Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

[Reactionary]

What if psychologists, doctors, etc. said that adultery is OK? Would that make it so?

Some of them did, Jlay - I've heard of some "studies" which claim that monogamy is not natural, because it's a backward religious custom or whatever other nonsensical argument they presented, it doesn't matter. The point is that all kinds of "studies" are around these days, and just because the author has a college degree, doesn't mean that the "study" has any credibility, as once you analyze it, you find out that it's pure opinion masqueraded as science. Some people forget that such "researches" are often funded by certain interest groups.

And since we are all equal

Bryan, I hadn't intervened in this discussion until now - but I have to notice that you grossly distort the definition of equality, misinterpret the Bible, and God's character. Other members of the forum have refuted your arguments, but you remain persistent.

I'll repeat - Where's the limit of "equality"? Is a 15-year-old being discriminated because he isn't allowed to drive? Should we allow anyone to play in a top tier of football or whichever other sport, because we are all equal? Should we seize all the property of rich people and hand it to the poor because we're all equal? Should we introduce the third party into marriage because they want so?

How about a marriage between two men and one woman, where the first man earns money for the household, while the second one pleasures the wife? According to your reasoning, if all three parties agree, they should be given the right to get "married", all three of them, because we're all equal. What would you think of that? Would it be discriminating not to allow something like that?

[neo-x]

That is called convenient morality. Spot on, reactionary!

[BryanH]

@Reactionary

I'll repeat - Where's the limit of "equality"? Is a 15-year-old being discriminated because he isn't allowed to drive? Should we allow anyone to play in a top tier of football or whichever other sport, because we are all equal? Should we seize all the property of rich people and hand it to the poor because we're all equal? Should we introduce the third party into marriage because they want so?

Some of the examples that people provided here are about mixing apples and donkeys and to be honest such examples are childish, but I can play this game too.
Why aren't 10 years old allowed to get married? A girl and a boy right? Man and woman, correct?
Playing a high tier sport requires a CONTRACT like any other job. It's not a matter of discrimination, but a matter of skills and degree of performance.
Should we seize all the property of rich people and hand it to the poor because we're all equal? YES.
Should we introduce the third party into marriage because they want so? YES, marriage in the end is more related to privacy and personal choice. And there are examples in the world even today where polygamy is still working.

Some people forget that such "researches" are often funded by certain interest groups

Christianity is organized exactly on the same principles: interest groups. Ortodox, Catholic, Protestant, Neo-Protestant and many others.
All of these branches claim that they are the only true religion and their beliefs are the ones that should be followed.
So you are telling me that since Christianity gave birth to so much debate and interpretation, it should be considered the one true way of reaching God. Some of these branches don't even recognize Jesus as the son of God. So you see it ain't that easy to refute arguments because not even all the Christians in the world have come to a consensus in regard to God and Jesus.

you find out that it's pure opinion masqueraded as science.

If you follow my posts and some of the points I made, I can say the same thing about the bible. I do agree that some psychological studies are supported by group of interests and might be false, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of psychological studies are true and have proven theories that don't fit the Christian dogma. As some of the members here pointed out to me: if you don't want to believe something, that doesn't mean that the thing is not true or real.

P.S.: I have made other points in my posts that raise questions about the morality of God and the scriptures. You just told me that the members here have refuted my arguments. Actually if you follow the discussion post by post and analyze each of my statements, you will see that refuting was somehow missing. Please read the posts that and I and others made and answer accordingly. You just selected something I wrote and commented on that. Try to encompass all that has been discussed so far. If you follow the discussion you will see that every time someone made an argument, I made another one and so on. I haven't said the same thing again and again without a new argument to the discussion that supported my initial statement. I have even acknowledge that I made mistakes with some of my formulations. Again, please read all the discussion first. You just said what others have said already and to which I have already answered.

[neo-x]

Bryan, you may have missed on my post in reply to you in the arrogant atheist thread. You may wanna chk that.

[BryanH]

Bryan, you may have missed on my post in reply to you in the arrogant atheist thread. You may wanna chk that.

I promise I will go back to that thread as soon as I find some time and I will answer you. I don't want to answer in a haste. At the moment I focused on this topic and it does take a lot of time to answer sometimes.

[neo-x]

take ur time, no hurries

[jlay]

Bryan,

Certainly the discussion can lead to lots of rabbit trails.

Let me point out an aspect that bothers me the most to be honest.

If this bothers you most then there is no point in discussing homosexuality. Because this is obviously a difference in your basic understanding of the Bible/God/etc.
You say you have a moral problem with God. Yet, I want to know how you make a moral judgment of the Bible and God? To judge the bible means you have an objective standard to do so, and we'd all like to know what that is. If you say there is a better way than what God planned for Israel, that means you are making moral judgments. Yet, you seem to have a problem with people making moral judgments when it comes to homosexuality.

Christianity is mainly focused on living a moral life by doing good and helping your "brothers" by following God's word, right?

Not exactly. Christianity is focused on Christ. All other religions are about doing good as a means to get to God or reward. Christianity says that throgh Christ God came down to man who was not good to redeem man to himself. Good is a byproduct of being sourced by God.

So how come that God wants to teach being moral by death penalty? Those may have been other times and Israel may have had a stiff rigid law, but the question is the same: why would God give a law that teaches and promotes moral values by death penalty?

