Evil thoughts?

[historia]

Is it evil, or wrong, for someone to fantasize about molesting children if he never acts on it?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #10]

ROMANS 1 : 26

That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature... Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

This seems to be judgmental and contradicts Jesus saying that his followers were not to judge, or they will also be judged [as not being his followers].
Apparently the NT has these many examples of writer-folk claiming to follow Jesus, while obviously being full of judgmental ideas - such as Lesbians being 'deserving of death' - perhaps even in that, judging YHWH for not getting that put down in writing as one of YHWHs [alleged] laws?
_____

Do folk forget that YHWH also created the Hermaphrodite form?
And would such folk feel better YHWH had dictated it that such forms should also be put to death?

[I could post a picture of actual human Hermaphrodites but the ruckus from those who would take offense is sure to make doing so, problematic...you will just have to take my word for it that these exist.]



_____

Looking into the details we have established that rules were made in order to create stable societies [tribes] and some of those rules were based upon moral considerations so - while we might not like it - homosexuals were not contributing to the numbers making up the tribe and so were deemed not to be of any use in that capacity, and since it was very important in that epoch that children were breed - homosexuals were expendable.

Lesbians were allowed to live because they could still be used as objects to breed through, and thus could contribute to the tribe in that capacity.

That would explain adequately why YHWH [allegedly] only got the writers to make laws against the males and not also the females.
________

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #10]

ROMANS 1 : 26

That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature... Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

This seems to be judgmental and contradicts Jesus saying that his followers were not to judge, or they will also be judged [as not being his followers].
Apparently the NT has these many examples of writer-folk claiming to follow Jesus, while obviously being full of judgmental ideas - such as Lesbians being 'deserving of death' - perhaps even in that, judging YHWH for not getting that put down in writing as one of YHWHs [alleged] laws?
_____

Do folk forget that YHWH also created the Hermaphrodite form?
And would such folk feel better YHWH had dictated it that such forms should also be put to death?

[I could post a picture of actual human Hermaphrodites but the ruckus from those who would take offense is sure to make doing so, problematic...you will just have to take my word for it that these exist.]



_____

Looking into the details we have established that rules were made in order to create stable societies [tribes] and some of those rules were based upon moral considerations so - while we might not like it - homosexuals were not contributing to the numbers making up the tribe and so were deemed not to be of any use in that capacity, and since it was very important in that epoch that children were breed - homosexuals were expendable.

Lesbians were allowed to live because they could still be used as objects to breed through, and thus could contribute to the tribe in that capacity.

That would explain adequately why YHWH [allegedly] only got the writers to make laws against the males and not also the females.
________

But aren't males also necessary for procreation?

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

But aren't males also necessary for procreation?

Of course.

But why force homosexuals to impregnate women when there are enough heterosexual men to do that task?
Also, there is the issue of feeding, clothing, housing, and caring for homosexuals - so more the burden on the tribes resources.
Remember, we are also speaking specifically of tribes which liked to marry the heterosexuals together before child-bearing occurred [was lawful] and it would be less problematic to have to deal with both homosexuals and lesbians', so choose the lesser of the two evils, even that one might believe that both "deserve death".

Also [the list goes on] - killing homosexuals would put a message out to the tribe - especially young males who might have homosexual tendencies - that such a path to take has deadly consequences.

Point being, if in the case of the Hebrew Tribes - lesbians were spared, and I am simply finding reasons for why that most likely happened.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

But aren't males also necessary for procreation?

Of course.

But why force homosexuals to impregnate women when there are enough heterosexual men to do that task?

I figured you or someone else would pick up on this, hence the

Also, there is the issue of feeding, clothing, housing, and caring for homosexuals - so more the burden on the tribes resources.

And why couldn't two guys share or divide up these chores? I bet they could.

Remember, we are also speaking specifically of tribes which liked to marry the heterosexuals together before child-bearing occurred [was lawful] and it would be less problematic to have to deal with both homosexuals and lesbians',

So what's to deal with? They eat and sleep in their tent, go out to tend their sheep during day, and come home to eat and sleep again, just like any other barren couple. In fact, I bet their were more childless couples than homosexual couples back then.

