₦airaland Forum

Now I cannot end this without dropping my all-time favourite post ever made on Nairaland. Its by a poster called M_Nwankwo.

EVERY SINGLE POSTER on this section MUST read this post. It is the end of all debates on everything.

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

https://www.nairaland.com/687376/true-meaning-love-nwankwo

I reproduce in blue below the post in that thread which sums up my view and the point laboured to be made -

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

Of course many atheists will go to "heaven" whilst many so called Theists will burn in hell. Jesus himself said so!

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "epart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35 - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

justcool: Granted that so many things that I said here, especially on the issue of racial interbreeding, challenges the popular view; but I’m not here to win the popular vote.

I couldn't agree more.

In many views, we humans have deviated so much from the Truth that, the Truth sound disturbing, offensive and irksome to us. Hence disciples of the Truth are hardly ever popular on earth.

Again, I agree, but you must surely also agree that there are some very basic strands of human conscience that enable the majority to readily recognize basic truth on good and evil. For example in any random selection of human beings from any parts of the world the overwhelming majority would agree and recognise such things as murder, r@pe, theft, robbery, lying, and cheating to be morally wrong. As such even though mankind have sunk spiritually, the overall conscience of mankind is not dead. It still remains, and it readily recognises the most basic and simple evils. One such evil that I think the common conscience today readily recognises is that of rascism.

And while I know you have not sought to promote racism, i simply commented that these comments could be disturbing because they could find fertile soil in the minds of many people who are inclined towards rascism and may thereby even begin to conceive of their prejudices as being noble. As history shows, such notions have often been at the bottom of acts such as genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As such, your intention may be one thing, but the result of the teaching may be another.

You can always count on my love, friendship and respect…

I soooooo know this! And it always makes me very delighted! You know you can always count on mine!

Remain blessed!

Enigma: The most idiotic of them have said Jesus was a bastard

This is what the scriptures themselves say.

Edit: At least he was a would-be bastard but for Joseph's cover-up, no?

O, and i'm not trying to antagonise, or begging you, I am just pointing out. As i recall it, Joseph had to cover it up. According to scripture, Joseph was not Jesus' father.

There were some very disturbing posts in this thread.

^^^ Mr. Idehn, pleas enote very carefully the last line the post above and I would be interested in a response to that.

But there is another argument I will be advancing in more detail later today. In summary I will suggest to you that nature (and this is evinced by evolution) promotes attributes that aid the survival of a species. Creatures that do not adapt to conform with attributes that aid survival do not survive: they become extinct. As such we can see effectively that there are attributes that aid survival and that nature promotes survival of creatures with such attributes and negate the survival of creatures without such attributes.

I will be advancing to you later today that the totality of natural evolution itself forms a strong argument that needs which are critical for survival are rendered requisite by nature - such basic needs as eating - and such basic needs for the propagation of the species as se.x - are advanced by nature. I will be advancing to you later today the argument that homose.xual se.x is thus not in tandem with the evolutionary thrust of nature - which evidentially rests on heterose.xual se.x, in terms of the survival of species.

Later, my good friend.

O, and Mr Homer, all these are for you as well to think on, and Mr. Purist, and Mr. Martian.

Cheers. Make I go find money for now.

Now, that's def natural. . .

"perversion" and "abnormalities" are both words loaded with connotation as well as denotations. If by abnormal you mean an thing/event/circumstance that is uncommon/rare, then yes abnormal things/events/circumstances exist. These things are entirely consistent with the definition I have provided. However, what I suspect you really mean is whether there are things that I think are disgusting/gross/nasty, which I would respond with a yes.

I also asked you to look at the words "abberation" and "dysfunction". . . and tell me if such things exist in reality. You did not do so, why?

Is it because you recognise that admitting the existence of dysfunctions or abberations will dent a hole in your definition of "natural" as anything that exists?

So tell me, do such things as abberations or dysfunctions exist? If they do, why are they so called? - if not that there is that which is observed as not aberrational and not dysfunctional - and thus as natural?

