputing it. But, if we want to debate it now, we can. And for clarity, I'm not making a claim either way God is omnibenevolent or not. But I'm open to see where the evidence leads to.

You have avoided the above like the plague always. Please don't.

Typically what I avoid is going down all these rabbit trails that skeptics bring up that is not directly related to the topic under discussion (like all the suppossed omni characteristics of God).

Yes, and as I've pointed out above, you are then making an indirect moral judgment.

If the Bible did not have used any moral language you might have a point.

And as I've summarized for genocide and slavery, God is not immoral. And soon I'll summarize the case for homosexuality.

[otseng]

(U) God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc. Just because God has an attribute doesn't mean all the attributes mean the same. With your argument, then mercy makes right, love makes right, just makes right, etc.

POI According to who or what? His say-so, or, because of reason(s) outside of his say-so? It cannot be both, I'll explain below.

According to your own logic, since you're the one claiming might makes right.

(U) Don't follow your logic. What exactly did Turek state that makes me creating the forum to set what is right arbitrary?

POI Did you arbitrarily make up some rules, or did you make up rules based upon reasons outside of your arbitrary choosing?

This is similar to the Euthyphro dilemma which I've addressed multiple times.

I create a board game. A rule in which I created states that every time one rolls a '5', you take one step forward. Did I create this rule arbitrarily, or because of reason(s) outside my own personal whim(s)?

There is a difference between you creating a board game and God creating the entire world. The subjects are completely different and the objects are completely different. Also, nobody is claiming God decided to create objective morality.

There is also a difference between objective morality and rules and laws, though there is an overlap. Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules. Rules and laws are not necessarily objective, but can be subjective.

So arguments about objective morality are separate from arguments about specific laws (like male on male sex).

POI Pointing to the WHY is what demonstrates my point. As I told you prior, we know why the said bullies and mafia bosses did what they did, for money!

And even if we know the why does not make it right.

Why does God hate anal sex? Is it because he says so, or, does he abide by reason(s) outside his necessity?

Not sure how it can be outside his necessity since God created sex.

I honestly do not look at the ruleset in this forum. I abide by my own set of 'morals' to assure I do not get kicked off this forum. It is not necessary for you to tell me the rules.

Well, that explains why you don't use the standard practice of bbcode quoting.

For the most part, if I break a rule, I usually know I'm doing it ahead of time without reading what rules you put in place.

People as well don't engage in anal sex while not having read the prohibitions against it.

And if you happen to place a rule in there, in which I do not agree with, you, being the authority of this forum, is not what makes the rule actually right, unless you can substantiate the given rule, using reason(s) outside your whim(s) to decide to create the said rule in the first place.

Actually, there is no rule that I need to explain the why of the rules before disciplining anyone for violating the rules. It does not matter if you do not like the rule or if you do not know the why behind the rule. If you break a rule, I have the right to enforce the rules without explaining to you the why of the rules. As a matter of fact, nobody that has ever been disciplined has asked for the why of the rules.

(U) At a minimum, it is subjectively right for that particular area of domain (US, a kingdom, this forum). What would make something objectively right? The only basis would be if it could be traced back to God.

POI Negative. God states what is right, based upon his own nature, or whim(s). If his nature happened to be that raping every firstborn child is a necessity, then this would also be what is "right". God's nature happens to be to think that anal sex is an abomination. Hence, it is truth?

Talking about multiple things here - authority, morality, and truth. Each by itself is complicated and even more a mess by mixing them all together. I've already deep dived into morality and if we want to deep dive into authority and truth, we could possibly do that.

(U) God's nature is not arbitrary

POI Does this mean God bases his laws upon reason(s), which no longer necessitates him at all? Arbitrary - "based on a personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

As explained above, God being the basis of OMV is separate from specific laws. Laws can be based on multiple things. Some laws might not be based on OMV, but on other things like practical reasons.

(U) Yes, I've given both religious and secular reasons why anal sex is bad.

