Science of Morality

[Bill the Cat]

Not the point Homer, the point being that just because something is "natural" doesn't make it moral. So the whole "born that way" argument is silly.

It's also completely unproven.

[AlecWelsh]

Well thank you. And you do know that the abolition movement in England and the US was populated largely by Christians - correct? And since when do you speak for all atheist? Do you speak for the atheists in China? North Korea? Cuba?

I never said I speak for all atheist read that again.

[seer]

It's also completely unproven.

This is true.

[Bill the Cat]

Given that sin is defined as transgressing against the express will of God - yes, I'd say that it is justified from the Christian perspective to say that homosexual relationships are sinful. Of course, "sin" is a matter to be dealt with in-house. There's no mandate - and no justification - for imposing Christian rules on people who don't claim to be Christian.

Were they not in a concerted effort to teach OUR children that it isn't sinful, then you may have a point. But when every corner of secular society is hammering the message home, the PARENT ends up looking the fool for teaching biblical truths.

[AlecWelsh]

No, I say that they know that what they are doing is immoral. No matter how they try to justify it.

Two things:

First, they do not think that they are immoral. As I said earlier Christians have tried hiding the lifestyle of homosexuals to terrible results that are actually immoral themselves if you have any standard of morality.

You have no basis to say they are immoral it is just your opinion. And sadly it is not even your own formulated opinion someone has to tell you what to think.

[AlecWelsh]

It's also completely unproven.

No this is not true. Your ignorance or refusal to accept evidence and proof does not dictate reality. You simply live with delusional beliefs.

[seer]

Given that sin is defined as transgressing against the express will of God - yes, I'd say that it is justified from the Christian perspective to say that homosexual relationships are sinful. Of course, "sin" is a matter to be dealt with in-house. There's no mandate - and no justification - for imposing Christian rules on people who don't claim to be Christian.

So in a representative republic we are not allowed to influence the laws of the land according to our beliefs? We should not support laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc... because they spring from our religious beliefs?

[tabibito]

Were they not in a concerted effort to teach OUR children that it isn't sinful, then you may have a point. But when every corner of secular society is hammering the message home, the PARENT ends up looking the fool for teaching biblical truths.

Children can be taught that Christianity demands a different standard from secular society, and that Christians are expected to adhere to standards that God requires of people who claim to be his disciples. It is a more difficult path than just teaching them that things are wrong - but they should be taught fully anyway.

[seer]

Two things:

First, they do not think that they are immoral. As I said earlier Christians have tried hiding the lifestyle of homosexuals to terrible results that are actually immoral themselves if you have any standard of morality.

Let's be clear Alex, you have no standard of morality except what you invented in your own mind, or what you borrowed from someone else, so it is completely subjective.

You have no basis to say they are immoral it is just your opinion. And sadly it is not even your own formulated opinion someone has to tell you what to think.

If that is the case then all you have is opinion - so why is your opinion more valid or correct than mine?

[AlecWelsh]

So in a representative republic we are not allowed to influence the laws of the land according to our beliefs? We should not support laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc... because they spring from our religious beliefs?

No, religious belief has nothing to do with it. It is the individuals who matter because individuals make up society. America was created so int he eye of the laws everyone is seen as equal regardless of religious belief. Just because most of the people in America are Christian does not mean you get to ignore atheist, Muslims, Jews or anything you do not like based on religious reasons. You are being extremely closed minded. Your are so caught up in Christian privilege and delusion you have no ability to see morality for yourself or outside anyone who does not conform to your beliefs. This should be embarrassing

[Bill the Cat]

No this is not true.

It IS true. Even the study you cited used words like "could" and "might" and never ONCE claimed that their findings were conclusive evidence of biological causes of homosexuality. I even made the key word in their conclusion large and bold so that you could not miss it. There is no conclusive proof that people are "born that way".

Your ignorance or refusal to accept evidence and proof does not dictate reality. You simply live with delusional beliefs.

Your obtuse refusal to remain skeptical in this matter is rather telling on what your delusions entail.

[Bill the Cat]

Children can be taught that Christianity demands a different standard from secular society, and that Christians are expected to adhere to standards that God requires of people who claim to be his disciples. It is a more difficult path than just teaching them that things are wrong - but they should be taught fully anyway.

You've obviously never had a child attend public school in the US.

[AlecWelsh]

Let's be clear Alex, you have no standard of morality except what you invented in your own mind, or what you borrowed from someone else, so it is completely subjective.

You have basically admitted to not understanding anything that has been said here which is not surprising given your limited mental capacity to see anything outside your limited belief.

If that is the case then all you have is opinion - so why is your opinion more valid or correct than mine?

Because mine is based on a standard that not one individual can logical argue they are not a part of. Humans are not equals when it comes to individuals and their intelligence, or athletic abilities, but in the term of individual interaction no one can argue why it is ok to be subject to unjust suffering. It does not mean it doesn't happen or that others will not caused unjust suffering but it does logically mean that they should not cause because they cannot justify upon themselves.

[AlecWelsh]

Why should a sexually mature individual be treated unfairly because of their perception of attraction to other sexually mature individuals?

[tabibito]

You've obviously never had a child attend public school in the US.

You got me on that one.