Many thanks for your well reasoned response, Mr. Idehn, although I still dont agree with with it, I appreciate the effort to be clear on the terms being used. In taking the advise of Mr. Purist, let me attempt to narrow the issue and be very brief. That narrowing of issues simply concerns the meaning of the word "natural" as applies to this discussion.

As such, to be very clear: moral and immoral do not come into it: I tried to make this clear at the outset: that I mean "natural" or "unnatural" but Mr. Homer insisted on drawing in all the concepts and distinguishing each one. Fair enough, if he wanted such clarity, but the discussion which sprang from his original comment simply was that he didnt see anything unnatural in homose.xuality so let us therefore stick with the issue of whether it is natural or unnatural: nothing more. Let us also not read any further meanings into the conclusions threfrom: let it be sufficient to reach a conclusion on the word "natural" alone.

I think this is the only way to approach a discussion such has this, in which so many concepts have become strewn about. . .

So let us return to the disctionary definitions I sourced. I say to you that your definition does not match any of them.

"Natural"

1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. This definition does not tally with yours because it is referring to natural things as opposed to man-made things. That is why it specifically states "as opposed to artificial - a natural bridge." So this definition is not your definition of simply anything that exists.

2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. This again is not the same as your definition. Please read it very carefully, i beg of you. It says based on the state of things in nature - this refers to the processes which nature has set up, and in this instance should refer to biology. It further gives an example by citing the example of growth - thus indicating that the processes set up by nature are what are described as natural here. Let me note very carefully that you will surely revert saying that homose.xuality is a result from natural processes. But the distinction lies in the fact that your definition states that anything that exists is natural. This deletes the word natural from existence. As a delienating word the word exists in the first place to distinguish between what we see as the state of nature - in this instance the biological state - and that which is anti-thetical to the biological state of nature. In short, there are things that exist that are indeed anti-thetical to biological nature. Surely you will not dispute this?

3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.This definition is not apt for a bio-se.xual discourse. But if I may say, what does this definition mean when we say we want to go and see the natural world. It means we want to go and see the landscapes, forests, mountains and animals formed by nature. It does not mean going for a walk in downtown Manhattan. Thus there is some critical grain of truth that which wirinet said: namely that "natural" in a sense refers to non-man made. You should think on this.

4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments. Do you think that this definition either tallies with yours or is apt for the discussion? I think neither. Let me know if you think otherwise.

5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. Not relevant here. But again note and think on the words "in a state of nature, uncultivated". - These words suggest that there is a bare and bland state of nature - untouched by cultivation or human ideas - which is what natural in this sense refers to. Again, this is not your definition.

The critical distinction is that in every instance, the word "natural" is used to make a distinction between a concept considered in tandem with the evidential thrust of nature, and concepts considered at variance with such. I think you need to recognize that things at variance with nature as defined in all instances above actually do exist, otherwise we would have no word like "nature" or "natural" in our languages at all. Every word seeks to express a definite concept.

Dang, I doubt I have taken Mr. Purist's advise.

^^^ Its desperate when people are willing to say that r@pe is natural simply to hold homose.xuality also natural. That's what you did, and its embarrasing.

Purist: I am actually more concerned about how Deep Sight manages to employ the argument about human anatomy and their biological functions to demonstrate what is natural in order to argue against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality, but then goes on to say that he views or[i]a[/i]l sex [Mouth[/b]Action, to be more 'specific' ] as a [b]natural act. Seems to me that we're using definitions selectively here.

This is because se.xual actions of varied pleasing sorts between a man and a woman is what I see as natural.

I see se.xual actions between a man and a man as unnatural.

Got to run now.

Latersz.

Martian: I don't see a problem. You asked me what I think is depraved and I answered. I never said rape is unnatural.

I tire o. All in a bid to brand homse.xuality as natural, we have now ended up with saying that ra.pe/ molestation is NOT unnatural.

Really the word "natural" is no longer natural as you guys have rendered things!

This is desperation.

Laterz.

I should add to this the fact that if we are to accept Mr. Idehn's outrageous definition, there is nothing that ever happens that should be condemned for any reason.

Since its all "natural."

I repeat: you will not find any dictionary in the world that defines the word "natural" the way Mr. Idehn does. That is because he is mis-defining it. His definition is WHOLLY wrong.

