How can banning a natural act be logical?

[nnmartin]

Man + woman = baby

baby + 16 years = adult

man adult + woman adult = new baby

if we continue in this vein we can see that the human race will continue to exist.

yet the Bible says we should not do this.

what gives?

does God really want the human race to die out?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

All acts are by nature, natural. Even making laws to make certain actions illegal is natural.

The very concept you are presenting is flawed.

 

[nnmartin]

'Natural' in the sense of meant to be.

Man and woman were created in order to have children - this is obvious by just a brief study of biology.

so why would the Bible condemn this?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

'Natural' in the sense of meant to be.

Man and woman were created in order to have children - this is obvious by just a brief study of biology.

so why would the Bible condemn this?

You're confusing an is with an ought.

"Man and woman are born with the capacity and drive to have children, therefore they should have children" is the same as claiming "Leeches and mosquitoes are born with the capacity and drive to drink your blood, therefore they should be allowed to drink your blood" or "HIV kills people, therefore HIV should kill people".

Like I said, arguing from nature is ignorant.

 

[Valjean]

I don't follow, nmartin. Where does the Bible ban reproduction? I thought it said to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[nnmartin]

yes, but only if married.

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

The reproductive drive is one of the key instincts of humanity, with marriage only being a man made invention and thus a nonsense idea.

 

[nnmartin]

You're confusing an is with an ought.

"Man and woman are born with the capacity and drive to have children, therefore they should have children" is the same as claiming "Leeches and mosquitoes are born with the capacity and drive to drink your blood, therefore they should be allowed to drink your blood" or "HIV kills people, therefore HIV should kill people".

no, you is wrong there!

your analogies are off by some degree.

Man and Woman were created by Nature to perfectly complement each other and naturally produce offspring.

This can hardly be said of your examples.

 

[Me Myself]

Banning is natural. So, that.

 

[James Humphreys]

yes, but only if married.

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

The reproductive drive is one of the key instincts of humanity, with marriage only being a man made invention and thus a nonsense idea.

Married couples are capable of having far more children than is necessary to merely maintain the population. The situation in many countries now where the average number of live births per woman is below the replacement level has not been the case for most of human history at all.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

no, you is wrong there!

your analogies are off by some degree.

Man and Woman were created by Nature to perfectly complement each other and naturally produce offspring.

This can hardly be said of your examples.

Leeches were created by Nature to feed on blood. Therefore they ought to feed on blood, human or otherwise. HIV was created by Nature to kill the immune system and thereby kill humans, therefore we ought to be killed by HIV. They complement each other. We are all connected. Try to think a bit longer (if not deeper) before you try making more naturalistic fallacies again.

 

[HonestJoe]

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

That's not necessarily true of course. If every married couple had ten (surviving) children, only around 20% would need to be married to maintain the population. In the real world, regardless of marriage, many people never have children yet the world population is rising rapidly.

I do agree that the concept of monogamous marriage is somewhat unnatural though. I think humans are fundamentally pack animals and, like many other primates, could well fall in to an alpha male/harem structure were we completely unrestricted by our social attitudes.

 

[Quintessence]

yes, but only if married.

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

Too LOW?

:sarcastic

$#@%, if this prohibition was strictly enforced, maybe, just maybe it would have prevented our species from getting so disgustingly overpopulated.

Put probably not. *sigh*

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The concept of banning "natural" acts is not limited to religion. All societies do this. It's natural for people to act selfishly to the detriment of society, it's logical for societies to ban such behaviors. This is the core of an organized modern society vs. an ancient, disorganized band of individuals fighting for survival.

 

[waitasec]

yes, but only if married.

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

The reproductive drive is one of the key instincts of humanity, with marriage only being a man made invention and thus a nonsense idea.

i don't think marriage is natural

 

[CynthiaCypher]

'Natural' in the sense of meant to be.

Man and woman were created in order to have children - this is obvious by just a brief study of biology.

so why would the Bible condemn this?

You have built a strawman. The Bible doesn't condemn procreation

 

[waitasec]

You have built a strawman. The Bible doesn't condemn procreation

i think he's thinking about 1 cor 7:29

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;

but i could be wrong...

 

[Valjean]

yes, but only if married.

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

The reproductive drive is one of the key instincts of humanity, with marriage only being a man made invention and thus a nonsense idea.

The birth rate would drop? Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
Our numbers are threatening not only our own prosperity but the entire planet's ecosystem.

"The number of humans would become too low?" Too low for what?

If there's any danger of humans going extinct it's our numbers that is the primary threat.

 

[idav]

does God really want the human race to die out?

We were supposed to overrun the earth and we couldn't very well do that being stuck in the garden.

 

[Hope]

this is too idealistic, as if only married people were the ones that actually had children the birth rate would drop. Over time the numbers of humans would become too low.

And yet, if I grant that your premise is true, while the world is currently facing overpopulation (at least according to some), wouldn't it be more beneficial to promote marriage, instead of decry it?

Perhaps, if man had stuck to marriage all along, instead of multiply on a massive scale outside of marriage, then the world's population would have maintained a healthier equilibrium. Just a thought.

The reproductive drive is one of the key instincts of humanity, with marriage only being a man made invention and thus a nonsense idea.

Marriage is not a man-made invention...I believe God ordained it, because He knew it would be good for society, in more ways than one.

Perhaps, granting your aforesaid premise again, God knew it would be helpful for keeping our numbers in check...after all, every other species multiplies unhindered unless kept in check by natural predators and other factors---since we have no natural predators, and we are intelligent enough to overcome "other factors," then we needed something else to curb our numbers.

 

[averageJOE]

Since when is a 16 year old automatically considered an adult?

Define "adult".