Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All things require a creator with intent to have a purpose. "What is the purpose of X?" is a redundant question.

When fish first crawled out of the sea on their fins were they using their fins for the wrong purpose?

When birds drop small stones to break open eggs are they using them wrong or were stones designed to be used that way?

I would like to know what the 'purpose' of the human appendix, male nipples, curved spine and extra teeth are though.

But I like cakes!

generalgrog wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:...Anyway, you seem to be assuming that anal sex is exclusive to homosexuals...

Where did I say that?

I merely asked a question.

Similarly..what is the main purpose of the mouth? To eat, speak, breathe, taste? or something else. What about the ear? To hear? or something else? The nose? To smell or something else?

If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.

"If it feels good.. do it" is not necessarily natural, in that it may not be what was intended by the creator.

Even when certain animals do it, like mattys "gay dog" example. I would say that the dog found out that it was pleasurable and learned the behavior. That doesn't mean that it is "natural".

GG

Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?

And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.

God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?

So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.




Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.

rubiksnoob wrote:
Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?

And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.

God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?

So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.

Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.

rubicsnoob, what you are referring to is the classic problem of evil. The basic premise goes like this, "Why would an all loving God allow evil to exist." This has been a question asked even back to the ancients. Augustine dealt with the issue in his writings. There have been volumes of writings from theologians and philosophers about this issue. I wouldn't presume to be an expert on the issue, but I can point out a few things.

Two kinds of evil: Moral evil, such as murder, rape and theft..etc and Natural evil such as diseases, earthquakes, birth defects etc. From a Biblical perspective the Creation is under a curse going back to the fall of Adam and Eve. It's from the curse that the problem of evil began. God allows bad things to happen which can and will bring suffering to peoples lives.

I recomend you do a google search on "the problem of evil" as you can get much more detail from people that have spent their entire lives on the issue. But rest assured that you are not the first person to bring this objection up.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:
Hmmm, ever consider that we may not know what exactly what our various body parts were "intended" to do? Perhaps nothing was "intended" at all?

And what about someone who is born blind? What is the purpose of their non-functioning eyes? God created them that way. Why did he make them blind? What about kids born with autism? What's the divine purpose behind that? Or infants born with heart complications? Surely God made them that way for a reason. There's got to be a purpose for it.

God knows everything right? When he was creating things like autism, heart conditions, and birth defects, surely he knew that they would bring nothing but suffering to those he created, right?

So clearly he has our best intentions at heart, and if God says that the purpose of a penis is not to be shoved up someone else's rectum, then we should obey without question.

Oh, I have some land to sell you. And don't worry, that's its purpose. It exists so that I can sell it to you. God told me.

rubicsnoob, what you are referring to is the classic problem of evil. The basic premise goes like this, "Why would an all loving God allow evil to exist." This has been a question asked even back to the ancients. Augustine dealt with the issue in his writings. There have been volumes of writings from theologians and philosophers about this issue. I wouldn't presume to be an expert on the issue, but I can point out a few things.

Two kinds of evil: Moral evil, such as murder, rape and theft..etc and Natural evil such as diseases, earthquakes, birth defects etc. From a Biblical perspective the Creation is under a curse going back to the fall of Adam and Eve. It's from the curse that the problem of evil began. God allows bad things to happen which can and will bring suffering to peoples lives.

I recomend you do a google search on "the problem of evil" as you can get much more detail from people that have spent their entire lives on the issue. But rest assured that you are not the first person to bring this objection up.

GG

Here's my problem with it:

God supposedly knows everything right? Well then he must've known in creating people who commit moral evils like rape, murder, and theft, that they would commit those evils. See what I mean? If God knew that Eve was going to bring about original sin and curse all of creation, why the hell did he create her in the first place??

If God does know everything, he's sadistic.
If he doesn't, then the bible is wrong. (Isaiah 46:10, Act 2:23, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5) <---- all these verses portray God as all knowing.


I do believe in God, but not in the traditional theistic sense of the word. I do not believe in a sentient creator; a thinking being who consciously makes decisions. My reasoning is that the traditional concept of God is overly anthropomorphized, and thus likely to be man-made and false. I find the idea that such a god exists to be highly dubious, and inherently flawed. If God truly exists, then there is no way that it could be fully comprehended, much less described by human beings in a 2000 year old book. All we have to base things off of is our own experiences, and as such, the way we perceive things cannot possibly be adequate to comprehend such mind-boggling ideas such as "God". Even our ideas of what constitutes sentience, and even existence are extremely limited. How can we know that our ideas of what constitute sentience or existence hold sway elsewhere in the universe? What about higher dimensions? Other universes? We simply do not have the mental faculties to comprehensively understand these things and the result it that our ideas of things such as God are patently flawed, if not flat out wrong.


