An accidental homosexuality experiment?

[Daredevel7]

As an attempt to steer this away from being a religious thread, I shall ask a more simple question.

If a gay person had his memory completely wiped out, but he still considers himself gay, does this mean it's evidence that homosexuality is not something that can be caused by experiences/memories? It must be something that is innate?

Thanks to Jillio and others who have already answered the question. I wonder if someone believes that it still would not prove it is innate, I'd love for you to explain to me why not.

Also, let's assume that homosexuality IS wrong (for moral reasons, religious reasons, or whatever reasons). If homosexuality is something innate, does this mean he was born this way to be "tested"? To see if he would act on his feelings?

Edit: Just realized that my 2nd question is SOMEWHAT religious anyway.. sigh.. so much for not trying to be a religious thread! Hopefully, we can just treat it like a hypothetical question?

 

[Reba]

Edit: Just realized that my 2nd question is SOMEWHAT religious anyway.. sigh.. so much for not trying to be a religious thread!

It happens.

 

[jillio]

As an attempt to steer this away from being a religious thread, I shall ask a more simple question.

If a gay person had his memory completely wiped out, but he still considers himself gay, does this mean it's evidence that homosexuality is not something that can be caused by experiences/memories? It must be something that is innate?

Thanks to Jillio and others who have already answered the question. I wonder if someone believes that it still would not prove it is innate, I'd love for you to explain to me why not.

Also, let's assume that homosexuality IS wrong (for moral reasons, religious reasons, or whatever reasons). If homosexuality is something innate, does this mean he was born this way to be "tested"? To see if he would act on his feelings?

Edit: Just realized that my 2nd question is SOMEWHAT religious anyway.. sigh.. so much for not trying to be a religious thread! Hopefully, we can just treat it like a hypothetical question?

Not really a religiously based question. More of a moral one. And one can be moral without religion.

 

[dogmom]

"...one can be moral without religion."

LIKE!

 

[Daredevel7]

Not really a religiously based question. More of a moral one. And one can be moral without religion.

Tell me about it!! I've had people ask me "How do you know what's right or wrong without God?"

I look at them and..... worry a lot.

If you need someone to tell you that murder is wrong, you got problems!!!!!

Not that I'm bashing religion or anything. In fact, I'm sure having faith helped out my mom a lot through her tough times, but I DO find it weird that, for a few people, the ONLY reason why they are not doing immoral things is because someone simply told them not to. Shouldn't it come from within?

 

[Reba]

... Shouldn't it come from within?

It should but regrettably it doesn't. That's evidenced by how so many bad things happen in this world. Man's conscience has become twisted, and in some cases, almost non-existent, so it's not dependable.

If we could all trust an innate sense of right and wrong to guide us, would there be so much evil happening in the world?

 

[Daredevel7]

It should but regrettably it doesn't. That's evidenced by how so many bad things happen in this world. Man's conscience has become twisted, and in some cases, almost non-existent, so it's not dependable.

If we could all trust an innate sense of right and wrong to guide us, would there be so much evil happening in the world?

Well, I thought about that. There ARE evil people around us, but see.... I find it extremely disturbing if the person next to me in church is a ready made serial killer but the only reason why he doesn't kill is because God may punish him. (No need to correct me on what God does or doesn't from your beliefs, just saying that a person may live in fear of God because he believes that He could punish him).

Dont you?

 

[Reba]

Well, I thought about that. There ARE evil people around us, but see.... I find it extremely disturbing if the person next to me in church is a ready made serial killer but the only reason why he doesn't kill is because God may punish him....

Maybe you don't like the reason but aren't you glad that he isn't killing?

 

[Reba]

Well, I thought about that. There ARE evil people around us, but see.... I find it extremely disturbing if the person next to me in church is a ready made serial killer but the only reason why he doesn't kill is because God may punish him. (No need to correct me on what God does or doesn't from your beliefs, just saying that a person may live in fear of God because he believes that He could punish him).

Dont you?

What would you rather depend on? His fear of law enforcement? That's kinda shaky, too.

No, I don't find that extremely disturbing.

 

[Daredevel7]

What would you rather depend on? His fear of law enforcement? That's kinda shaky, too.

No, I don't find that extremely disturbing.

Believe it or not, a lot of church go-ers/religious people eventually succumb to their sins. It usually is manifested in sexual affairs or stealing for NORMAL people.... I wouldn't want that evil guy to succumb!!!!! :Ohno:

I'd rather for that guy to be psychologically assessed to find out why, or in jail/sentenced harshly if there was no hope for him.

Okay, I'm derailing my own thread...

FAIL.

 

[Reba]

Believe it or not, a lot of church go-ers/religious people eventually succumb to their sins. It usually is manifested in sexual affairs or stealing for NORMAL people.... I wouldn't want that evil guy to succumb!!!!! :Ohno:

Lots of people, church-going or not, can succumb to their sins. Some people don't even think what they do is wrong. A conscience is no protection for society.

