Disobedience has consequences.

[GrimKingGrim]

Grim.

The problem is there is no understanding of the origination of anything in fundamentalism.

Because there is no point. It's fundamentals for a reason. Beyond fundamentals is absurdity.

You say it is silly to ask why something is the way it is. I find it foolish not to ask.

Exactly why your thinking is flawed. You seek to put a question on everything. Things that have no answer to give said question and yet you strive to answer that question. You'll never find answers and only gain more questions. Who is Milk? Why is triangle? What could be W36? The path you lead is only a road to crazy. You HAVE to establish a fundamental basis in order to properly question.

The laws of physical for example are immutable fact. How and where did these laws come to be?

Why is milk?

I do not believe they are sentient any more than I believe they had to evolve to their current state.

Who is adsf?

How did they come to be?

When is W?

These are all valid questions because you refuse to establish fundamentals. So, How are light?

What upside down is right?

When can sky?

H equals what?

Nine over six is how?

Is Triangle so hard?

What could lamp president establish in mars?

Just shrugging my shoulders and saying "it is what it is" is not enough for me.

This is exactly what you're doing when you say "God did it." Your fundamentals lack. Your questions are suffering as a result. You're very hard to take serious.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The religionist's claim of "my god did it" is not enough for me. Particularly when the individual making said assertion then promptly exempts their own religious beliefs (gods/angels/afterlife/miracles/souls/etc) from being subject to those same laws.

Not to mention the fact that the "my god did it" explanation has an abysmal track record. Like the explanation for lightning, the sun "moving" across the sky, etc. Seems to me like the theist position keeps retreating, until they're only left with "Yeah, well the universe. God had to have done that!"...

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know that we will be capable of resolving this discussion, given the nature of what would be needed. You have a personal experience that demonstrates to you that you can be changed by life experiences and circumstances. I have a personal experience that shows me that, while I have changed a lot (outgoing, less judgmental) because of certain circumstances, I have also largely remained the same (morality).

We certainly can't put the exact same person back through someone else's life and see what outcome we get.

Since that is how you feel about it, I am not surprised you think we will not be able to resolve it. For me though, I know I can be persuaded by rational reasoning. Can I just ask on this though, if you believe your morality is not a result of your life experiences (ie, you have learned to be moral), what do you put it down to? Is your morality a biological, genetic condition that those who aren't as moral might have a corresponding defect? Is it spiritual? Being that I am an observer of human behaviour and not a biologist, I just do not know why you would say that we aren't purely a product of our environment and that you believe no circumstances could make you less moral.

 

[oi_antz]

Your analogy fails to address why the child would "choose" the "flashy car" knowing the possible repercussions from the people around him, or upon seeing these repercussions, simply changing to the other "car".

I would say that your analogy is flawed, in that the evidence speaks to sexual orientation not being a choice.

Please justify your position, because this is not a valid support for the belief, to deny the validity of an argument in support of an opposing belief. I only ask because I would like to know if there is a reason to believe sexual orientation preference is not a choice.

This post answers your question. Please pay attention, because you are about to be the first person to get put on my ignore list:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/disobedience-has-consequences.7880949/page-51#post-68019419

 

[bhsmte]

Please justify your position, because this is not a valid support for the belief, to deny the validity of an argument in support of an opposing belief. I only ask because I would like to know if there is a reason to believe sexual orientation preference is not a choice.

This post answers your question. Please pay attention, because you are about to be the first person to get put on my ignore list:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/disobedience-has-consequences.7880949/page-51#post-68019419

There is no firm scientific data or findings to determine with confidence, whether sexual orientation is a choice. With that said, most experts in this field, lean heavily towards it not being a choice.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

 

[oi_antz]

I'm more concerned with what reality tells us about the likely nature of a deity than what's presented in a book.

And reality says that some human beings molest children, while other people like myself would never do such a thing.

Since an omnipotent god could have created a universe in which all humans have the "never molesting a child" trait like myself, you have no choice but to say that this deity desires a world in which children suffer from molestation more than a world in which no one molests children.

I realize that must be a hard thing to hear and accept, but i don't see a logical way out of the problem. If you have one, please present it.

I think He does ultimately desire a world "in which no one molests children", but that He desires a world where children are beautiful and people love them. Do you know how He could achieve this in a way that is different than what He has done, with no compromise to the end goal? I asked this of Archaeopteryx earlier too. While I acknowledged his complaint as being reasonable and right, I also suggested that his wishful thinking was not realistic. I am wondering whether you are doing the same thing with this. What do you think?