Also [the list goes on] - killing homosexuals would put a message out to the tribe - especially young males who might have homosexual tendencies - that such a path to take has deadly consequences.

But why kill them in the first place? So far I havent seen a good reason.

Point being, if in the case of the Hebrew Tribes - lesbians were spared, and I am simply finding reasons for why that most likely happened.

Point being, if in the case of the Hebrew Tribes - lesbians were spared, and god had a "thing" about gay men. Personally, I think god was a defensive homophobe.

.

[Tcg]

Also, there is the issue of feeding, clothing, housing, and caring for homosexuals - so more the burden on the tribes resources.

Nah. The evidence is that homosexuals provide a benefit. For instance, gay penguins who care for eggs and raise offspring to independence. Beyond that, why should we revert to outdated tribal thinking? That's just more of the unhealthy ingroup and outgroup thinking.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #14]

And why couldn't two guys share or divide up these chores? I bet they could.

Easy to acknowledge in today's epoch. [Easy to win the bet].
I am simply saying how folk may well have thought way back when, and why those social laws most likely would have been formed.

I am not arguing for or against or whether YHWH inspired men to make laws or not.

But why kill them in the first place? So far I havent seen a good reason.

What good reason would there be for killing anyone? I am not saying the reasons were 'good'.

Personally, I think god was a defensive homophobe.

That opinion being true, would depend on whether YHWH made the rule or not.
I myself don't know, am not inclined to think it was so just because some tribal lawmakers said it was so.

[Replying to Tcg in post #15]

Beyond that, why should we revert to outdated tribal thinking?

Nothing to do with what I commented. I made no mention that we should.

[Purple Knight]

Is it evil, or wrong, for someone to fantasize about molesting children if he never acts on it?

No.

I have explored the yes and I find it reduces to silliness: The absurdity of believing that never having a negative inkling in your head is somehow a morally higher state and more deserving of reward and adulation than someone who goes against his nature and actively sacrifices his wants because he knows that he's be doing something wrong.

I confess, I envy people in their ivory towers and I wonder, if they have kept their ideals better because they have never had them tested, then don't I just want the better life so I can keep my ideals as well? I wonder this but everyone who I've confessed this to thinks I'm being silly.

Do folk forget that YHWH also created the Hermaphrodite form?
And would such folk feel better YHWH had dictated it that such forms should also be put to death?

It's clearly about what works - what Nature intended. I'm not endorsing anything anti-gay, but I am giving it charity, as logic demands. So if you're going to condemn or cancel anybody, it should be Logic herself (she told me she identifies as a woman).

The snails are makin' babies and those two restroom cutouts of woman-in-dress on the rainbow background are not.

[Miles]

... if I come across a man lying with a male as with a woman and don't put them to death, which is in opposition to god's will as he made it known in Leviticus 20:13, then I've committed a sin.

No. The sin would not be in not executing them, it would be in approving of their actions.

What if I didn't approve of their actions, but simply refused to carry out god's order because I didn't like killing people?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

Can I simply let the "other guy" do it, despite what the Bible says?

James 4:17
Therefore, anyone who knows what is right but fails to do it is guilty of sin.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can I simply let the "other guy" do it ...?

That would depend on if that law applied to you. If you have a time machine and could travel back 3000 years or so before the law was abolished, and you lived in the theocratic kingdom of Israel and due process had been applied and you were appointed by the court to exercise the verdict... perhaps.

[Miles]

Can I simply let the "other guy" do it ...?

That would depend on if that law applied to you. If you have a time machine and could travel back 3000 years or so before the law was abolished, and you lived in the theocratic kingdom of Israel and due process had been applied and you were appointed by the court to exercise the verdict... perhaps.

Abolished!!

What are you talking about? No law was abolished. Jesus even said so.

Matthew 5:17-18
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

" . . . Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
.