Christianity/Catholisim - DPChallenge Forums

04/03/2009 04:51:29 PM · #101

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Yea we are tricky folks, got you all fooled! ;) To the issue of choice... it's so simple its beyond me how people still think that this is a real argument. "So when did you choose to be straight?" or how about "So, average straight male, tell me, what do you think about having sex with a man? How about falling in love with a man? Could you make yourself do it? Could you choose to do that the rest of your life?" Oh no way? You think it's gross? Exactly. I know plenty of Gay men who think being with women is gross too. You think being gay is unnatural, well being straight feels unnatural to them. It's that simple.

It is a really interesting question, although the answer is not clear. Obviously it does not appear to be some conscious choice many times (although it would be inapt to say nobody ever chose to be homosexual or bisexual). This leaves us to think that it must then be genetic, but that may not be the case either. Genetics may play a role, but it may also require an environmental trigger (or is perhaps exclusively caused by an environmental trigger). That trigger could occur early in life before our memory kicks in and thus the answer may be "no I didn't choose to be gay but likewise I am not genetically programmed to be gay either". Or the trigger may be hard to link because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything (you ate a lot of Lucky Charms as a silly example).

On the medical/scientific front, it's a fascinating question. Too often I see this used either pro- or against the morality of homosexuality. I think this is a poor argument on both sides. One side says it's a choice and therefore is subject to moral judgement like any other choice (it seems unlikely to be a choice in the majority of cases). The other side says it's not a choice and therefore assumes that no moral judgement can be made (which is untrue).

Message edited by author 2009-04-03 16:54:11.

04/03/2009 05:09:55 PM · #102

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(although it would be inapt to say nobody ever chose to be homosexual or bisexual).

I would love to hear from anyone who made either a choice.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This leaves us to think that it must then be genetic, but that may not be the case either. Genetics may play a role, but it may also require an environmental trigger (or is perhaps exclusively caused by an environmental trigger). That trigger could occur early in life before our memory kicks in and thus the answer may be "no I didn't choose to be gay but likewise I am not genetically programmed to be gay either". Or the trigger may be hard to link because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything (you ate a lot of Lucky Charms as a silly example).

Are you serious?????

Environmetal triggers???? NOT genetic?????

PLEASE elaborate on either of these with ANYTHING credible?

So if I'm attracted to a gorgeous, sensuous man on some level because of something that intensely interests me, that'd be environmental?

I find very few men attractive, but some are just off the charts......how do you explain that?

I adore women, yet I find some so repugnant that I couldn't imagine the physical act.....and I'm not just talking physical appearance, but something in mannerism, or a complete lack of what I'd find attractive in most women.

So I guess I'm sort of selectively bisexual, so that makes it a choice? But I am not even sure what it is about another human being that makes them desirable to me, some just ARE......can you explain that?

I find mysellf particularly attracted to certain ethnic types of women moreso than others from a purely aesthetic and cultural background, but I certainly have no boundaries when it comes to beauty and attraction.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On the medical/scientific front, it's a fascinating question. Too often I see this used either pro- or against the morality of homosexuality. I think this is a poor argument on both sides. One side says it's a choice and therefore is subject to moral judgement like any other choice (it seems unlikely to be a choice in the majority of cases). The other side says it's not a choice and therefore assumes that no moral judgement can be made (which is untrue).

Oh, you can always make a moral judgement, and as long as there are people who have the entitlement attitude or that air of superiority, they're going to make moral judgements.

From my perspective, it's not a legitimate moral judgement to condemn gay people.....or bisexual, or people who only like blondes, whatever......

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/03/2009 05:16:48 PM · #103

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Yea we are tricky folks, got you all fooled! ;) To the issue of choice... it's so simple its beyond me how people still think that this is a real argument. "So when did you choose to be straight?" or how about "So, average straight male, tell me, what do you think about having sex with a man? How about falling in love with a man? Could you make yourself do it? Could you choose to do that the rest of your life?" Oh no way? You think it's gross? Exactly. I know plenty of Gay men who think being with women is gross too. You think being gay is unnatural, well being straight feels unnatural to them. It's that simple.