That is a good question. If you read Galatians and Hebrews it goes into a lot of discussion on the purpose of the law. Did you know that Israel was offered to opt out of the law? A covenant means an agreement. It was not forced on Israel. They agreed to it. The law shows the utterly sinful nature of sin. And just how seperated man is from God due to it. It shows the reality that God's judgment on sin is harsh. I appreciate your questions, but they reveal that you are making claims without really understanding the bigger picture. If you have any genuine interest in understanding some of the difficulties of the Bible there is an excellent book called, "Is God a moral monster" by Paul Copan. It deals with the toughest aspects. In fact, if you'll pmail me your address, I'll buy a copy and mail it to you.

Now this is my personal opinion and nothing more: a GOD that teaches its followers moral values through fear and death penalty, well, seems more like a man than a GOD. A GOD who is said to have infinite love and mercy and knowledge found a very simple solution: let's kill those who break my rules. That God which has roots in Judaism is the same God in Christianity. So pardon me if I say that the bible was written by man and man alone without any revelation from GOD.

If the bible is written by man alone, then those were truly some remarkable men. To predict the exact time and place the Messiah would come into Jerusalem 500 years in advance is something. And that is one of many.

Let me ask you a sincere question. A man kidnaps and tortures a child for pleasure. Do you think a judge should sentence this person to the harshest penalty of the law? The heinous nature of this crime is obvious, because it crosses your threshold. Is the law immoral? I'd say you have no objection to the law, justice or penalty in this regard. Even if the penalty were death you would understand the difference between the criminal and the judge and the law. What if the judge decided to just let him go because he didn't think he should enforce such harsh penalty. You'd deem the judge as corrupt as the criminal.

When a person enters the military they enter a covenant to live under a standard that is far higher than the average citizen. Refusing to make one's bed can result in jail time. Why is this penalty not immoral? Because the standard is higher. What would happen if suddenly the military said, "the penalty is too harsh. We need to let the troops do whatever they want." This would result in anarchy, and the structure necessary for a functioning military would collapse. The whole system would come crumbling down. God's plans with Israel were not merely rules. There is a much bigger, eternal picture at work. Your failure or unwillingness to see it, doesn't make it untrue. That is what is amazing about the Bible. Although compiled by 40+ authors, and written on different continents, and over 1,500 years, the focus is ultimately on Christ.

I'll give you one more example. If God's plans are sacred, then what should happen to one who attempts to thwart those plans? Let's say a person is messing around with the cubs of a mother bear. Is the mother bear immoral if she destroys that person? No. A mother bear is jealous for her cubs, and anyone who messes with that law of nature is facing certain death. There is no moral conflict. If you stare into the sun it will blind you. If you transgress the KNOWN laws of nature, it will judge you in the harshest manner. You may see God's law as trivial, and thus arrive at the arbitrary conclusions you do. But for Israel to transgress the Law of God was to shake one's fist in the face of God who is a consuming fire.

[Reactionary]

Some of the examples that people provided here are about mixing apples and donkeys and to be honest such examples are childish, but I can play this game too.

Why are they childish? The last time someone mentioned similar examples, you also said that he was mixing apples and donkeys. Well, I think that you're just cherrypicking examples that suit you, while discarding those that don't.

Why aren't 10 years old allowed to get married? A girl and a boy right? Man and woman, correct?

You answered your own question. A girl and a boy aren't a woman and a man. If two teens have children however, laws in certain countries will allow them to get married, with their parents' permission.

Playing a high tier sport requires a CONTRACT like any other job. It's not a matter of discrimination, but a matter of skills and degree of performance.

But why would contracts be given to the best performers?
A little below you said that we should forcefully redistribute the wealth, so nothing will surprise me from you...

Should we seize all the property of rich people and hand it to the poor because we're all equal? YES.

Wait, what about my rights? What if I start a business that earns me money, why would I owe it to somebody who didn't manage to do so? Who would run the economy, Bryan? If we took all the money and distributed it to the poor, we would get nothing. Who would invest in businesses that hire people and pay them? Instead of some people being rich, and some people being poor, everybody would be poor. The same argument is also presented against the Catholic Church - apparently they should give away everything they have because they're "rich". And who would manage charity programs, send missionaries, organize events...?

People like you show fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The money must circulate. You pay for the goods =› the company that produces goods earns profit =› expands its capacities, which involves hiring more people =› higher standard =› more money saved =› more money invested =› again higher capacities. That's how an economy progresses.

Should we introduce the third party into marriage because they want so? YES, marriage in the end is more related to privacy and personal choice. And there are examples in the world even today where polygamy is still working.

Is it, Bryan? I thought women in such marriages are also stoned for "adultery", forbidden from uncovering their faces, driving, working, or having personal ID. Should we introduce those "benefits" as well?

Christianity is organized exactly on the same principles: interest groups. Ortodox, Catholic, Protestant, Neo-Protestant and many others.
All of these branches claim that they are the only true religion and their beliefs are the ones that should be followed.

Who says so? Look at this forum - there are Catholics, Protestants and other denominations (and lack of such) here, yet we never disprove each other, we only debate certain doctrines of our beliefs.

So you are telling me that since Christianity gave birth to so much debate and interpretation, it should be considered the one true way of reaching God. Some of these branches don't even recognize Jesus as the son of God. So you see it ain't that easy to refute arguments because not even all the Christians in the world have come to a consensus in regard to God and Jesus.

Well, even the theory of evolution gave birth to much debate and interpretation - there are gradualism, punctuated equilibrium and other interpretations of the same theory. Even literary works are prone to interpretation - for instance, it's still not completely clear what was the exact meaning behind the parable about seeking admittance to the Law in Kafka's Trial. The book isn't even complete! Nevertheless, it's still one of the greatest works of the 20th century. People have different opinions, which lead to debating - if done with respect, it can only be positive. Exchange of opinions encourages thinking.