It is curious that Mr. Homer agrees with the definition even when the definition kills off Mr Homer's characterization of some things as unnatural; whereas Mr. Idehn's definition says nothing is unnatural!

Problems! This is what happens when you deliberately mis-define words to suit a purpose.

^^^ So to be succint, the point is that unnatural, abnormal, perverse things, and abberations DO exist in the natural world, and even this very fact attests to the fact that there is a tendency that is considered in line with the normal and natural tangent of nature and there are tendencies against such, which are abberations.

Any other averrment is simply false, or worse, self-deceptive.

Nobody can say for example that the phenomenon described in a cerain movie of regressive growth, if it were observed to happen, is thereby natural. Such would be manifestly unnatural. To say otherwise is to stand logic and even basic definition on their heads. I repeat; "possible" and "natural" are NOT the same words!

Martian: One example is r@pe because it's a violation of someone's will, body and psyche. But I'm sure there is someone out there amongst the billions of humans who think rape can be justified.




What do you know about the "scheme of nature"? If it happens, then it must be one the possibilities in the "scheme of nature". Or is the scheme supposed to fit your sentiments and bias?



If it happens, it must be one of the possibilities in the "scheme of nature" therefore it is natural, so I agree with Sir Idehn. if it's unnatural, it must exist outside of nature and I don't know the meaning of "outside of nature". The 'perversion, abberation and depravity" of the act is what's open to intepretation and we all know opinions are like a$$holes, we all have one. So what's depraved to you might just be someone else's past time.

Contradiction because in that instance r@pe which you condemned will also be natural since it is one of the possibilities existing in reality as you call it.

I hope you see the problem now, sir.

Pastor AIO: Would I be right to put it this way: Congress may pass a law so long as it is not Aimed at Religion (a religion), or aimed at prohibiting the practice of a religion. But if Congress passes a law, without religion in mind, and it happens to prohibit the practice of a religion then that is tough for that religion.

I think its simple enough to say that Congress may pass laws even with respect to the practice of religion so long as such laws do not infringe the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses mentioned in the First Amendment.

You are right to the extent that if the practice of any religion borders on criminality (ala Jihad, Vampirism, etc) then of course normal secular criminal laws will prohibit such religious practices. Ditto, if they infringe secular civil regulations, such as the restricted area which you cited.

If this is right then, Olaadegbu's case would rest on whether or not it became illegal to block the thoroughfare specifically to hinder the prayer of christians. And whether the previously mentioned area was made restricted specifically to prohibit christians praying there.

Correct, and of course in that instance he would have no case.

Mind you I have not watched any of those videos and I make my comments based on what you have written.

Martian: It depends on what you consider "perversities, abberations or depravities".I consider necrophilia to be a abberation unless the corpse signed an agreement prior to being deceased. lol Then it's totally cool.

But then would it be "natural"?

Aside, you have not answered my questions. I said do you consider that any "perversities, abberations or depravities" exist at all?

If you need definitions, use a dictionary and I WILL accept any you source.

If such things exist, what qualifies any such thing as perverse, depraved or abberant?

Homosexuality is not a "perversity, abberation or depravity". It's just having s-xual and other emotinal feelings for members of the same sex. I imagine homosexuals feel the same as heterosexuals, just not towards the the opposite sex. Bisexuals just love everybody. lol

My question is whether it is that which is natural - in the scheme of nature.

As an aside I should also ask you if there are any unnatural things that exist, as Mr. Idehn contends that there are none. Do you agree with such a notion?

Kay 17: Definition wasn't so helpful still. You have just been appealing to our ethical sense

Sometimes when I read comments like this I think that skeptics and cynics are having way too large an effect on the general public. How does anybody come off writing-off an apeal to ethics? How is an appeal to mankind's sense of ethics not a worthy appeal. Even though that is not what I have done here.

The day will come when Skeptics will argue that there is no such thinng as good or evil (they already have, actually). But that is not so bad because we can say that such could be relative to circumstance. What will really be terrible - and it will certainly happen if it hasn't already, is that when anyone attempts to show a benevolent act as good and a malevolent act as evil, some one will come along with a comment like "You are only appealling to a sense of ethics, and that is rubbish."