It is a really interesting question, although the answer is not clear. Obviously it does not appear to be some conscious choice many times (although it would be inapt to say nobody ever chose to be homosexual or bisexual). This leaves us to think that it must then be genetic, but that may not be the case either. Genetics may play a role, but it may also require an environmental trigger (or is perhaps exclusively caused by an environmental trigger). That trigger could occur early in life before our memory kicks in and thus the answer may be "no I didn't choose to be gay but likewise I am not genetically programmed to be gay either". Or the trigger may be hard to link because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything (you ate a lot of Lucky Charms as a silly example).

On the medical/scientific front, it's a fascinating question. Too often I see this used either pro- or against the morality of homosexuality. I think this is a poor argument on both sides. One side says it's a choice and therefore is subject to moral judgement like any other choice (it seems unlikely to be a choice in the majority of cases). The other side says it's not a choice and therefore assumes that no moral judgement can be made (which is untrue).

Whether its a choice or not shouldn't matter. It's only an issue because some people go to the voting booths thinking (incorrectly) that this country's laws should adhere to the Bible and not the U.S. Constitution.

04/03/2009 05:26:49 PM · #104

Originally posted by yanko:

Well, speaking completely generically here I see both sides of the choice coin. On one hand, choice is important in moral judgement. The morality of an action is often dependent on what you other choices are in the situation. On the other hand, we made moral judgements on lots of actions that individuals may have environmental or genetic predispositions toward (both morally good and bad). The fact the individual is predisposed to such action does not always weigh into the judgement and the actions are rather weighed on their own merits.

04/03/2009 05:28:32 PM · #105

Jeb, lots of one sentence paragraphs is a good indicator you are getting riled up...

04/03/2009 05:38:24 PM · #106

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb, lots of one sentence paragraphs is a good indicator you are getting riled up...

Incredulous and flabbergasted don't constitute riled up.......8>)

04/03/2009 05:40:41 PM · #107

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And morality shifts......greatly over time, and I'd like to think because we get smarter, more tolerant, and accepting of others' rights to be who and what they are that is beyoned their control be it gender, race, culture, or sexual orientation.

04/03/2009 05:47:58 PM · #108

Well, I'll calmly try to address your points. I'm really not trying to get anybody up in arms. The last thing I want is another 1000 post thread on gay marriage.

Who chooses to be gay?
There was information passed on on the gay marriage thread about Roman officers encouraging homosexual behaviour among troops because they thought the partners would fight harder to defend each other. (I believe there was a wiki source on this.) That would be one example. We can also think of people like Lindsey Lohan. Now, certainly I have no insight into her private life, but I do wonder if her lesbianism is going to "take". Don't you? Recall I'm in full agreement that most people don't seem to make some conscious choice to be straight or gay. But we've all probably known people where their homosexuality didn't seem to really "fit" and was more a sign of other issues in their life. Also there are lots of surveys about "experimentation" and such. What's that all about if not some sort of choice?

Environmental vs. genetic triggers?
I'm not sure why you are so incredulous about this. The nature vs. nurture debate is a common one about all sorts of human characteristics and behaviors. Surely you wouldn't contend that EVERYTHING about us is genetically predetermined? If the answer is "no", then why can't homosexuality fall on the "nurture" side rather than "nature"? There's no obvious reason why not. The fact is nobody has found the smoking genetic gun (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). That leaves the environment as a very viable alternative explanation, especially given the extreme reproductive disadvantage homosexuality confers. The very likely truth is that it is, like most things, a mix of both. People may have genetic predispositions that require some environmental conditioning to be fully realized. That's at least my opinion on the issue and I'm sure I'm not alone in that among rational thinkers.