If you follow my posts and some of the points I made, I can say the same thing about the bible.

I'm not following you, unfortunately.

I do agree that some psychological studies are supported by group of interests and might be false, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of psychological studies are true and have proven theories that don't fit the Christian dogma.

Which are those? Do they involve provable facts and not just opinions?

P.S.: I have made other points in my posts that raise questions about the morality of God and the scriptures. You just told me that the members here have refuted my arguments.

Pretty much yes. In order to question God's morality, you would need an independent, objective moral standard to do so. If God is the Creator, then He created morals. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as morality. As simple as that.

You just said what others have said already and to which I have already answered.

In that case, I'm waiting for your reply to this post.

[BryanH]

@jlay
Before I answer some of your arguments, I want to thank you for a very nice post. I would also like to mention that we do probably have some opinions that will never be similar or even close to being similar.

You say you have a moral problem with God. Yet, I want to know how you make a moral judgment of the Bible and God? To judge the bible means you have an objective standard to do so, and we'd all like to know what that is. If you say there is a better way than what God planned for Israel, that means you are making moral judgments. Yet, you seem to have a problem with people making moral judgments when it comes to homosexuality.

There was morality before the Bible and before the scriptures so the standard exists. Just in case you wonder where I know that from: it's called history. I do have an objective standard which actually existed previously in other religions and societies over the world. You can't just assume that once the Bible was written morality started flowing around the world. I'm making moral judgements on the Bible and God because of cause-effect. The cause for this discussion is the Bible and how people act because of what the Bible teaches. So yes I make moral judgements over the Bible because it caused effects on people some of which I consider to be immoral in the first place. God-->Bible-->Discussion. And of course I'm questioning God's morality. As the Bible says God created everything, he is almighty, alpowerful, omnipresent, etc etc. God is the cause of all things. So both morality and immorality come from God, if we are to acknowledge God as our creator. So God created men who live in a world where there is a choice between morality and immorality... But God in his essence is both moral and immoral. But you have to choose only morality to get to Heavens... Somehow weird logically speaking... But the bigger question is: why would God have created immorality in the first place? Just saying... If you say that God created morality, he is the one who also created immorality... Waiting for feed back on this one.

@Reactionary

You answered your own question. A girl and a boy aren't a woman and a man. If two teens have children however, laws in certain countries will allow them to get married, with their parents' permission.

Well you answered your own question as well. That's why teens are not allowed to drive. There is law against that in some countries.

But why would contracts be given to the best performers?
A little below you said that we should forcefully redistribute the wealth, so nothing will surprise me from you...

Why is Heavens only for the ones that respect God's rules? Mainly the same rules apply in sports as well (joke)

Wait, what about my rights? What if I start a business that earns me money, why would I owe it to somebody who didn't manage to do so? Who would run the economy, Bryan? If we took all the money and distributed it to the poor, we would get nothing. Who would invest in businesses that hire people and pay them? Instead of some people being rich, and some people being poor, everybody would be poor. The same argument is also presented against the Catholic Church - apparently they should give away everything they have because they're "rich". And who would manage charity programs, send missionaries, organize events...?

Before I actually answer to you I just want to say that your answer has made me very sad.

You made a very good point on how the economy should work, but I find it very difficult to believe that you actually believe in that. The global economy doesn't function like that at all and you probably know that very well. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is a mathematical problem that needs to be solved. The gap between poor people and rich people is so big that if it continues to grow, there will be another recession, a very ugly one. If you don't believe me please do some research and you will find out I'm telling you the truth. There are people who work 12 hours/day and are still poor. And they work very hard.

I answered YES to your question, but that doesn't mean that we redistribute wealth without actually having a strategy in mind. We do it so we have a functional economy. By the way you might want to read Matthew 5:3 not that this a must.

Which are those? Do they involve provable facts and not just opinions?

Listen, I appreciate you taking the time to respond me, but I don't want to actually teach you psychology right now. Psychology is quite a vast field of research. It would take a lot of time. You have a computer at home and you can do that research yourself. I think that one of the of the examples which fits this discussion is that "gay people are better parents". When I say gay people that doesn't refer to all gay people. There are good parents and bad parents. But when you compare "good" hetero parents with "good" gay parents, you will notice that their kids are doing as good as within a normal family or even better. If you want proof visit Holland, Norway, Sweden. You will find plenty there, live proof

Pretty much yes. In order to question God's morality, you would need an independent, objective moral standard to do so. If God is the Creator, then He created morals. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as morality. As simple as that.

I'm not following you, unfortunately.

Please read what I have to said to jlay at the beginning of the post. It answers your questions as well.

[jlay]

There was morality before the Bible and before the scriptures so the standard exists.

I agree. And what is its source?
If you have an objective standard, then what is it?
If you are questioning God's morality, then what standard, outside yourself are you relying to judge?

Just in case you wonder where I know that from: it's called history. I do have an objective standard which actually existed previously in other religions and societies over the world.

And it is? Surely you are not saying history is your standard. What about the history of Nazi facism, or chattel slavery, or kill or be killed. History doesn't paint a pretty picture.

You can't just assume that once the Bible was written morality started flowing around the world.