 

[oi_antz]

There is no firm scientific data or findings to determine with confidence, whether sexual orientation is a choice. With that said, most experts in this field, lean heavily towards it not being a choice.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

You are doing the exact same thing though, whereas I have asked for evidence to support your belief, you have produced this which does not support your belief at all. This actually says that leading scientists have conflicting beliefs, but none are particularly convincing. I don't understand how you can assume to use this information to support your belief that I am wrong. It indicates to me though that you are probably a very stubborn believer!

 

[Cute Tink]

Since that is how you feel about it, I am not surprised you think we will not be able to resolve it. For me though, I know I can be persuaded by rational reasoning. Can I just ask on this though, if you believe your morality is not a result of your life experiences (ie, you have learned to be moral), what do you put it down to? Is your morality a biological, genetic condition that those who aren't as moral might have a corresponding defect? Is it spiritual? Being that I am an observer of human behaviour and not a biologist, I just do not know why you would say that we aren't purely a product of our environment and that you believe no circumstances could make you less moral.

Well, first, you'll note that I didn't say no circumstances could make me less moral. You'll note that I said originally that I'd hope that I would and that I believe it is reasonable to think that. I never meant to portray a stance of absolute certainty on the subject.

I don't know that I can say that I wouldn't be different with different experiences and I also don't know that I wouldn't be a completely different person with essentially the same experiences but having been born slightly differently.

I do know, however, that there is a lot of debate about the influence of nature vs. nurture out there and, last I heard, there was no certainty for the people studying the subject, which is why I don't believe we can resolve this with any certainty.

I also know that I get a sick feeling in my stomach at the idea of hurting a child and I honestly believe I would cry if I even had to punch an adult. I suppose someone could potentially train that out of me, but even then, I'd hope that I'd know that what I was doing was still wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

You are doing the exact same thing though, whereas I have asked for evidence to support your belief, you have produced this which does not support your belief at all. This actually says that leading scientists have conflicting beliefs, but none are particularly convincing. I don't understand how you can assume to use this information to support your belief that I am wrong. It indicates to me though that you are probably a very stubborn believer!

When I have a question about something, I tend to go to those who know the most about the subject. If one takes time to read and investigate this topic, you will find the vast majority of experts believe sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.

The fact the people who are heterosexual, can't point out how they chose to be heterosexual, is also an indication these issues are beyond our control.

And quite frankly, I'm not much concerned about what my stance indicates to you.

 

[Cute Tink]

You are doing the exact same thing though, whereas I have asked for evidence to support your belief, you have produced this which does not support your belief at all. This actually says that leading scientists have conflicting beliefs, but none are particularly convincing. I don't understand how you can assume to use this information to support your belief that I am wrong. It indicates to me though that you are probably a very stubborn believer!

You might enjoy this link. As you read, please note what they consider "environmental factors."

 

[bhsmte]

You might enjoy this link. As you read, please note what they consider "environmental factors."

I have a feeling, he won't enjoy that link.

 

[Davian]

Please justify your position, because this is not a valid support for the belief, to deny the validity of an argument in support of an opposing belief. I only ask because I would like to know if there is a reason to believe sexual orientation preference is not a choice.

This post answers your question. Please pay attention, because you are about to be the first person to get put on my ignore list:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/disobedience-has-consequences.7880949/page-51#post-68019419

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

Abstract - The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsyc...tothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#origins

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think He does ultimately desire a world "in which no one molests children", but that He desires a world where children are beautiful and people love them. Do you know how He could achieve this in a way that is different than what He has done, with no compromise to the end goal? I asked this of Archaeopteryx earlier too. While I acknowledged his complaint as being reasonable and right, I also suggested that his wishful thinking was not realistic. I am wondering whether you are doing the same thing with this. What do you think?

If I have any "wishful thinking", it's irrelevant to the argument I've put forth. I also don't see that a supposed diety's goals are important to the argument. If an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent god most desired a world without any children suffering from sexual abuse, then that god would have created such a world using myself and other people who would never abuse a child as a template for all humans.

If you believe this god's end goal necessitates children suffering, then that god ceases to be omnibenevolent, as an omnipotent god could have had the same end goal without employing suffering.