POI Then you do not need God to justify the position. We only need to evaluate the reason(s) or systems to determine if anal sex is objectively bad or not.

(U) Providing both does not mean the other is nullified, but rather provides additional support to each.

POI It kind of does. If you take away the reason(s), all you have left is God's whims or God's nature. If you take away God's whims or God's nature, you are left to critique the reason(s).

Not sure what you mean by "if you take away the reasons".

And if both religious and secular reasons support anal sex is bad, then on what justification do opponents claim anal sex is not bad?

(U) And I have to ask again, what is exactly stated that I have not addressed?

POI Did you watch the 1st video at least? It's only 3 minutes long. He gives a third asserted option. But this option is circular, as the 2nd 4-minute video explains. I asked if you had a 4th option - (outside of the three given options)? I do not recall much of any follow up here?

Again, what is exactly stated? Simply saying "He gives a third asserted option" is not stating what is the third option.

(U) "Rich" is not a moral term. Where does the Bible say it is wrong to be rich?

POI It is to Jesus. 'Rich' becomes a moral construct merely because Jesus weighs in on it. (i.e.):

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter." James 5:1-6

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:25

Nowhere in these passages does it state it is wrong to be rich. In the James passage, it is not being rich itself that was the issue, but withholding wages and living selfishly. In Luke, it does not exactly state it's impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom. It adds:

[Luk 18:26-27 KJV] 26 And they that heard [it] said, Who then can be saved? 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

(U) There is no normative claim about being rich in the Bible (or in any human laws), so being rich is not even relevant to morality.

POI Yes it is, to Jesus. Jesus tells folks that being rich is bad.

No, being rich is not bad. We have many rich men in the Bible (Abraham, Joseph, Job, David, Solomon, Matthew, Joseph of Arimathea, etc.) and they were not condemned for being rich.

(U) You're not even talking about morality when discussing being rich.

POI Yes I am. The Bible God weighs in on it, so it becomes a moral construct.

It's not being rich that is bad, but it's the love of money that is bad.

[1Ti 6:10 KJV] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

And as I've stated, theists will tell unbelievers that their assessment about 'morals' cannot be justified without the assertion of a supernatural agency telling them what is right or wrong.

Actually, I've never claimed this. As a matter of fact, I believe people can intuitively know what is right and wrong without being told it by anybody.

I guess this means that because I do not think anal sex is an abomination, I must be plagued by evil/other.

I've given religious and secular reasons why anal sex is considered bad. On what justification should it not be bad?

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #4005]

I created (3) new topics, as to not derail this one.

************************

I think there has been enough back and forth, and now it is time to cut to the chase. You believe an invisible agency gives us our intuitions/morals.

Do your intuitions tell you that anal sex is an abomination? Mine don't. So far, the only reason you have provided, as to why I do not agree with your intuitions, is because (sin/evil/other) is blocking the correct intuitions to feel that anal sex is an abomination. Your belief is that some invisible agency(s) are at play here. Either to direct you toward the correct path, or where I'm concerned, it is instead 'invisible evil forces' or sinful peer influences to lead me down the incorrect path.

In other words, if your intuitions agree with God's, it's right. If they do not, it's wrong. Am I on the right track in this summation?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4003

Ive read reports from those who practiced appeasing the spirits who otherwise did evil.

Ancient people sought to appease various spirits to gain their favor; it was a sign of respect. Trickster gods were often regarded not only as deceivers but also as teachers and even creators of the world.

Muslims today are afraid of the “Jinn” whom they know is evil.

Islam is a dualistic religion.

[otseng]

Do your intuitions tell you that anal sex is an abomination? Mine don't. So far, the only reason you have provided, as to why I do not agree with your intuitions, is because (sin/evil/other) is blocking the correct intuitions to feel that anal sex is an abomination.

There are scriptural and rational grounds that anal sex is considered bad/wrong:

1. Lev 18:22

[Lev 18:22 KJV] 22 Thou shalt not lie (H7901) with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination (H8441).