You are making a faulty assumption by saying that is what we are assuming. I am not. Nor, is anyone else in this discussion that I can tell, other than you. The Bible is revelation. If God trancends the creation, then so does His morality. The Bible reveals. In fact we are saying that morality is beyond human. If there were no humans on the earth, would murder (conceptually) still be wrong? If so, then there is something apart from human existance and history. Take Chattel slavery for example. Much of the known world agreed that it was morally acceptable to own blacks, slave trade, and abuse them as sub-human. Since it was morally acceptable, should the abolistionists movement have done anything?

I'm making moral judgements on the Bible and God because of cause-effect. The cause for this discussion is the Bible and how people act because of what the Bible teaches.

The Bible teaches that there is a moral law giver who trancends our own subjective opinions and desires. Therefore, I am yielding to an standard apart from myself. It is not my opinion. But, what is your standard, and how do you measure good and evil, right and wrong, better or worse?

So yes I make moral judgements over the Bible because it caused effects on people some of which I consider to be immoral in the first place. God-->Bible-->Discussion. And of course I'm questioning God's morality. As the Bible says God created everything, he is almighty, alpowerful, omnipresent, etc etc. God is the cause of all things.

Causality is certainly important. However this is even a bigger topic than I think we are prepared to get in to. Unless you are familiar with Aristolean logic, and Aquinas' natural theology

So both morality and immorality come from God, if we are to acknowledge God as our creator. So God created men who live in a world where there is a choice between morality and immorality... But God in his essence is both moral and immoral.

That is an opinion, but you've not shown this to be the case. If I create a society with laws, then are you saying that I created law breaking? The law breaking is the result of the volitional reponse of the individual under the law. Assuming that God is morally good, then His law would reflect that nature. How does one departing from that law, make God the author of immorality. Assuming there is no God, then what determines if anything is moral or immoral?

Why is Heavens only for the ones that respect God's rules? Mainly the same rules apply in sports as well

Where did you arrive at this conclusion?
I mean try that approach with gravity. Step off the ledge of a cliff and say, why should these laws apply too me?
If God is the creator then really, honestly, whose rules matter? His, of course. If God is, then there is a final cause, there is a source to measure right and wrong. If there is no God, then your opinion is just that. Being pro-gay is no different than prefering vanilla to chocolate. You want gays to marry. I don't. So what? Who can say thatt one preference is good or bad. It would be like saying vanilla is objectively better than chocolate.

[BryanH]

That is an opinion, but you've not shown this to be the case. If I create a society with laws, then are you saying that I created law breaking? The law breaking is the result of the volitional reponse of the individual under the law. Assuming that God is morally good, then His law would reflect that nature. How does one departing from that law, make God the author of immorality. Assuming there is no God, then what determines if anything is moral or immoral?

If I create a society with laws, then are you saying that I created law breaking
No, I didn't say that at all. Let me make it more clear about my personal assertion.

1) God is the creator/cause of all things.
2) Since God is creator/cause of all things he is both moral and immoral at the same time without exclusion.
3) God created man.
4) God gave man laws that promote only morality.
5) God gave man free will to choose between morality and immorality.
6) Only people that respect God's law enter his kingdom.
As I said before, you can't assume that God is moral just because you say so or just because in the Bible you find only moral teachings. I agree that the Bible teaches only moral things, but that doesn't mean that God is like that himself.

Assuming there is no God, then what determines if anything is moral or immoral?
Interesting statement...

Dude learn some psychology and history at the same time. Moral and immoral laws/rules/values are decided by what is considered acceptable and not acceptable by a given society at a given time.
Such moral rules have changed in history as time passed by and societies developed more and more. Even the Bible has been "updated" as we don't stone people to death for breaking the 10 commandments, but this is just an example. There are many more to give, but as you have already mentioned: today we don't have slavery anymore although discrimination is still a big problem. So yes, morality is not necessarily something that God gave us because other religions and societies in the world still have morality without God sending any revelations and a Jesus to them. So as other societies developed their morality without the guide of the Bible, it is clear that people can make their own decisions.

If God is the creator then really, honestly, whose rules matter? His, of course. If God is, then there is a final cause, there is a source to measure right and wrong. If there is no God, then your opinion is just that. Being pro-gay is no different than prefering vanilla to chocolate. You want gays to marry. I don't. So what? Who can say thatt one preference is good or bad. It would be like saying vanilla is objectively better than chocolate.

You use God as a reference for telling me what choice is the right one. If you do that there is no real free will and you acknowledge that you are a kind of "slave" of God's law. If God tells us which is the right choice, then where is the free will my friend?

If there is no God, then your opinion is just that. Being pro-gay is no different than prefering vanilla to chocolate
Again you make some assumptions that you can't actually prove and substantiate. You are saying that without God we would be some kind of zombies or something similar who couldn't tell apart black from white. Really now?

Causality is certainly important. However this is even a bigger topic than I think we are prepared to get in to. Unless you are familiar with Aristolean logic, and Aquinas' natural theology

I'm familiar with Aristolean logic, but not with Aquinas natural theology. I don't think it's the case to take things so far. Complex problems have simple solutions... anyways, so it is said

[jlay]

Brayn,

Number 2 has yet to be demonstrated by you. You are conflating creator and cause. Within soveriengnty there is also permissive wil. Please demonstrate how God being creator is immoral. To this point you haven't.

There are also problems with number 4.
Number 6 also has problems. You need to define Kingdom.

I'm a little confused how you throw out the word assumption. Friend, everything in your premise is assumptive. You are assuming God is immoral, yet offering no evidence to back up these claims. Ammendment: Are you arguing that God does exist, yet is immoral? Or are you arguing that God doesn't exist?

Dude learn some psychology and history at the same time. Moral and immoral laws/rules/values are decided by what is considered acceptable and not acceptable by a given society at a given time.