But if the traditional concept of God is true and there is such a God, than he/she/it isn't worth worshiping in my opinion, as they haven't done too great of a job taking care of their creations.

generalgrog wrote:
Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

Two things:

1) You're already implying design by discussing purpose.

2) Purpose does not imply singularity. One thing can have two purposes, or one purpose can be conceived of as a compound property. For example, the rectum can be thought of as a component of the waste system, and a source of sexual pleasure. In fact, both sexes of human sexual organs function loosely in both those roles (at least to the same extent that the solid waste tract does).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want"

But no one would actually argue that. No matter how badly you may want to, you cannot eat with your ear; barring some powerfully gruesome artifice.

generalgrog wrote:
You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Well, not really. Again, you still have to consider physical possibility.

generalgrog wrote:
Once you go down that route, you end up with all kinds of perversions, which we do in fact see in our society today. Look at the dudes that buy plastic sex dolls and dress them up and carry them out to parks with them, and treat them as their wives. According some people on here, that's perfectly fine and "natural". It's classic "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mentality.

You also have whole dens of evil in which they paint up little men and use them to act out fantastical battles simply because the desire to do so strikes them. If you're really going to argue from this standpoint, then you've got to be judicious about it, and doing that doesn't leave a lot of room for anything short of "eat, sleep, procreate". Oh, and worship, if your particular holy book calls for it.

Surely eating Cheetos must be more unnatural than nearly any sexual act a person can perform. I mean, what in nature even vaguely resembles a Cheeto? A carrot maybe?

@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?

And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.



GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ rubicsnoob..You are certainly entitled to reject your creator just like Adam and Eve did. He gave you freewill, just be prepared to accept the consequences of it later.

GG

Manchu wrote:Why more educated people insist on arguing at the level of less educated people is a great mystery to me. Or rather, it should be in the better world you've accused me of preferring.

"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."

My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?

Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, they seem to be making a moral judgment. That does not indicate that they are merely thinking about what does or does not occur "in nature," that is, among various species of animals.

Nah, people make arguments all the time based on the idea that something is wrong because it doesn’t happen in the animal kingdom, or something is right because it does.

It makes no damn sense to me, but it certainly happens.

generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.

Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

GG

If humanity’s moral and immoral actions were to be assessed on using body parts for their intended purpose, well then posting on the internet would be a very immoral act. Afterall, what’s the purpose of your fingers – to type on the internet or to wield tools to hunt your prey? What the purpose of your eyes – to read political arguments off of a monitor or to spot your prey?

Yet here you are, so obviously some forms of unnatural behaviour don’t bother you.

generalgrog wrote:If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Only if you take the example at its absolute most extreme. Obviously, some forms of deviance from the vanilla sexuality are more healthy than others, and some are less healthy.

The guy with the fetish for the plastic doll is almost certainly not in a healthy place, and is very unlikely to be happy. It would make sense for his friends to say ‘dude, you’re substituting human contact and intimacy for a plastic doll’ and hopefully in time he’ll get past it.

That’s the real issue, though, ‘is the person able to have a healthy, happy life?’ I know many homosexual couples who live healthy, well adjusted lives. They have built strong relationships with a single partner, to the point where they want to stand in front of all their friends, and tell them they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Compare that to the folk that suppress their homosexuality, and end up in incredibly unhappy marriages until something breaks.

Call either one natural or unnatural, it doesn’t matter. But the former is a whole lot healthier than the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?

They can't be created through kissing either? Should we stop kissing?

And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.

Natural only matters when it comes to sex?

sebster wrote:

Manchu wrote:"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."

My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?

Trying to separate the Bible from Catholic philosophy and theology is like trying to separate light from reflection. Biblical insights have for this tradition the same value as observable phenomena to the scientific method. That said, this line of thought isn't merely legalistic. There is no satisfaction taken in the statement "it's wrong because we read as much in holy scripture." Thomas Aquinas and his imitators believed that God is the very soul of reason. Sin for them was finally unreasonable for the fact that it was incompatible with the ultimate destiny of human beings, as revealed in Christ--a destiny which they held to be the perfection of human nature.

