Me Myself and iCub - The Robot with a Self

From New Scientist 


The human self has five components. Machines now have three of them. How far away is artificial consciousness – and what does it tell us about ourselves?

What is the self? Rene Descartes encapsulated one idea of it in the 1600s when he wrote: "I think, therefore I am". He saw his self as a constant, the essence of his being, on which his knowledge of everything else was built. Others have very different views. Writing a century later, David Hume argued that there was no "simple and continued" self, just the flow of experience. Hume's proposal resonates with the Buddhist concept anatta, or non-self, which contends that the idea of an unchanging self is an illusion and also at the root of much of our unhappiness.

Today, a growing number of philosophers and psychologists hold that the self is an illusion. But even if the centuries-old idea of it as essential and unchanging is misleading, there is still much to explain, for example: how you distinguish your body from the rest of the world; why you experience the world from a specific perspective, typically somewhere in the middle of your head; how you remember yourself in the past or imagine yourself in the future; and how you are able to conceive of the world from another's point of view. I believe that science is close to answering many of these questions.

Can we learn about being human from a robot? 

A key insight is that the self should be considered not as an essence, but as a set of processes – a process being a virtual machine running inside a physical one, as when a program runs on a computer. Likewise, some patterns of brain activity constitute processes that generate the human self. This fits with Hume's intuition that if you stop thinking, the self vanishes. For instance, when you fall asleep, "you", the entity brought into being by a set of active brain processes, cease to exist. However, when you awake, those same processes pick up much where they left off, providing subjective continuity.

The idea that the self emerges from a set of processes has encouraged my colleagues and I to believe we can recreate it in a robot. By deconstructing it and then attempting to build it up again piece by piece, we are learning more about what selfhood is. This is an on-going collaboration with researchers in several European institutes, and admittedly we still have a way to go. But I'm confident we can create an artificial self, or at least as much of one as would be wise. We believe our work will help resolve the mystery at the heart of selfMovie Camera – that it feels compellingly real, yet, when examined closely, seems to dissolve away.

iCub

Meet iCub (see video at top of page), the state-of-the-art humanoid robot in which we are creating this sense of self. This bot has vision, hearing, touch and a proprioceptive sense that allows it to coordinate its 53 joints. It can speak and interact with its world, and it improves its performance by learning. There are currently 30 such robots in research labs around the world. At Sheffield Robotics, our iCub has a control system modelled on the brain, so that it "thinks" in ways similar to you and me. For the past four years, we have been working to give this robot a sense of self.

We first had to consider exactly how we might deconstruct selfhood in order to build it in a machine. Philosophy, psychology and neuroscience give many insights into what constitutes the human self, and how to recognise and measure aspects of it in adults, infants and even animals. Our attempt begins with psychology, but can also be mapped on to a growing understanding of how the psychological self emerges from brain activity.

William James, a founder of modern psychology, suggested that the self can be divided into "I" and "me" – the former comprising the experience of being a self, the latter the set of ideas you have about your self. In the 1990s, psychologist Ulric Neisser, a pioneer of modern cognitive psychology, went further. He identified five key aspects of self: the ecological or physically situated self, the interpersonal self, the temporally extended self, the conceptual self and the private self (see "Aspects of self"). Neisser's analysis is not the final word, but it is grounded in an understanding of human cognitive development, whereas classical philosophical views such as those of Hume and Descartes were not. It has also provided useful clues about what might be required to build up an artificial self, process-by-process.

How have we gone about creating these processes for our robot? We use an approach called neurorobotics, which means we incorporate knowledge about how real brains work into our programming. So our iCub's control system is designed to emulate key processes found in the mammalian brain. The interactions between these processes are governed by an architecture called distributed adaptive control, developed by my colleague Paul Verschure at the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies in Barcelona, Spain. This system is modelled on the cognitive architecture of the brain.

Motor babbling

Now, say we want to start building a process that emulates the human ecological self. Key to this is an awareness of one's body and how it interacts with the world. For iCub to achieve this, it needs an internal "body schema" – a process that maintains a model of its physical parts and its current body pose. Rather than programming the body schema directly, as other roboticists might do, we have given iCub the capacity to work it out. It learns by generating small, random movements and observing the consequences these have. Human babies show a similar kind of exploratory behaviour – termed motor babbling – in the womb and in early infancy, suggesting that people learn about their bodies in much the same way.

Using this approach, Giorgio Metta and colleagues at the Italian Institute of Technology in Genoa, Italy, are training our iCub to distinguish self from other, a fundamental aspect of the ecological self. The motor babbling program also allows the robot to learn how to achieve a specific target pose. Combining this body model with knowledge of objects and surfaces nearby enables iCub to move around without colliding with things.

Then there's the temporally extended self. Insights about this can be found in the case of a man we will call N.N., who lost the ability to form long-term memories after an accident in the 1980s. The damage to his brain also left him completely without foresight. He described trying to imagine his future as "like swimming in the middle of a lake. There is nothing there to hold you up or do anything with." In losing his past, N.N. had also lost his future. His ecological self remained intact, but it had become marooned in the present.