Message edited by author 2009-04-03 17:52:32.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/03/2009 05:51:03 PM · #109

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But certainly there is some line? The actions should be judged on their merits. If you agree then we can just disagree where that line belongs. I'm sure nobody chooses to be a pedophile, but that does not excuse sexual predation of children. (And before someone says it, I am NOT trying to compare gays with pedophiles, I'm proving a concept.)

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/03/2009 05:54:06 PM · #110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I'll calmly try to address your points. I'm really not trying to get anybody up in arms. The last thing I want is another 1000 post thread on gay marriage.

Who chooses to be gay?
There was information passed on on the gay marriage thread about Roman officers encouraging homosexual behaviour among troops because they thought the partners would fight harder to defend each other. (I believe there was a wiki source on this.) That would be one example. We can also think of people like Lindsey Lohan. Now, certainly I have no insight into her private life, but I do wonder if her lesbianism is going to "take". Don't you? Recall I'm in full agreement that most people don't seem to make some conscious choice to be straight or gay. But we've all probably known people where their homosexuality didn't seem to really "fit" and was more a sign of other issues in their life.

Environmental vs. genetic triggers?
I'm not sure why you are so incredulous about this. The nature vs. nurture debate is a common one about all sorts of human characteristics and behaviors. Surely you wouldn't contend that EVERYTHING about us is genetically predetermined? If the answer is "no", then why can't homosexuality fall on the "nurture" side rather than "nature"? There's no obvious reason why not. The fact is nobody has found the smoking genetic gun (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). That leaves the environment as a very viable alternative explanation, especially given the extreme reproductive disadvantage homosexuality confers. The very likely truth is that it is, like most things, a mix of both. People may have genetic predispositions that require some environmental conditioning to be fully realized. That's at least my opinion on the issue and I'm sure I'm not alone in that among rational thinkers.

A third alternative that doesn't get much air-time is that people may just be born inherently bisexual, but with more genetic factors biased towards heterosexuality in the majority of people. Then, environment would definitely also play a major factor. This alternative, of course, usually horrifies most heterosexuals (and some homosexuals).

There is also a consideration towards a natural evolution due to overpopulation that is raised when the reproductive issues are raised, although one can imagine how well that one goes over in religious circles.

04/03/2009 05:56:27 PM · #111

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I could see that as an alternative, although I wouldn't call it a "third alternative". It seems to fall nicely into the mixed genetic/environment category.

04/03/2009 06:03:55 PM · #112

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I'll calmly try to address your points. I'm really not trying to get anybody up in arms. The last thing I want is another 1000 post thread on gay marriage.

Well, I'm more interested in the discussion as it pertains to the base instinct, genetic programming, what have you, that IMNSHO predisposes behaviors.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who chooses to be gay?
There was information passed on on the gay marriage thread about Roman officers encouraging homosexual behaviour among troops because they thought the partners would fight harder to defend each other. (I believe there was a wiki source on this.) That would be one example. We can also think of people like Lindsey Lohan. Now, certainly I have no insight into her private life, but I do wonder if her lesbianism is going to "take". Don't you? Recall I'm in full agreement that most people don't seem to make some conscious choice to be straight or gay. But we've all probably known people where their homosexuality didn't seem to really "fit" and was more a sign of other issues in their life.

The Roman soldier thing is interesting, but did it prove out?

I'd be surprised to hear that it did. I definitely believe that put into certain situations, you'll be more predisposed to one behavior over another.....using your Hollywood types, I always find it amusing when actors find their true unfailing love for each other on a set, then are divorced a year later when they aren't on a movie that encompasses their every waking moment together.

And of ALL people to use as an example.....Lindsey Lohan????? She's certifiable!