Do you realize the implications? Then by what you just said, who are you to judge ancient Israel? How can you make this statement and judge those today who are against gay-marriage. Our society has been set in what marriage is. I've even established that marriage has a definable meaning. So, by what method do you justify imposing the minority will onto others?
Do you also realize that what you are saying contradicts your claims to objective morals. This is subjective. I will give you an example of where this fails. In the 1700s it was considered legal and moral by most people to participate in the slave trade. So, based on your claims, the slave trade was moral. You said that values are DECIDED. If morals are decided, then all you have decided is that you think gay marriage is moral. I have decided it isn't. So, why is your opinion superior to mine. The majority of people in this country do not support gay marriage. So, why don't you follow your own logic? In many ancient cultures it was also considered moral to participate in human sacrifice. So, if the scoeity agreed, you then have to agree that it was moral. Why did certain individuals rise up against Chattel slavery in the 1800s? What about Nazi-facism. Hitler had an entire society agreeing that Jews were sub-human and needed to be eliminated. By this logic, the U.S. should have not gotten involved. Who would we be to judge the moral preference of a society. If societies determine morality then, oh well, to each his own.
As I said, this is no different than arguing the best flavor of ice-cream. If I say vanilla is the best, I am merely stating a subjective preference. If I establish a society that prefers vanilla and hates chocolate, what you are saying is that vanilla is now the moral choice. But as you can see, no matter how many prefer vanilla, it is still SUBJECTIVE. What I am saying is that if you are relying on your above claim, then pro-gay marriage and ant-gay marriage is no different than ice-cream. It boils down to preference. This means it isn't obejctively wrong to act on homosexual impluses. Nor is in objectively wrong to be against those who do.

Again you make some assumptions that you can't actually prove and substantiate. You are saying that without God we would be some kind of zombies or something similar who couldn't tell apart black from white. Really now?

What? I would ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. For the record, people who deny God CAN make moral decisions. However, to do so, they have to smuggle in objective morality, and Christian values.
All I am saying is that without God, I want you to account for objective morality. You do understand that what you described regarding societies is SUBJECTIVE. Please don't resort to insults about my knowledge of pshychology. If you have any source for OBJECTIVE morality, I'd like to hear it. If morality changes with trends, then by definition, it is NOT objective. If it does, then you have to conceed that the way women are treated in the Middle East and a myriad of other immoral cultural customs are in fact moral. Society rules afterall. You would also have to conceed that there is no inherent value in human life. It is arbitrary. You may think there is value in human life, but without a creator there is nothing outside of man's own self-centered delusion.

You use God as a reference for telling me what choice is the right one. If you do that there is no real free will and you acknowledge that you are a kind of "slave" of God's law. If God tells us which is the right choice, then where is the free will my friend

Your example is actually hurting your own posistion. If there is no God then you have no free will of any kind. Your are a product of the material world. Your thoughts and ideas are just a byproduct of chemical and electric impulses and the hand a mindless nature dealt you. If you have studied psychology then I would hope you are familiar with material determinsm. The freewill problem is far worse in this model.

There are ample threads on this forum regarding free will. Based on this reply, it tells me you are making assumptions about my position on free will. I will tell you right now, that everyone is a slave to something. If you want to discuss the free will topic, I'm up for it, but it is really needed for a new thread, or a revision of a past thread. I'll only say this. Everyone is limited in choice. One is free to choose, but only among certain options. You seem to agree that one can choose between good and evil, right and wrong. The problem is that you are not accounting for any a measure of choice. If good and evil have no objective value, then it is arbitrary. If you reject God, then you shouldn't blame him, which is what you are doing. This is a prejudical objection. It goes like this. "I don't like President Obama's policies. I disagree with him. Therefore he doesn't exist." The existance of God isn't predicated by such things. If God does not exist, then I want you to show me, objectively why anything matters. Why should we value life? Why should we fight for a cause? Why should we resist injustice, even if in the minority?

[Reactionary]

Bryan. Sorry for taking the time to respond.

You answered your own question. A girl and a boy aren't a woman and a man. If two teens have children however, laws in certain countries will allow them to get married, with their parents' permission.

Well you answered your own question as well. That's why teens are not allowed to drive. There is law against that in some countries.

You missed my point. What I wanted to say is, according to your reasoning, why wouldn't someone want to redefine the concept of adulthood and give such rights to minors? A majority of countries start considering you an adult when you turn 18. What if someone got an idea to lower that age to, let's say, 10? That would be ludicrous and dangerous in my opinion, but if we can redefine marriage, who's stopping us from redefining anything else for that matter? A cool, innovative term would then be invented for opponents of such initiative - like, ageist, or minorophobe.

But why would contracts be given to the best performers?
A little below you said that we should forcefully redistribute the wealth, so nothing will surprise me from you...

Why is Heavens only for the ones that respect God's rules? Mainly the same rules apply in sports as well (joke)

A weak joke. The rules are here so that we can follow the path to God, they were made for our good, not because God is a control freak. It's like when you buy a new appliance, you get an instruction manual with it. You could be wise and follow the instructions, or believe that the producers must think that you're too dumb to figure the machine out by yourself, and so you end up breaking it down. And losing your warranty.

It's similar with us - the Bible is like an instruction manual for humans. You can, of course, live a sinful lifestyle and ignore the "manual", but there might be negative consequences, caused by those very actions, not by God striking you with a lightning.