This concept of time also poses a problem for our robot. Although we can channel all its sensory input into a hard drive, iCub must also be able to decide how best to use the information to make sense of the present. Peter Dominey and his group at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research in Lyon, have addressed this problem. They have encoded iCub's interactions with objects and people in a way that allows it to more clearly see their relevance to present situations. However, this model uses standard computing techniques, so we are working with them to create a neurorobotic version. It will directly emulate processing in brain areas, such as the hippocampus, that are known to play a role in creating human autobiographical memory.

Recent brain imaging studies have confirmed what we learned from N.N.'s experience: that the same brain systems underlie our ability to recall past events as well as imagine what the future might bring. Our hope is that a model of the temporal self will provide iCub with contextual information from the past that will help it to better understand its current experience. This, in turn, should improve its ability to predict what could happen next.

Thinking about self as a set of processes, it becomes clear that some of these are connected. For example, a key aspect of the interpersonal self is empathy, which derives from a general ability to imagine oneself in another's shoes. One way humans might do this is to internally simulate what they perceive to be the another's situation, using the model that underlies their own ecological self. So the interpersonal self could grow out of the ecological self. But what more is needed? We consider an important building block to be the capacity to learn by imitation.

Your ability to interpret another person's actions using your own body schema is partly down to mirror neurons – cells in your brain that fire when you perform a given movement and when you see someone else perform it. Using this insight, Yiannis Demiris at Imperial College London has extended iCub's motor babbling program into an imitation learning system. As a result, iCub can rapidly acquire new hand gestures, and learn sequences of actions involved in playing games or solving puzzles, simply by watching people perform these tasks. The system will have to be extended further to achieve empathy, so that iCub recognises and mirrors a person's emotional state as well as their movement.

There is still plenty to do. Our models of the ecological, interpersonal and temporal selves are undoubtedly crude in comparison to what goes on in human brains. And we have yet to tackle the conceptual and private selves that would provide iCub with knowledge of what –or who – it is, and an awareness that it has an internal world not shared by others.

When we meet the challenge of making iCub's self processes more realistic, there may be some aspects of the human version that we will not want to emulate. For example, the robot's motivations and goals are essentially those we design in, and it might be wise to leave things that way, rather than allow them to evolve as they do in people.

Something else holding us back is iCub's limited understanding of language. Although our robot can recognise speech, this is not the same as understanding meaning – that requires relating words to action and objects. Our colleagues in Lyon are working on a neurorobotic solution to this problem but, for the moment, iCub is only capable of two-way conversations on a few topics, such as the game it is currently playing with you.

That said, we can see the practical potential of robots of this kind. An ecological self makes our iCub safer to be around. The temporally extended self allows it to remember the past and anticipate the future. The interpersonal self means it can conceive of, and anticipate, human needs and actions. Such a robot could work alongside people in fields from manufacturing and search-and-rescue to helping care for people with disabilities.

You might argue that our models have missed a crucial element: the "I" at the centre of James' notion of self – what we also call consciousness. But one possibility is that this arises when the other aspects of self are brought together. In other words, it may be an emergent property of a suitably configured set of self processes, rather than a distinct thing in itself. Returning to the Buddhist idea of the self as an illusion, when you strip away the different component processes, perhaps there will be nothing left.

But is it a person?

Our idea of the self is intimately tied up with our notion of what it means to be a person. Is it conceivable, then, that one day we might attribute personhood to a robot with an artificial sense of self? In the 17th century, philosopher John Locke defined a person as an entity with reason and language, possessing mental states such as beliefs, desires and intentions, capable of relationships and morally responsible for its actions. Modern philosopher Daniel Dennett at Tufts University in Boston largely agrees, but with an important addition. A person, he says, is someone who is treated as a person by others. So we grant personhood to one another.

Note that neither Locke nor Dennett specify that a person is made of biological stuff. Even so, at this stage, our iCub falls short of the criteria required. It can reason, use language, have beliefs and intentions, and enter into relationships of a kind. We might even be inclined to judge it for the appropriateness of its actions. However, it does not yet have the full set of processes associated with a human self, so we cannot be sure that its mental states are anything like ours. Neither is it a moral being – not as we commonly think of them – because it does not base its choices on values.

Be that as it may, our everyday attribution of personhood is grounded more in direct impressions than a philosophical checklist. As Dennett says, personhood is partly in the eyes of the beholder. And, when interacting with iCub, it can feel natural to behave towards this robot as though we are taking the first steps in creating a new kind of person. Sometimes it even leaves me with the surprising feeling that "someone is home".

Aspects of self

Psychologist Ulric Neisser's multifaceted description of the self provides useful targets for a robot to emulate

Ecological self
Having a point of view; distinguishing yourself from others; having a feeling of body ownership

Interpersonal self
Self-recognition (e.g. in a mirror); seeing others as agents like you; having empathy for others

Temporally extended self
Having awareness of your personal past and future

Conceptual self
Having an idea of who you are; having a life story, personal goals, motivations and values

Private self
Having a stream of consciousness; knowing you have an inner life

What is Intelligence?