I would never for one instant trust anything that child has to say or do as anything other than an example of aberrant behavior! LOL!!!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Environmental vs. genetic triggers?
I'm not sure why you are so incredulous about this. The nature vs. nurture debate is a common one about all sorts of human characteristics and behaviors. Surely you wouldn't contend that EVERYTHING about us is genetically predetermined? If the answer is "no", then why can't homosexuality fall on the "nurture" side rather than "nature"? There's no obvious reason why not. The fact is nobody has found the smoking genetic gun (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). That leaves the environment as a very viable alternative explanation, especially given the extreme reproductive disadvantage homosexuality confers. The very likely truth is that it is, like most things, a mix of both. People may have genetic predispositions that require some environmental conditioning to be fully realized. That's at least my opinion on the issue and I'm sure I'm not alone in that among rational thinkers.

I believe that environmental tyriggers can enhance, or bring out genetic traits, but I just don't feel that true behaviors and tastes are learned, or spawned by environment for the most part. I mean, yeah, someone that has to kill and prepare their own food to survive is going to be much better at it than the one week a year deer hunter, but there are people that can't shoot to save their lives, and others who can shhot the @$$hole out of a fly at 500 yards.

It's pretty much my understanding that's the way things are......it's just like why can I fix cars, yet can't cut a straight line across a board with a table saw with a guide?

I cannot play any kind of musical instrument, yet I have an almost sixth sense about direction when I travel, even, or especially, when I'm in unfamiliar territory.

I dunno......it just seems to me especially when we talk about the characteristics that make us different and unique, they define us as well.

04/03/2009 06:09:13 PM · #113

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yeah.....and I hate that argument, too, 'cause iot always seems to be the one that gets brought up.

Don't forget, there was a time when interracial relations were right up tyhere on tyhe list of taboo behaviors.

I think we can probably all stipulate that pedophilia isn't ever going to become morally acceptable, but I think, and hope, that gay relationships will, if for no other reason that the whole thing really isn't about sex, it's about human interaction and commitment.

You know as well as I that there are still archaic laws on the books forbidding actions that are considered to be commonplace in the way of heterosexual relations......so where DO you draw the line?

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/03/2009 06:13:27 PM · #114

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

People have argued that religious belief is based more on environmental factors than on choice or any other factor. Perhaps it's a mixed bag like you're saying with homosexuality. Would this be your opinion as well? If not why the heck not???? :P

04/03/2009 06:13:35 PM · #115

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could see that as an alternative, although I wouldn't call it a "third alternative". It seems to fall nicely into the mixed genetic/environment category.

Moreso a morality compromise situation. There is still a lot of pressure on people who are questioning, or not entirely comfortable with their attraction to others who may not understand, or want the attention, whether that be sexual orientation, or even a cultural thing.

04/03/2009 06:16:50 PM · #116

Originally posted by yanko:

I'd have to agree with that.......I struggled mightily with Christianity because it was what I grew up around, and because it was what I was primarily exposed to, the pressure to accept it, immerse myself in it, and become a prt of the whole kit and kaboodle was fairly prevalent.

I feel to this day that I will always be pressured in one form or another to "See the light" and become "Saved".

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/03/2009 06:35:58 PM · #117

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Environmental vs. genetic triggers?
I'm not sure why you are so incredulous about this. The nature vs. nurture debate is a common one about all sorts of human characteristics and behaviors. Surely you wouldn't contend that EVERYTHING about us is genetically predetermined? If the answer is "no", then why can't homosexuality fall on the "nurture" side rather than "nature"? There's no obvious reason why not. The fact is nobody has found the smoking genetic gun (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). That leaves the environment as a very viable alternative explanation, especially given the extreme reproductive disadvantage homosexuality confers. The very likely truth is that it is, like most things, a mix of both. People may have genetic predispositions that require some environmental conditioning to be fully realized. That's at least my opinion on the issue and I'm sure I'm not alone in that among rational thinkers.