2. Lev 20:13

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie (H7901) with mankind, as he lieth (H7904) with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (H8441): they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

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.

2. It is against the original purpose.

One purpose of hetereosexual sex is the continuation of the human race. Male on male sex would not result in continuation of people.

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.

4. It is unsafe behavior.

And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.

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.

Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

And research has shown that gay men and other men who have sex with men experience intimate partner violence at a higher rate than do other men.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20047107

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus - which causes anal and genital warts - is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.

https://www.health.ny.gov/community/lgb ... ncerns.htm

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

5. Historically, male on male sex has been considered to be deviant behavior.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

Now your turn. What is your justification to believe anal sex is not bad/wrong?

[alexxcJRO]

Your argument would only show the Bible is contradictory if the Bible explicitly said "God is just" and "God is unjust". In that case, tt is simply presenting what the Bible says without any personal judgment that God is unjust. However, you have not presented any passages that directly say God is unjust, but presented passages that you make a personal moral judgment that God is unjust. So it is not purely a logical argument, but it also involves your personal moral judgment.

Bible says directly: God is perfectly just. ------> Me borrowing the language and philosophical concepts surrounding "justice", "just".
Bible says indirectly through actions of God: God is unjust.

In this world. Who says the world has to be fair? On what basis do you justify the claim that the world has to be fair? Who says God has to treat everyone fairly?

Perfect justice entails perfect fairness in punishing and applying justice. It's simple logic.
Punishing unfairly is not perfect justice but imperfect justice.

Whether it's you, or me, or anyone, people are all different in regards to sexual attraction. Are you saying everyone in the world has to have the exact same sexual attraction and orientation?

Sir it's about what it means to have an erection: the process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal. This is a biological truth.

"The swollen (tumescent) penis
A man becomes aroused through his senses (such as sight or touch) or his thoughts (such as memories or fantasies). During arousal, messages brought by nerves cause the blood vessels and spongy chambers to dilate (open up). More blood flows into his penis than flows out. His penis starts to swell.

The erect (rigid) penis
As arousal continues, nerves keep carrying messages of arousal between the penis and brain. Blood keeps moving into the man's penis. Blood-swollen tissues press against the veins. Some of the blood is kept from flowing back out. Filled with blood, his penis becomes rigid. The man is able to have intercourse."
https://www.saintlukeskc.org/health-lib ... s-erection

I don't recall making the claim God is omnibenevolent. All I said is I'm not disputing it. But, if we want to debate it now, we can. And for clarity, I'm not making a claim either way God is omnibenevolent or not. But I'm open to see where the evidence leads to.

You did agreed God is omnibenevolent. Then retracted.
So again please adress:
"In case of negating omnibenevolence:
1.A benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient Being cannot but love all, show benevolence to all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too. Ergo it is omnibenevolent too.
Doing otherwise will make the being not only not be omniscient, but severely ignorant.
2.You cannot have a being that is perfect in its works("his works are perfect") and the same time does imperfect things like not loving all equally or be benevolence to all equally."

And as I've summarized for genocide and slavery, God is not immoral. And soon I'll summarize the case for homosexuality.

The claim is not: "God is immoral."
The claim is "the concept of God does not make logical sense".
Nobody is saying how God should act.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #4008]

I will be happy to address what you stated after you answer my unanswered question. You didn't. You are instead providing reasoning. You are addressing oranges, while I'm addressing apples.

In other words, if your intuitions agree with God's, it's right. If they do not, it's wrong. Am I on the right track in this summation?

intuition - the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

My intuition does not direct me to conclude that anal sex is an abomination. Is this because I'm plagued by sin/evil?

(Question rephrased) WHY do I not just KNOW anal sex is wrong? Is (sin/evil/other) detouring me from intuitively thinking that anal sex is an abomination?

abomination - a thing that causes disgust or hatred.