Wait, what about my rights? What if I start a business that earns me money, why would I owe it to somebody who didn't manage to do so? Who would run the economy, Bryan? If we took all the money and distributed it to the poor, we would get nothing. Who would invest in businesses that hire people and pay them? Instead of some people being rich, and some people being poor, everybody would be poor. The same argument is also presented against the Catholic Church - apparently they should give away everything they have because they're "rich". And who would manage charity programs, send missionaries, organize events...?

Before I actually answer to you I just want to say that your answer has made me very sad.

You made a very good point on how the economy should work, but I find it very difficult to believe that you actually believe in that. The global economy doesn't function like that at all and you probably know that very well. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is a mathematical problem that needs to be solved. The gap between poor people and rich people is so big that if it continues to grow, there will be another recession, a very ugly one. If you don't believe me please do some research and you will find out I'm telling you the truth. There are people who work 12 hours/day and are still poor. And they work very hard.

I answered YES to your question, but that doesn't mean that we redistribute wealth without actually having a strategy in mind. We do it so we have a functional economy. By the way you might want to read Matthew 5:3 not that this a must.

The model of growth that I wrote was simplified of course. Economics is a very complex science, as it deals with numerous ever-changing factors, including human psychology. And since humans are fallen beings, logically our economic systems will show flaws as well. That's why we'll probably never come up with a perfect economic system, but rather the one which brings most benefits, and least downsides. I'm all for social welfare and equal opportunities, but not at the expense of other people's possessions. Check God's Commandment #10.

Which are those? Do they involve provable facts and not just opinions?

Listen, I appreciate you taking the time to respond me, but I don't want to actually teach you psychology right now. Psychology is quite a vast field of research. It would take a lot of time. You have a computer at home and you can do that research yourself. I think that one of the of the examples which fits this discussion is that "gay people are better parents". When I say gay people that doesn't refer to all gay people. There are good parents and bad parents. But when you compare "good" hetero parents with "good" gay parents, you will notice that their kids are doing as good as within a normal family or even better.

It's not the same to say that "A is better than B", and that "A is just as good as B or even better". In fact, your transition from "better" to "as good or even better" just shows me that you're making subjective judgements. That's why I was asking to be shown a study that would confirm what you're claiming. I wasn't asking for a patronizing lecture about what psychology is, as you don't know what my field of expertise is, or what I research in my free time.

If you want proof visit Holland, Norway, Sweden. You will find plenty there, live proof

You know, I might be from the Balkans, but I don't idealize the Western society.

Pretty much yes. In order to question God's morality, you would need an independent, objective moral standard to do so. If God is the Creator, then He created morals. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as morality. As simple as that.

I'm not following you, unfortunately.

Please read what I have to said to jlay at the beginning of the post. It answers your questions as well.

Disappointing answer. "There was morality before the Bible and before the scriptures so the standard exists" is hardly an argument. History is not a standard, it's an academic discipline. The fact that morality, however you define it, is rooted within humans, doesn't say anything about where it came from. It could have been installed within us by God, or it could have appeared as a survival instinct, however strange that might sound. If the former is the case, then it would be inconsistent to judge God by the standard created by Himself. However, if the latter is true, then everything is subjective, and genetically preprogrammed - morality, homosexuality, "homophobia", our opinions, everything. It would be futile to discuss anything if that was true, because our opinions would not be a result of reason and free will, but rather a mixture of our genes, and effects from our environment. Jlay covered this better than I can.

As for your objection about God creating immorality, well, He obviously created this world to be temporary. He could have created an army of blindly obedient robots, but instead, He wants us to freely choose Him, and so we have a choice whether to accept or reject Him, which seems fair to me. If we were spawned directly in Heaven, we wouldn't know how good good is, because we wouldn't have seen the absence of good, i.e. evil. C.S. Lewis developed a similar argument if I remember it right. If you had been born deaf or blind, you wouldn't know what silence or dark is, because you would have never heard a sound or seen light. It's similar with good and evil. More info here:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/ev ... ering.html

[BryanH]

@jlay

Number 2 has yet to be demonstrated by you. You are conflating creator and cause. Within soveriengnty there is also permissive wil. Please demonstrate how God being creator is immoral. To this point you haven't.

I didn't say that God is immoral. I said God is both moral and immoral at the same time. Let's both agree: you can't prove that God is moral, I can't prove is he is both moral and immoral at the same time. But if you can prove that God is moral please do.

There are also problems with number 4.
Number 6 also has problems. You need to define Kingdom.

I don't understand the problem with number 4. I said that God only gave laws that are moral... what's the catch? did God give immoral laws as well?
When I say Kingdom, I was referring to Heaven. If you follow God's rules you go to Heaven, or else to Hell.

So, by what method do you justify imposing the minority will onto others?

So was Christianity, but here we are today discussing about another minority. Just to be clear on how history works: all over history, minorities were the cause for change and/or progress (not in all cases, but just saying). And you might ask me how was Christianity imposed on others? Well Christianity started to spread in Europe and from here all over the world with emperor Constantine. At some point he legalized Christianity and he forced his people to give up on the old traditions (Romans were no longer allowed to worship their Gods).

Do you also realize that what you are saying contradicts your claims to objective morals. This is subjective. I will give you an example of where this fails. In the 1700s it was considered legal and moral by most people to participate in the slave trade. So, based on your claims, the slave trade was moral. You said that values are DECIDED. If morals are decided, then all you have decided is that you think gay marriage is moral. I have decided it isn't. So, why is your opinion superior to mine. The majority of people in this country do not support gay marriage. So, why don't you follow your own logic? In many ancient cultures it was also considered moral to participate in human sacrifice. So, if the scoeity agreed, you then have to agree that it was moral. Why did certain individuals rise up against Chattel slavery in the 1800s? What about Nazi-facism. Hitler had an entire society agreeing that Jews were sub-human and needed to be eliminated. By this logic, the U.S. should have not gotten involved. Who would we be to judge the moral preference of a society. If societies determine morality then, oh well, to each his own.