People have argued that religious belief is based more on environmental factors than on choice or any other factor. Perhaps it's a mixed bag like you're saying with homosexuality. Would this be your opinion as well? If not why the heck not???? :P

Oh I think this has a good chance of being true on some level.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/04/2009 06:50:22 PM · #118

WOWOWOW fellas!

Ok I wanted to address this nature vs. nurture issue but didn't know what post to respond to so I'll just, you know, go for it without directly responding to anyone.

What people fail to realize during this choice v. genetics debate (and also aside from the mentioned "3rd" alternative) is biological factors which commonly get confused with being genetic but they are not necessarily the same thing.

An example if I were to drop the gay issue for a moment and use mental illness to illustrate. It seems common knowledge that most mental illnesses have a genetic basis and need an environmental trigger, and I'm guessing this is what

DrAchoo was referring to to make his case... BUT there are those that are caused by other issues, such as brain damage from a near drowning or a tumor. Not genetic, and not environmental either.

For an example of how this could relate to being gay: fraternal twins, a boy and a girl in the womb and the boy happens to get more female hormones than he should because they are sharing hormones.

I also had a psych teacher that hypothesized that there are certain metaphorical "levers" in the brain that say which gender we are attracted to and perhaps some people have them switched the "wrong" way. I believe this is a common theory for those who want to change gender as well. If one can be, physically neither (or both if you'd prefer) gender (hermaphrodites) isn't it plausible that it could happen in the brain without the genitalia being involved? I think so.

And to clear up the choice thing. I never meant to say NO ONE chooses to be gay, there might be some out there but I would think a small minority. And if they are successful in that choice, then I'd think they had some bisexual tendencies to begin with at the very least. I had a friend that actually wanted to be gay for a while, people kept thinking he was, and he thought perhaps gay relationships were inherently more fair and equal. But he tried and alas, he is almost entirely straight, doomed to be tortured by women forever. ;D But I also have a gay friend that wishes he could be straight just because life would be so much easier.

Lala, the grass is always greener...

Message edited by author 2009-04-04 18:52:42.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/04/2009 06:58:38 PM · #119

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Yes, vastly more contemporary source material existed on Caesar than Christ...

Wait. I need more info here because honestly I would have said it was exactly opposite. Can you give me an idea of how many source documents we have about Caesar and how contemporary extant copies actually are (I assume by "contemporary" you mean "written at the time of Caesar")? I did some searching for this but I couldn't come up with much. It sounds like you know.

I find this one hard to let slide. The very argument embodies a fundamental weakness (rather than responding to the complaint that there is little or no evidence that Jesus existed, the response is "well there isn't much evidence for Caesar either" - which does not provide any evidence for Jesus). it is also deeply wrong.

Independent contemporary evidence for Julius Caesar includes thousands of coins, inscriptions on buildings, references by contemporaries such as Cicero and incidental references in hundreds of mundane documents. Reports of his reign and activities are consistent with millions of archeological findings and the accounts of other contemporary and near contemporary historical figures.

For example, here is a translation of a contemporary letter by Cicero that references Caesar. //en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_to_friends/7.6 Here is another //en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_to_his_brother_Quintus/2.13

There are many more. None of them written with a plausible ulterior motive or benefiting from the fabrication of Caesar. The wiki on Caesar provides a fairly substantial and varied list of sources, many original. In short, there is an overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources and across multiple disciplines for his existence.

On the other hand, independent evidence for Jesus Christ having existed consists of two references by the Jewish historian Josephus in late 1AD, which are widely regarded as likely having been interpolated by later scribes. Otherwise we are left with the new testament - with its many documented shortcomings - and documents derived from it.

04/04/2009 08:39:40 PM · #120

Well written essay escapetooz. I agree with everything you said.

Matthew, you have good points. The comparison may have issues, although if you are going to let coins, inscriptions, and such count as evidence, don't we have just as many such things about Christ from the early church (save the coins I guess)? But that gets away from the point I think. The point is that many people somehow want to hold New Testament manuscripts to some different level of accountability than other ancient texts when that isn't fair.