Beautiful! Carry go!

Don't worry, next time I will not appeal to ethics. I will appeal to carrot or stick. I will either bribe you to agree with me or if you dont I will club you over with a baseball bat.

Humanity!

jayriginal: Well said !

Which was saying nothing that anybody does not already know, actually, but I will revert to my old friend wirinet separately afterwards.

His answer does not address the pith of the discourse.

And I am not blinkered by religious sympathies. He ought to know that.

Martian: I don't see anything "abnormal" or "unnatural" about two people who love each other and choose to have s-x. It's only prejudice that will make anyone start a conversation concerning the nature of homosexuals. I'm sure slavery advocates also used arguments like this, "black people have too much melanin in their body relative to other races, therefore they are not "natural" and deserve to be discriminated against".

You make a caricature of the discussion.

Answer me this: Do any perversities, abberations or depravities exist in se.xual matters - or do NONE exist.

Simple question, give me a simple answer. Please do not tow the definition-game-path of Messrs Homer and Idehn. If you need definitions, use an online dictionary and give an answer based on whatever definitions you source there.

Martian: All these endless rhetoric just to rationalize prejudice!! Hey Deepsight, do you have problems with two voluptuous women in a relationship or do you just hate male homosexuals! Lol

Lol. I must say that I fancy neither proposition, but it is not my fancies we are discussing here. Neither are we condeming any act as wrong or immoral. The discussion is simply if these are natural. See definition I posted from a dictionary above, re: the word "natural."

Now to tidy things up. The paramount concern I have is the mis-definition of words being bandied about on this thread. Let us be very clear that the contention is as whether or not homose.xuality is natural. Not whether it is wrong. Not whether it is condemnable. Not whether it is moral or immoral. simply whether it is natural.

Under no circumstance should Mr. Idehn's definition be permitted to stand. It absolutely destroys the very meaning of these words and even renders them non-existent. I have said already and I say again that Mr. Idehn's errors rests in conflating the words "natural" and "possible". He states that anything that is possible is natural. This only leads us into absurdity. It may be possible for example for humans to place a tea cup into orbit around the planet pluto, but no one can argue that such a phenomenon is as things appear in nature. As such we should recognise that creatures can and infact do unnatural things. Things that would not normally appear in nature, or more accurately, things that are even contrary to the dictates of nature. To deny this only seems to me like deliberately playing the ostrich; to what ends, I do not know.

I repeat it: definiing "natural" as anything that occurs in reality is fallacious. It is a mis-definition of the word. The word he is looking for is "possible."

I ask Mr. Idehn again - do the words "natural" and "possible" mean the same thing? This is a very importrant question that Mr. Idehn must answer in very clear terms.

Indeed I gave the example of growth. It is natural for living things to grow - such that if a baby is born, it is natural for it to grow. There are babies born with growth dysfunctions. Are we to conclude that a baby that does not grow is in line with nature? That is only absurd, and like I said, defeats the meaning of the very word "natural" - I already gave a dictionary definition of that word above. No where in any dictionary does Mr Idehn's definition appear for the simple fact that it is not the meaning of the word "natural". Mr Idehn needs to look for another word as it is improper to change the meaning of words simply to suit a worldview. One can do such in a lounge discussion but not in any sensible debate.

It is a very simple and self evidential supposition to say that heterose.xual se.x is natural. The very se.xual make-up of creatures as male and female evinces this. But I will not hang there - Mr. Idehn's definition encompasses even people who cannot have an or.gasm until they have spilt blood or murdered someone. I hope Mr. Idehn knows that this is quite common: there are many socio-paths and se.xual deviants who can only be aroused by violence in the form of ra.pe or murder or violent bodily mutilation. There are men whose se.xual desire is to rip their mother's intestines out and stick their di.cks into her blood and eja.culate therein. And this is no appeal to emotion. Just watch The Crime Channel everyday and you will see more than your fill. I submit that these things are possible but cannot be classified as natural se.xual behaviour. These are clearly unnatural abnormalities.