As I said above, minorities are the ones that make change happen. And when I said that a society makes the rules for what is acceptable and non acceptable I didn't use the word majority. You assume that if a majority agrees to something we should make that a law and respect it until the end of times... Progress and change don't work that way. Maybe you should remember the times when the Spanish Inquisition tortured innocent people in the name of God claiming that people who were the pioneers of science did the work of the devil. Those science pioneers were a minority who fought for their rights and they won with a lot of sacrifices.

The majority of people in this country do not support gay marriage
I will tell you a short joke to make my point:
A woman says: All men are the same!!!
Another one answers: Why did you try them all?

Hope you got the point. You say that the majority of people in this country... I don't know which country you are from but I sincerely doubt that there was a national vote where that was asked. Maybe you should have one. That would clarify some things for the general public.

I think that the majority of people in the world are quite poor and they probably resent that. I don't see anything changing about that. I wonder why...

What about Nazi-facism. Hitler had an entire society agreeing that Jews were sub-human and needed to be eliminated. By this logic, the U.S. should have not gotten involved. Who would we be to judge the moral preference of a society. If societies determine morality then, oh well, to each his own.

Exactly. Every society is free to choose what is moral and what it is not. As I said, moral values have changed over the years and that is easy to demonstrate. Change happens.

So, why is your opinion superior to mine

I didn't say your opinion is inferior compared to mine. I'm just pointing out that society is changing more and more and you are saying that we should keep some rules in place that are more than 2000 years old. It's not about my house is bigger than yours. I don't think that my opinion is superior to yours. I just disagree with you. That's all.

What? I would ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. For the record, people who deny God CAN make moral decisions. However, to do so, they have to smuggle in objective morality, and Christian values.
All I am saying is that without God, I want you to account for objective morality. You do understand that what you described regarding societies is SUBJECTIVE. Please don't resort to insults about my knowledge of pshychology. If you have any source for OBJECTIVE morality, I'd like to hear it. If morality changes with trends, then by definition, it is NOT objective. If it does, then you have to conceed that the way women are treated in the Middle East and a myriad of other immoral cultural customs are in fact moral. Society rules afterall. You would also have to conceed that there is no inherent value in human life. It is arbitrary. You may think there is value in human life, but without a creator there is nothing outside of man's own self-centered delusion.

For the record, people who deny God CAN make moral decisions. However, to do so, they have to smuggle in objective morality, and Christian values.
I don't follow you. You are saying that objective morality was invented by the Christians? Please offer some feedback on this one because I actually don't understand it.

If you have any source for OBJECTIVE morality, I'd like to hear it. If morality changes with trends, then by definition, it is NOT objective.
Do you have any source for objective morality? You are asking me to provide something even you can't prove. Why should morality be objective in the first place? As I have said, with time passing by, moral values change according to the society. And I said in my previous comment, even the Bible morality has changed with times according to society so I don't see your point. Moral values is more related to collective choice than to objectivity. That's why we have so many different cultures over the world...

If it does, then you have to conceed that the way women are treated in the Middle East and a myriad of other immoral cultural customs are in fact moral. Society rules afterall.
Yes. The middle east has different moral values compared to more western parts of the world.

You would also have to conceed that there is no inherent value in human life. It is arbitrary. You may think there is value in human life, but without a creator there is nothing outside of man's own self-centered delusion.
If you consider life without a creator a self centered delusion, it is your own choice.
(I will tell you a little story from my personal experience to clarify this:
at some point we had a teacher invited from a Waldorf system school. Such a school offers a high degree of freedom to the student and it promotes both mind and spirit development. I asked her: Aren't there any limits to which you can take this kind of learning?
She answered: I see no limits. I'm a cosmic being)

If you want to put a wall in front of you, it is your own choice, but be advised: you might hurt your head against the wall.

Your example is actually hurting your own posistion. If there is no God then you have no free will of any kind. Your are a product of the material world. Your thoughts and ideas are just a byproduct of chemical and electric impulses and the hand a mindless nature dealt you. If you have studied psychology then I would hope you are familiar with material determinsm. The freewill problem is far worse in this model.
Yes, I'm familiar with it, but that doesn't mean that I support this theory. As in other fields, Psychology has given birth to many theories some of which are contradictory. I for one am not a supporter of this theory. I do not agree with determinism.
You say that I am a byproduct of the material world. There is still a lot we don't know about this "material" world. We actually know quite little about it. We don't even know how our body works 100% so until we find out more about that, let's keep it honest. This nature you are talking about may not that mindless as you think.

@Reactionary

You missed my point. What I wanted to say is, according to your reasoning, why wouldn't someone want to redefine the concept of adulthood and give such rights to minors? A majority of countries start considering you an adult when you turn 18. What if someone got an idea to lower that age to, let's say, 10? That would be ludicrous and dangerous in my opinion, but if we can redefine marriage, who's stopping us from redefining anything else for that matter? A cool, innovative term would then be invented for opponents of such initiative - like, ageist, or minorophobe.

According to the General Theory of Systems, each system tends to move towards an equilibrium state. Same thing happens with people and societies. When I say equilibrium that doesn't mean right or wrong, but it's functional.