I'd rather for that guy to be psychologically assessed to find out why, or in jail/sentenced harshly if there was no hope for him.

Just because he's in church doesn't mean he can't be psychologically assessed or jailed.

Okay, I'm derailing my own thread...

FAIL.

 

[Daredevel7]

Lots of people, church-going or not, can succumb to their sins. Some people don't even think what they do is wrong. A conscience is no protection for society.

You are absolutely correct. Even those who think they are doing 100% good may not be doing the right thing.

Just because he's in church doesn't mean he can't be psychologically assessed or jailed.

Right, just meant that I wouldn't rely on religion/church ONLY to prevent him from doing harm.

 

[Reba]

You are absolutely correct. Even those who think they are doing 100% good may not be doing the right thing.

No one is 100% good. That's what the Bible tries to explain to people. We can't depend on just our feelings of what is right and wrong because feelings (including conscience) can be wrong. Some people don't even have concepts of actions being "right" or "wrong," or "good" or "bad."

Right, just meant that I wouldn't rely on religion/church ONLY to prevent him from doing harm.

That's because man's tendency, on his own, is to make the wrong choices. Church is a place where people can get guidance and support from God's Word and from mature believers but it is still ultimately up to the individual to surrender his will to do wrong, to God's will to do right. It's a constant struggle, to be sure.

 

[StSapphire]

What would you rather depend on? His fear of law enforcement? That's kinda shaky, too.

Nope, any form of legalism is a shaky, at best, form of morality. I'd rather he have been raised in an environment that promoted actual compassion and moral responsibility, so that he would understand why something is right or wrong and not need the carrot and stick to do the right thing.

No, I don't find that extremely disturbing.

I do.

You are absolutely correct. Even those who think they are doing 100% good may not be doing the right thing.

The solution to this isn't to give up and say that morality cannot come from within/cannot be known, though. It means we should simply work on the problem of morality systematically.

Right, just meant that I wouldn't rely on religion/church ONLY to prevent him from doing harm.

Depending on the religion/church, that'd occasionally make me more concerned, rather than less.

 

[Reba]

Nope, any form of legalism is a shaky, at best, form of morality.

That's why I don't follow legalism, nor do I belong to a legalistic church.

I'd rather he have been raised in an environment that promoted actual compassion and moral responsibility, so that he would understand why something is right or wrong and not need the carrot and stick to do the right thing.

Christian families who follow the Bible's teaching also provide environments that promote actual compassion and moral responsibility so that their children understand why something is right or wrong.

What do you consider to be a carrot and stick approach to teaching the right thing?

The solution to this isn't to give up and say that morality cannot come from within/cannot be known, though. It means we should simply work on the problem of morality systematically.

That's what Christians do. We just use a different system.

Depending on the religion/church, that'd occasionally make me more concerned, rather than less.

Me, too. But I don't want to slam other specific churches or religions here. I'm just explaining my viewpoint, beliefs, and experiences.

 

[Daredevel7]

Most religions do not specifically teach us to show compassion to animals (esp dogs and cats) and yet... most of us show compassion to animals. Evidence that it can come from within?

 

[Daredevel7]

That's what Christians do. We just use a different system.

Are you implying that Christians are high context thinkers?

 

[StSapphire]

That's why I don't follow legalism, nor do I belong to a legalistic church.

That's good.

Christian families who follow the Bible's teaching also provide environments that promote actual compassion and moral responsibility so that their children understand why something is right or wrong.

What do you consider to be a carrot and stick approach to teaching the right thing?

Carrot/stick is the simplistic "do this right thing because you'll be rewarded (with money, or friends, or heaven), and don't do this wrong thing because you'll be punished (with jail, or societal disapproval, or hell)." In an expanded context, it's just an even more simplistic form of legalism, where the rationale for the carrot/stick divisions are simply "Because the government says so" or "Because the leader of the group said so", etc.

There's no way to build an actual moral system from that framework, because it's too limited. If you encounter a situation where the government or leader hasn't decreed a "correct" way to behave, then people revert to... nothing, if they've not been raised to understand the rationale for the rules.

Me, too. But I don't want to slam other specific churches or religions here. I'm just explaining my viewpoint, beliefs, and experiences.

Ditto.

 

[StSapphire]

Most religions do not specifically teach us to show compassion to animals (esp dogs and cats) and yet... most of us show compassion to animals. Evidence that it can come from within?

Evidence of the mind projection fallacy, more likely. We see other animals and anthropomorphize them, giving them human-qualities and in turn treating them as subcategories of humanity.

Are you implying that Christians are high context thinkers?

Oh god, not this again... lol

 

[Reba]

Are you implying that Christians are high context thinkers?

I'm making no implications of anything.