Manchu wrote:Trying to separate the Bible from Catholic philosophy and theology is like trying to separate light from reflection. Biblical insights have for this tradition the same value as observable phenomena to the scientific method. That said, this line of thought isn't merely legalistic. There is no satisfaction taken in the statement "it's wrong because we read as much in holy scripture." Thomas Aquinas and his imitators believed that God is the very soul of reason. Sin for them was finally unreasonable for the fact that it was incompatible with the ultimate destiny of human beings, as revealed in Christ--a destiny which they held to be the perfection of human nature.

So it is different, because it isn't a purely relying on scripture. Instead it is to be taken as self-evident, in a sense?

Evident in the nature of man, where man is only wholly known in the light of divine revelation.

Personally, I've never been too moved by the methodology and language or scholastics or neo-scholastics. As far as moral theology goes, I think this is one of the loveliest and most persuasive bits of text ever penned:

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

Manchu wrote:

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

That is very similar to the Apostle Pauls writings in his epistle to the Romans.

GG

It is from a document called "Gaudium et spes." As I said, GG, separating the Bible from Catholic teaching is like trying to separate light from reflection.

Manchu wrote:Evident in the nature of man, where man is only wholly known in the light of divine revelation.

Personally, I've never been too moved by the methodology and language or scholastics or neo-scholastics. As far as moral theology goes, I think this is one of the loveliest and most persuasive bits of text ever penned:

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

That is wonderful. Thanks for posting it.

I'm glad you think so! The rest of the document is quite good, too.

Without any evil there can't be any good.
So it must be good to be evil somehow.
-Stone & Parker

While I don't always agree with Neo-Scholastic writing, they certainly had some interesting things to say.

I would disagree that it is impossible to separate Christianity from Catholicism. Since Protestantism has been around around for more than a week there are some forms of it that are not centered around it. In the West it is certainly going to affect the great majority but some Eastern forms of Christianity are night and day different. Than of course Eastern Orthodox, which grew up along side Catholicism would probably not give them that much credit. I don't disagree with the basic point, just the absolute degree to which you posit it.

Ahtman wrote:I would disagree that it is impossible to separate Christianity from Catholicism.

Is this directed at me? I said that the Bible cannot be separated out from Catholic tradition.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I would disagree that it is impossible to separate Christianity from Catholicism.

Is this directed at me? I said that the Bible cannot be separated out from Catholic tradition.

yeah..to be fair.. I don't think Manchu meant what you think he meant ahtman.

GG

sebster wrote:

Manchu wrote:Why more educated people insist on arguing at the level of less educated people is a great mystery to me. Or rather, it should be in the better world you've accused me of preferring.

"Nature" in the neo-scholastic sense does not refer to biology of humans but rather to the ontology of humans, especially in a moral sense. The concept is used in the sense of the phrase "the nature of God" rather than in the sense of the phrase "found in nature."

My knowledge of the good book is pretty limited, so perhaps I’m not seeing a subtlety here, but how does that statement materially differ from the statement 'it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong'?

Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, they seem to be making a moral judgment. That does not indicate that they are merely thinking about what does or does not occur "in nature," that is, among various species of animals.

Nah, people make arguments all the time based on the idea that something is wrong because it doesn’t happen in the animal kingdom, or something is right because it does.

It makes no damn sense to me, but it certainly happens.

generalgrog wrote:All this talk about what is or isn't natural.

Trying not to get X-rated here...but what is the purpose of the Human colon and or rectum? To process human fecal material and defecate? Or to procreate? What is the purpose of the Human penis? To discard urine and procreate? or to be jammed up someones rectum?

GG

If humanity’s moral and immoral actions were to be assessed on using body parts for their intended purpose, well then posting on the internet would be a very immoral act. Afterall, what’s the purpose of your fingers – to type on the internet or to wield tools to hunt your prey? What the purpose of your eyes – to read political arguments off of a monitor or to spot your prey?

Yet here you are, so obviously some forms of unnatural behaviour don’t bother you.

generalgrog wrote:If you buy into the idea that our bodies are free for alls and we can do with them "whatever we want" You have left the "natural intent" and moved into unnatural human expression of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Only if you take the example at its absolute most extreme. Obviously, some forms of deviance from the vanilla sexuality are more healthy than others, and some are less healthy.

The guy with the fetish for the plastic doll is almost certainly not in a healthy place, and is very unlikely to be happy. It would make sense for his friends to say ‘dude, you’re substituting human contact and intimacy for a plastic doll’ and hopefully in time he’ll get past it.