However to be succint, I need to ask Mr. Idehn if there exist any such things as abnormalities or perversions as someone said. I wish to know if he will also content that no such things exist, and that anything that occurs in reality is thereby normal, natural, and as such, the very word "perversion" will be the next word he will help us delete from the English language?

It is patently absurd to contend that anything that a man can do must thereby be natural. It is outrightly evasive to assert that nature does not evidentially disclose natural tendencies and proclivities of creatures as they appear in nature. It is very wrong to therefore assert that no unnatural things exist - for it is very clear that unnatural things do exist.

And in that regard, it is also patently clear that homose.xuality is not that which is intended by nature, and so whatever else one may say about it, one cannot argue that it is natural.

The questions Mr. Idehn needs to answer are these -

1. Do any abnormal things exist?

2. Do perversities exist?

3. Are there anything that exist which are disfunctional or abberations?

If any of these things exist, then Mr. Idehn's definition collapses. I am hoping it will be beyond even Mr. Idehn to claim that no such things exist.

It is most normal for Messrs Homer and Idehn to revert to simple questions such as these by demanding a definition of each word in the three questions above. That has always been the pattern that both of them use and it is tiresome and does not come across as honest or sincere. These are simple words which they needn't obsfuscate as they have mangled the equally simple word "natural". Please guys answer these questions for me without playing your usual definition games. If you need any definition of the words "normal," "abnormal", "perverse", "disfunctional" or "abberation", please just use any online dictionary and we will go with whatever you see there. I cannot spend my life on Nairaland defining everyday words simply because people are interested in obsfuscating things.

I think its important for Mt Idehn to look at the part of the post above that discusses the mis-characterization of an exception as a rule.

@ Purist, here is the old post I made regarding the argument that some people make on account of supposed cases of homose.xuality observed in animals -

It was Sefago who set out these premises and Conclusion to me -

He said -

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

I responded -

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans indisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate: If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalist terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalist statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be – "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animal sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of masturbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premises fail, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

Purist: Hi Deep Sight, I didn't read every single post, though I think I read most of the posts here and I quite understand the points different posters have made so far. I'd like to ask you though - I assume no one has asked - do you consider oral s[i]e[/i]x to be wrong/immoral/unnatural? How about an[i]a[/i]l s[i]e[/i]x between heterosexual couples?

No, i do not regard oral se.x to be wrong, unnatural or immoral. I should warn however that a[i]n[/i]al heterose.xual se.x has quite a few known medical implications, and I do not want to be drawn into qualifying it just right now as it will complicate the discussion. Suffice to say that I will not call it immoral or wrong, though I might say that it is unnatural and may be probematic medically.

@ ALL -

This discussion commenced with thehomer's statement to the effect that he cannot see anything unnatural in homose.xuality. I believe that that contradicts the definition of the word natural.

Now, for clarity, here is the definition of the word natural, that I am working with - i did not create that word - that word has a dictionary definition and as such it would be proper in discussions to keep consistent with the proper meaning of that word. What's happening in this thread is that everyone is giving that word his own personal definition. I could do that too, but that is not proper in a debate. What Idehn has done for example is not the definition of the word natural. He has deleted the words "natural" and "unnatrural" from the English Language and for his concept of "natural" he really simply means "possible". But he is not making the fine distinction to see that this is what he is doing.

Do the words "natural" and "possible" mean the same thing? ? ?

What Idehn has done is to conclude that anything that is possible is also natural. This is a false notion of the word "natural", It ignores the fact that many things are possible which are not biologically natural to creatures and in nature. It assumes that there exist no natural rules - and worse - if there are natural rules, then it assumes that such rules do not have unnatural exemptions.

As far as this discussion is concerned, I will stick with a standard definition of the word "natural" from a dictionary as it applies in context of this discussion.

"Natural"

1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural?s=t

I believe that the definition apt for this discussion is No.2 above - let us very carefully that it is not as bland as Idehn's version: it does not simply say "anything that exists or occurs" - it rather very carefully says - "based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process."