If you believe this god's end goal does not necessitate suffering, then that god ceases to be omnipotent, because a god that most desires a world without child molestation must not be able to change the way the world is.

 

[oi_antz]

I have a feeling, he won't enjoy that link.

You poor fellow,

 

[oi_antz]

When I have a question about something, I tend to go to those who know the most about the subject. If one takes time to read and investigate this topic, you will find the vast majority of experts believe sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.

The fact the people who are heterosexual, can't point out how they chose to be heterosexual, is also an indication these issues are beyond our control.

And quite frankly, I'm not much concerned about what my stance indicates to you.

Yeah, actually, this is interesting. I actually thought I was replying to Davian when I wrote that (I think the new design threw me, but it was my fault). This made me regret speaking to you that way when I found out. Then later it occurred to me, why did I not regret speaking to Davian that way.. That is interesting.

Ok, but I have enjoyed that article, and I am sure that our decisions prudice who we become. As it says largely influenced by environmental factors, but it does not lead anyone to consider that we decide how to perceive and respond and to regard going forward, those environmental events. Do you reckon every single decision we make is a conscious decision? Or do you reckon some decisions happen without us even being aware of it?

 

[oi_antz]

You might enjoy this link. As you read, please note what they consider "environmental factors."

Do you know of how to get a copy of the original article? This assessment raises questions. I wonder if anyone actually understands how genetics supposedly "shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait" and "is accounted for by genetics". These are the sorts of statements that I like to be assured are reliable.

 

[oi_antz]

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

Thanks, I have seen it. It looks like opinion though, and does not produce any evidence except patterns in study of twins.

Abstract - The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753

Can I just check with you that you understand it the same way as this article is suggesting:

gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation

.. Do you suggest that there is a correlation between the amount of gender identity and sexual attraction? This seems to me, to be suggesting that heterosexual men feel more confident about being a male than a homosexual man, or bisexual man. This would surprise me you know. And how reliable is this information? If that is reliable information it is very convincing and exactly what I have asked for, and leads me to wonder why the experts have divided opinions.

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsyc...tothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx#origins

Well I reckon it is, but the choice is about whether we allow ourselves to become comfortable with the idea. I know a guy who will not try any food he has never tried before. It's odd, I know. But I am sure that if he did, he would develop a taste for some of those foods.

 

[oi_antz]

If I have any "wishful thinking", it's irrelevant to the argument I've put forth.

I don't believe this is true.

I also don't see that a supposed diety's goals are important to the argument.

You should try to find out why you don't see it.

If an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent god most desired a world without any children suffering from sexual abuse, then that god would have created such a world using myself and other people who would never abuse a child as a template for all humans.

People are not made from templates in this world.

If you believe this god's end goal necessitates children suffering, then that god ceases to be omnibenevolent,

I grant you this conclusion.

as an omnipotent god could have had the same end goal without employing suffering.

How?

If you believe this god's end goal does not necessitate suffering, then that god ceases to be omnipotent,

I grant you this conclusion.

because a god that most desires a world without child molestation must not be able to change the way the world is.

False cause. I believe if He is absolutely powerful (I believe this is most likely true), He can, but that He hasn't, indicates that He has decided not to do it. But He might, and I believe He has said He will.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, first, you'll note that I didn't say no circumstances could make me less moral. You'll note that I said originally that I'd hope that I would and that I believe it is reasonable to think that. I never meant to portray a stance of absolute certainty on the subject.

I don't know that I can say that I wouldn't be different with different experiences and I also don't know that I wouldn't be a completely different person with essentially the same experiences but having been born slightly differently.

I do know, however, that there is a lot of debate about the influence of nature vs. nurture out there and, last I heard, there was no certainty for the people studying the subject, which is why I don't believe we can resolve this with any certainty.

I also know that I get a sick feeling in my stomach at the idea of hurting a child and I honestly believe I would cry if I even had to punch an adult. I suppose someone could potentially train that out of me, but even then, I'd hope that I'd know that what I was doing was still wrong.

Look, there is no need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be. Do you think there is a single person who cannot be brain washed? I reckon there isn't. But some will need to be handled differently than others, to obtain the required result.

 

[oi_antz]

It could be.
.

Hi, thanks dlamberth, I will try to not rope you into an argument again Just want to know your perspective:

Why is it not heaven on earth?
Do you think it ever will be, and if so, how do you see it realistically happening?

Thanks!