Check God's Commandment #10.

I did. It says nothing about you giving away your wealth to poor people. Don't get it.

It's not the same to say that "A is better than B", and that "A is just as good as B or even better". In fact, your transition from "better" to "as good or even better" just shows me that you're making subjective judgements. That's why I was asking to be shown a study that would confirm what you're claiming. I wasn't asking for a patronizing lecture about what psychology is, as you don't know what my field of expertise is, or what I research in my free time.

Sorry If you felt like I was offending you. Didn't mean that.
In fact, your transition from "better" to "as good or even better" just shows me that you're making subjective judgements
I was just trying to make things clear so nobody misinterprets my words. I think that you can find a lot of studies on the internet that prove that. If you want to believe it or not, that is entirely up to you.

You know, I might be from the Balkans, but I don't idealize the Western society.

No need to idealize anything. I gave you example of 3 countries in the world the world where being gay is not a problem and where gay families are allowed. Lots of people here asked me for proof. Well that is proof, live proof. But again it is up to you if you want to believe this or not and how you treat the matter.

Disappointing answer. "There was morality before the Bible and before the scriptures so the standard exists" is hardly an argument. History is not a standard, it's an academic discipline. The fact that morality, however you define it, is rooted within humans, doesn't say anything about where it came from. It could have been installed within us by God, or it could have appeared as a survival instinct, however strange that might sound. If the former is the case, then it would be inconsistent to judge God by the standard created by Himself. However, if the latter is true, then everything is subjective, and genetically preprogrammed - morality, homosexuality, "homophobia", our opinions, everything. It would be futile to discuss anything if that was true, because our opinions would not be a result of reason and free will, but rather a mixture of our genes, and effects from our environment. Jlay covered this better than I can.

If the former is the case, then it would be inconsistent to judge God by the standard created by Himself
This statement is puzzling me. You are saying that someone can't be judged based on their actions? Actually you can, at least that's how the world works. If you want to enter Heavens, you are judged based on your actions...
Picasso created marvelous paintings... We judged him based on his actions... He was a marvelous painter...

However, if the latter is true, then everything is subjective, and genetically preprogrammed - morality, homosexuality, "homophobia", our opinions, everything. It would be futile to discuss anything if that was true, because our opinions would not be a result of reason and free will, but rather a mixture of our genes, and effects from our environment. Jlay covered this better than I can.

Actually he didn't... He said that if God didn't created us, humans are a by products of a material world in the hands of a mindless nature. At this moment in time we know very little about that "material world". As I said to jlay, we don't even understand how our body works 100%. Until we actually know that, you can't prove that we don't have free will. How do you actually demonstrate that anyways?

He wants us to freely choose Him, and so we have a choice whether to accept or reject Him, which seems fair to me.

I sincerely do not agree with this and I will tell you why.

The Christian Dogma is very clear: if you do not follow God's path you end up in Hell.

Do you consider going to Hell being a choice? I don't know anyone who would voluntarily agree to these 2 choices...
Let me make it even more clear for you by rephrasing the statement above.

Either you agree with me(God) or you will end up in hell for eternity...(agree with me or I will shoot you in the head)

[jlay]

Exactly. Every society is free to choose what is moral and what it is not. As I said, moral values have changed over the years and that is easy to demonstrate. Change happens.

??? Earlier you were convinced God was immoral but moral at the same time. A contradiction. If you are familiar with Aristotilean logic, then surely you are familiar with the law of non-contradiction. Now, you say you can't prove it. The position of demonstrating God's morality has everything to do with objective morality. An issue you've really avoided dealing with. So, no, I can't demonstrate it, until you'll answer some of these questions.

I don't follow you. You are saying that objective morality was invented by the Christians? Please offer some feedback on this one because I actually don't understand it.

I didn't say morality was invented. If morality is obejctive, then it isn't "invented." If God is eternal, then he didn't make up morality. He is the source of morality. I said that one can not claim objective morality without smuggling in Christian values. This being that Christians know the transcendent external source of morality.

Exactly. Every society is free to choose what is moral and what it is not. As I said, moral values have changed over the years and that is easy to demonstrate. Change happens.

Then morality is NOT objective. Earlier in the thread you claimed you could know morality, and know it objectively. Later you now say that morality changes based on society. This is fundementally contrary to knowing objective morality.
You now are saying that morality is determined by societal preference. This would mean that it can be moral to torture babies, if the society agrees. Do you not see the flaw here? Do you really believe that? Or do you believe there really is good and bad, right and wrong. Are you saying the Nazis were right and moral? Or, were the allied powers right and good to take on the Nazis? IN other words, if you lived in a culture that held such a belief, would your attitude be, "well its good to torture babies because society says so." Or, is torturing babies wrong even though the soceity prefers it? If it is wrong, which let's please agree that it is, then how?

Is justice good? Is mercy good? Is murder wrong?
I know the standard. It is God. It is revealed in and through his creation, and further through the scriptures. But if you won't address the issue of objective morality, then we aren't going to get very far. Simply put, there are too many contradictions in your position.

Just to be clear on how history works: all over history, minorities were the cause for change and/or progress

Progress? Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. Progress assumes that one was objectively wrong, and that man moved towards an objectivley better standard. But you are contradicting yourself. Better according to what? Again, ice-cream. Can vanilla be objectively better than chocolate? No. Preference no matter how widely accepted does not establish truth. Either it is wrong to torture babies, or you just don't prefer it. But, if a collective society prefers it, then it is good. I hope you see the problem with this.