I particularly like the example given - Growth. That is the state of things for living things in nature, they grow. As such if a baby is born and doeas not grow it will be a mis-normer to say that such is "natural" simply because it has been seen to occur. The reverse is actually true: it is unnatural because that is not the state of things as they occur in nature - evidentially - it is an abnormaility.

This is what it means to say that it is unnatural. But Mr. Idehn's definition has effectively deleted the word "unnatural" from the dictionary, as he blandly defines natural as anything and everything that occurs. This defeats every notion of the word "natural" that can be conceived in terms of making distinctions, as there will be nothing to classify as natural or unatural given that in his estimation, everything is natural.

Going back to the definition given above (No 2) which I cited as the definition apt for this discussion, you see it says - "based on the state of things in nature". . . as such I submit that a consideration as to whether homose.xuality is natural or not should thus be directed at -

1. Observing nature - outside of humans perhaps - as humans are the subject here - and seeing if homose.xuality occurs in nature. Many people have made arguments stating that homose.xuality is natural beacuse animals have been observed to practice same. That is a false and flawed argument which I have addressed before and I will repost it here though.

2. Observing natural biology, normal hormonal balance, and human anatomy.

My contention is that if one looks at the self-evident intention of nature in terms of the male and female anatomies and their se.xual inter-relationship, it is obvious that the intention of nature is heterose.xual.

The point I was trying to make with all those questions I gave to thehomer was simply to make him recognize that any principle that can be used to defend homose.xuality can be used to defend the cases of necrophiliac acts or even in.cest as all being natural. They are all cases of free adult consensus except the necrophilic act which requires no consent ab initio in the scenario I mentioned. Even if thehomer will say he does not base his judgment on this principle (although he does), the other principles he mentioned also apply equally to my scenarios. They are all cases of privacy, equality, equity, absence of coercion, no harm being done to anyone else, etc. And yet thehomer described some of them as immoral or unnatural. On what basis, sir?

For me, I have given my basis for regarding homose.uality as unnatural: observation of human anatomy, and the biological nature of se.xual organs coupled with some of the purposes of same disclose that that which is intended my nature is heterose.xuality. Defining the reverse as "natural" on the grounds that Messrs Homer and Idehn do, does not add up in the least.

Now since the discussion proceeded from Mr Homer's comment that he saw nothing unnatural in homose.xuality, let us restrict the discussion to that word "natural" as I originally proposed. From there it will be easy not to get mixed up with moralistic notions about right and wrong.

I personally do not really see moral wrong in any se.xual act so long as no one is coerced and no harm is done to anybody. And by harm I need to even exclude some kinky consensual harm, because you have couples who play with whips and things, they find it erotic. Do I think it is morally wrong? No, but I can make a case that it is unnatural, because the body itself is hardwired to resile from pain. The nerves send messages to the brain regarding this. The person enjoying a whipping session will have to steel himself against the natural reaction of his body, which would be to flinch and resile from such pain. Trust me I know, because i've dabbled in all that. No body can convince me it is wrong, but if someone says it is unnatural he is speaking the truth.

For heaven's sake there are people who like to defecate on one another during se.x. I see such as morally neutral if it is their fetis.h or kink and harms no body else and is private. But no one can sincerely quarell if we say that it is unnatural. Whereas Mr. Idehn's definition would qualify that and everything else that exists as natural.

Homose.xuality is not natural - it is unnatural. And this is evident from even the reactions of Messrs Homer and Idehn. Particularly, Mr Idehn's definition must not be allowed to stand. It destroys the very words "natural" and "unnatural" and deletes them from the English Language.

Hope I have made some sense.

"Boko Haram will be dealt with within three months" - Goodluck Jonathan

@ Idehn -

I have read your post and will respond later, but please note that I have not in anyway alluded to reproduction being the only purpose of se.x. If it were, i would have hundreds of babies by now, and some of them probably in unsavoury quarters.

What I did say is that the very biological make up of the se.xual organs and the fact that they aid reproduction are a pointer to that which is the biologically natural usage of such. What I mean is that such factors show us the intention of nature - and this clearly leans in the direction of heterose.xuality.