That’s the real issue, though, ‘is the person able to have a healthy, happy life?’ I know many homosexual couples who live healthy, well adjusted lives. They have built strong relationships with a single partner, to the point where they want to stand in front of all their friends, and tell them they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Compare that to the folk that suppress their homosexuality, and end up in incredibly unhappy marriages until something breaks.

Call either one natural or unnatural, it doesn’t matter. But the former is a whole lot healthier than the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?

They can't be created through kissing either? Should we stop kissing?

And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.

Natural only matters when it comes to sex?

Indeed. At the end of the day, a great deal of what humans do is to be considered unnatural. We artificially create new compounds from chemicals found naturally, we have discovered the use of pills to alter the way our bodies function for a limited time and we can even split atoms to release massive amounts of power to use. The very food you eat could be considered unnatural, as it is forced to grow in great quantities under controlled conditions as opposed to in the wild, often pushing the species far beyond the population barriers that would have limited it were it not being farmed, yet I would be surprised to find anyone on here willing to call agriculture wrong because of that. Why then single out homosexuality? There are far, far worse things that humans do that are worthy of your attention.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Indeed. At the end of the day, a great deal of what humans do is to be considered unnatural. We artificially create new compounds from chemicals found naturally, we have discovered the use of pills to alter the way our bodies function for a limited time and we can even split atoms to release massive amounts of power to use. The very food you eat could be considered unnatural, as it is forced to grow in great quantities under controlled conditions as opposed to in the wild, often pushing the species far beyond the population barriers that would have limited it were it not being farmed, yet I would be surprised to find anyone on here willing to call agriculture wrong because of that. Why then single out homosexuality? There are far, far worse things that humans do that are worthy of your attention.

QFT.

Screw natural. If they can scan my baby gravy in the future and make sure my kids wont have cancer or diabetes or genetic defects or whatever, im all for it. Natural gives us dodgy eyes and dodgy backs and dodgy knees and hereditary illness and male pattern baldness. Im all for playing "God" using modern Science.

For example, my time in the commandos has given me a dodgy knee, i want a robot one by the time i am 50.

Oh and 5 dicks.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma....can children be created through buggery?

Actually, yes, it can happen; it just isn't terribly efficient.. But then neither is the vaginal method. Its simply more efficient, in terms of pregnancy rates, than anal sex.

Of course, that only matters if you think there is a purpose to anything other than those that we inject into the world.

To put it another way, I don't find arguments from the nature of God as especially distinct from arguments from the nature of morality; meaning that you're still talking about an individuated sort of preference justified according to a tradition of which you are a part. In my mind, if you really want to get at morality, then you have to generalize in a fashion that is inclusive of all traditions, which is why I almost always argue from a sort of iterated utilitarianism.

generalgrog wrote:
And playing with toy soldiers is hardly a sexual act....come on keep on subject.

You were talking about the general attitude of "eat, drink, be merry", so I developed an example indicating that everyone adopts that attitude to some extent. As such, singling out sexual behavior is pointless without a judicious use of informational context, which even the Bible largely fails to provide.

The comparison seems apt to me. These days especially, fellas snogging fellas (and whatever else) isn't any more deviant than grown men playing with children's dolls.

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I would disagree that it is impossible to separate Christianity from Catholicism.

Is this directed at me? I said that the Bible cannot be separated out from Catholic tradition.

yeah..to be fair.. I don't think Manchu meant what you think he meant ahtman.

GG

That is entirely possible so let's just call it that.

But what was it that you thought I was arguing?

What the hell are we even talking about, anymore?

That George Takei is a funny fella'!

We're done with with Star Trek. As Orkeo pointed out, it's promises of a future rife with X-wings have yet to materialize.

Monster Rain wrote:What the hell are we even talking about, anymore?

I'm mostly just trying to keep the thread going, because having the phrase 'George Takei is great' on the first page of OT makes OT and DakkaDakka in general an objectively better place.

@ Manchu: First of all, I think your sig is pretty wonderful.

Secondly, I think the real question here is whether or not Golden Age Sulu would win in a fight against Harold. Or Kumar. Or whoever is playing him in these new movies.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What the hell are we even talking about, anymore?

I'm mostly just trying to keep the thread going, because having the phrase 'George Takei is great' on the first page of OT makes OT and DakkaDakka in general an objectively better place.

Like