My two-sentence reply... "Which is absurd. It happens in nature, doesn't it?" You characterize that as "throwing a fit".
I was being somewhet hyperbolic in my characterization. The point was if you really understood what Buz was saying, which you should have, in order to start an argument, it is rather childish. I was actually looking for the word "tantrum" to bring it out but it was late and I was tired.
I apologize if my use of that language confused what I was trying to say.
I think there's something more than my mildly brusque reply to buz that's bothering you. What is it?
You are wrong, this really is it. You know how annoying it is when a creo carts out the "evo breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument? Watching you cart out the "it must be natural because it happens in nature" is just as annoying.
You will notice that my first reply was not as edgy. I simply asked if people (you in this specific case) could drop using it. It does make "us" look as bad as "them."
And it is annoying, especially since it's already been addressed. While it may look like he is saying one thing to you, he is saying something else which is valid.
You seem to be equating "unnatural" with "against that God's intent". I hold a different view, and I find it surprising that, in so doing, I seem to have offended you.
Annoyed, not offended, though now my intelligence is starting to feel offended. Yes I am equating unnatural with against God's intent, because that is clearly the context that is used in the Bible and what Buz means. This has already been discussed in earlier threads in which you were a part.
How can you say you hold the only possible use of the term "natural" or "unnatural"?
As Phat just showed, in other parts of the Bible it uses "natural" in the sense of "material". If you aren't going to pretend to not understand what that means, why do so with buz.
Why? Well I guess it's because you don't want someone to say something which sounds like it doesn't happen in nature. But that is a bit silly, and counterproductive. Let him say things how he wants, as long as you know what he is saying.
Are you trying to say that I should let buz's statement slide because within his belief system it is indeed true that homosexuality is unnatural?
But it
is unnatural! Unnatural in the sense that Buz means it, not in the way you are imposing on his language. Don't you see you are creating a strawman?
It is as ridiculous as me getting angry when someone calls homosexuals "gay", and I keep saying how I am a clinically depressed person and I know many other clinically depressed homosexuals and they are not in the least "gay". Then after it is explained that I am equivocating, I pop back up later to make the same argument.
Within buz's belief system, the sun once stopped in the sky for several hours and the grand canyon is a remnant of the so-called great flood. Do you think everyone should keep their mouths shut whenever he spouts that sort of nonsense? Why not? It's all true within his belief system.
Of course you can argue these points with him. And why not argue against his "unnatural" statement in the way that you would these other points? You can argue there is no evidence for this God, nor that he did any of these things... or maybe that other Gods are real and they did none of these things.
The one thig you cannot do, or should not do, is pretend he is saying something other than what he is saying, in order to attack that position.
The Bible uses "natural" in many different ways. Its use of "nature" in the case of homosexuality is not "things that happen in nature", but rather "god's intended purpose for X's use" which as you have already pointed out is synonymous with "ungodly" or perhaps more appropriately "immoral" or "not normal".
As an example, "its just not natural to be climbing trees at your age", yet clearly we one show men and women of all ages to be climbing trees. So we get what that would mean right?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