Also before I respond, you didnt say anything on goats and squirrels. I repeat to you that I hope you know that your definition of "natural" means that it is natural for men to sleep with goats, squirells or other animals - and even corpses - as such things occur in reality. Is that your position? I hope you know that this can be streched to cover every other depravity or unseemly thing that occurs. It would also mean that you consider it natural for a human mother to kill and cook and eat her babies or children. Is this your position? Are such things natural? Does it remain fair to hold that anything that happens is therefore natural?

I would have thought that it would be more accurate to say that anything that happens is possible.

@ THE HOMER,

Ok, I will humour you. Free Adult Consensus refers to the fact that a person is engaging in any particular se.xual activity -

1. On the basis of his personal free choosing

2. As an adult and

3. In agreement with his se.xual partner

4. Which se.xual partner is also operating on the same basis.

I wanted to know if this is your basis for holding nomose.xuality to be natural - because in general terms this principle is held by major schools of thought to be the appropriate principle in personal se.xual matters.

Yes ofcourse, you mentioned privacy, equality etc. - but all that also applies to the scenarios i raised. Private se.xual liasons which harm no one else.

So now please answer my question, so that we can make substantive progress.

cyrexx: the analogy is innaccurate

1. maximising momentary pleasure may not be benevolent but maximising PAIN PERPETUALLY is definitely not benevolent under any standard. some victims of evil in this world suffer pain not momentarily but most of their lives

Does God do this? Or better put, how can you say that God does this?

2. the wards under the military trainer FULLY UNDERSTOOD the purpose of their trainer if he decide not to maximise pleasure for them, this does not apply in the current discussion.

Why not? Who says there are not people who understand God's purpose for their lives.

thehomer: quote]A few questions for you please.

1. Is there anything wrong with sleeping with a human corpse, the legal rights over which reside with the person so sleeping with the corpse. I.E: A person's spouse dies. The person is the legal owner of the corpse. Is it right, in your view, for the person to have se.x with the corpse.

2. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my 17 year old daughter (please note that 16 is the age of consent and as such she may legally give consent).

3. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my sister, who is also above the age of consent.

4. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my mother.

4. Is there anything wrong, as a man myself, in having homosex.ual intercourse with my father.

5. Is there anything wrong where a man surgically changes his se.x organs to female se.x organs and vice versa.

6. Do you think the human anus is naturally intended to function as a receiving se.xual organ.

Please answer me these questions with EXACTING honesty and we shall take it from there.

Merci.

1. Morally wrong and whether or not it is natural depends on the degree of decomposition.

2. Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence she has.

3. Neither and natural.

4. Neither and natural.

4'.Morally wrong and natural. The morality depends on the degree of independence you have.

5. Neither and unnatural.

6. That question has a hidden assumption which is that the unmodified human body has a certain purpose that cannot be co-opted.

By moral, I'm going by my personal opinion and by natural, I'm referring to the general physical appearance and capability of the average person.

Now, please answer these questions and present the idea of wrongness you're referring to along with the idea of natural you're using. Also, please tie the ideas here to the topic which is homosexuality.

When you spoke in your answers here about degree of independence, that is not an allussion to adult freedom in arriving at consensual se.xual decisions, right?

And now, that idea has suddenly become a mystery, right?

You are running around in pitiful circles playing games with yourself.

plaetton: This is unusual of you to disagree without giving an explanation.
Kindly explain how any man, not motivated by money(male prostitution) or ritualist magic, can engage in homosexual acts without being hormonally attracted to same sex.

This is not what you said.

thehomer: Are you missing some doses of your medication or something? [b]You [/b]introduced the term and attributed it to me. Where have I ever used the term? You need to actually say what it is rather than saying that you think it is what I'm doing.

That is why i specifically asked you to clarify if you are using that principle in arriving at your conclusions on homose.xuality.

You reverted insinuating that you don't know what "FREE ADULT CONSENSUS" means in a discussion about se.xual activity.

Who do you expect to believe that, or take you seriously on that. Do you really expect me to now start explaing what free adult consensus means in this discussion? Is there any literate person anywhere in the world that will say he does not know what that means?

You really cant expect to be taken seriously sir.