I can't tell from your wiki sources. Where do these letters come from? Do we have the original letter or was it copied for some reason and we have copies or what? I guess I'm not clear about that.

zxaar

04/04/2009 08:47:39 PM · #121

you guys your life is so easy. Try being hindu. We have hundreds of god, if we get time counting them we will ponder all these questions.

At the moment where was I? 1001, 1002 1003 ....

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/04/2009 11:40:26 PM · #122

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

By asking for originals aren't you holding those letters to a different level of accountability than that of the bible?

04/05/2009 11:48:10 AM · #123

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well written essay escapetooz. I agree with everything you said.

Matthew, you have good points. The comparison may have issues, although if you are going to let coins, inscriptions, and such count as evidence, don't we have just as many such things about Christ from the early church (save the coins I guess)? But that gets away from the point I think. The point is that many people somehow want to hold New Testament manuscripts to some different level of accountability than other ancient texts when that isn't fair.

I can't tell from your wiki sources. Where do these letters come from? Do we have the original letter or was it copied for some reason and we have copies or what? I guess I'm not clear about that.

By asking for originals aren't you holding those letters to a different level of accountability than that of the bible?

No I'm not asking for the originals any more than anybody else. I just want to know if we have them. If we do, that's impressive. If we don't, then either the argument about the biblical manuscrips applies to those about Caesar or they don't apply to either. I'm just trying to point out you can't have it both ways in textual criticism.

Message edited by author 2009-04-05 13:59:15.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/05/2009 05:43:16 PM · #124

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Matthew, you have good points. The comparison may have issues, although if you are going to let coins, inscriptions, and such count as evidence, don't we have just as many such things about Christ from the early church (save the coins I guess)?

I think that there is a fundamental difference. The evidence for Caesar comes in coins that were made (and are dated) to his reign. The inscriptions were inscribed at the time he was alive. The things he did are reported by contemporaries and validated in the archeological evidence.

For Christ, there is no contemporary or archeological evidence. The evidence *is* the bible. All the buildings, inscriptions, statues etc were created centuries later as a consequence of the success of the religion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But that gets away from the point I think. The point is that many people somehow want to hold New Testament manuscripts to some different level of accountability than other ancient texts when that isn't fair.

I agree entirely that the bible is held to a different standard of accountability compared to most historical texts by the majority of people.

When assessing a historical text, we must consider the author, his/her purpose in writing, his/her audience, the socio-historical context, and those too of any transcribers.

With Cicero, his texts are letters undoubtedly intended to convey information but also establish relationships and deliver a persuasive political message. We must bear in mind that he was a supporter of Caesar's rival, Pompey, and had to work hard to build a friendship with Caesar and his son, Octavian on Pompey's defeat. So I wouldn't read Cicero as "fact" - but when he makes mundane comments in letters never intended for publication then these comments are more reliable in determining fact than some of his political/opinion pieces (which still convey a view that would undoubtedly have been common).

Cicero's letters were edited and published by his secretary and one of his key correspondents - Atticus. The originals do not survive. We have to critically assess the contribution of these editors - passages or letters that showed Cicero in a poor light may well have been expurgated from the record.

With the bible, it is a document designed to convey a religion in terms as persuasive as possible. In respect of the life and actions of Jesus, it is wholly uncorroborated. The authors had a huge investment in the religion being taken seriously and being persuasive. The compilers had to build a holy book that would convert the peoples of the Roman empire to a new religion. Religions of the time tended towards myth and mythology, and Christianity needed to compete. The subsequent trancribers have had a huge investment in the religion and a need to maintain and improve its persuasiveness.

All these things and more should be taken into account when considering how reliable the bible is (in the same way as we do for other historical documents), but strangely we are asked to ignore these things and accept it as unquestioned truth. A different and unfair standard indeed.

Matthew