1 What is Intelligence?

The most succinct definition of intelligence is the ability to solve problems. But to be more precise it can be defined as 

a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings - "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

 From New Scientist

2 IQ Tests - What are the measuring? 

A century ago, psychologist Charles Spearman observed that individuals who do well on one mental test tend to do well on all types of mental tests.  He reasoned that all tests must therefore tap into some deeper, general ability and he invented a statistical method called factor analysis to extract this common factor from correlations across all tests. He defined a general factor of intelligence known as the "g factor".  In essence, g equates to an individual's ability to deal with cognitive complexity.

In the 1970s psychologist Arthur Jensen discovered that g aligns with diverse features of the brain, from relative size to processing speed. In all human groups - and in other species too - most cognitive variation comes from variation in g.

So, g operates as a proficiency at mentally manipulating information, which facilitates learning, reasoning, and solving problems.  At the physiological level, differences in g reflect differences in the brain's overall efficiency or integrity. The genetic roots of g are emerging from the joint actions of hundreds if not thousands of genes, themselves responding to different environments.

Having a high g rating is useful, but not a virtue. It is especially handy when one is faced with complex tasks, but it is also associated with lower rates of health-damaging behaviour, chronic illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's and premature death. A high g helps an individual get ahead socioeconomically, but it has little connection with emotional well-being or happiness. Neither does it correlate with conscientiousness, which is a big factor in whether someone fulfils their intellectual potential.

3 Quantifying intelligence

In 1904, Alfred Binet developed the IQ test to find a practical way to identify children who needed support in elementary school. The test consisted of 30 short, objective questions on tasks such as naming an everyday object and identifying the heavier of two items. His invention worked and spawned massive intelligence-testing programmes on both sides of the Atlantic, used to test applicants for jobs, military recruits, college applicants etc. 

The most comprehensive IQ tests combine scores from areas such as comprehension, vocabulary and reasoning to give an overall IQ. IQ tests are the most technically sophisticated of all psychological tests and undergo the most extensive quality checks before publication. 

Intelligence tests are calibrated so that, at each age, the IQ average score is 100 and 90 per cent of individuals score between IQ 75 and 125. The typical IQ difference between strangers is 17 points and it is 12 between full siblings. So what makes some people smarter than others? And how can we change our score?

4 Older and wiser 

The brain is a physical organ and no less subject than any other to ageing, illness and injury. Normally, the aptitude for learning and reasoning increases quickly in youth, peaks in early adulthood, and then declines slowly thereafter and drops precipitously before death. The good news is that some important abilities resist the downturn.

Some IQ researchers distinguish between tests of fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallised intelligence (gC). The first assess on-the-spot learning, reasoning and problem solving; the second assess the crystallised fruits of our previous intellectual endeavours, such as vocabulary in one's native language and broad cultural knowledge. During youth, gF and gC rise in tandem, but they follow different trajectories thereafter. All gF abilities decline together, perhaps because the brain's processing speed slows down with age. However, most people's gC abilities remain near their personal peak into old age because they reside in the neural connections that gF has laid down over a lifetime of learning and practice. Of course, age-related memory loss will affect an individual's ability to recall, but exactly how this affects intelligence is not yet known.

This has practical implications. On the positive side, robust levels of gC buffer the effects of declining gF. Older workers are generally less able to solve novel problems, but they can often compensate by calling upon their larger stores of experience, knowledge and hard-won wisdom. But gC can also disguise declines in gF, with potentially hazardous results. For example, health problems in later life can present new cognitive challenges, such as complex treatments and medication regimes, which individuals with ample gC may appear to understand when actually they cannot cope.

There are ways of slowing or reversing losses in cognitive function. The most effective discovered so far is physical exercise, which protects the brain by protecting the body's cardiovascular health. Mental exercise, often called brain training, is widely promoted, but it boosts only the particular skill that is practised – its narrow impact mirroring that of educational interventions at other ages. Various drugs are being investigated for their value in staving off normal cognitive decline, but for now preventive maintenance is still the best bet – avoid smoking, drinking to excess, and head injuries.

5 Nature and nurture 

Each of us is the embodiment of our genes and the environment working together from conception to death. To understand how these two forces interact to generate differences in intelligence, behavioural geneticists compare twins, adoptees and other family members. The most compelling research comes from identical twins adopted into different homes – individuals with identical genes but different environments – and non-kin adopted into the same home – unrelated individuals sharing the same environment. These and other studies show that IQ similarity most closely lines up with genetic similarity.

More intriguingly, the studies also reveal that the heritability of intelligence – the variation due to genes – steadily increases with age. Heritability is less than 30 per cent before children start school, rising to 80 per cent among western adults. In fact, by adolescence, separated identical twins answer IQ tests almost as if they were the same person and adoptees in the same household as if they were strangers.

Surprisingly, most family environments are equally effective for nurturing intelligence – the IQ of an adult will be the same almost regardless of where he or she grew up, unless the environment is particularly inhumane. Studies on the nature of nurture offer a clue as to why this is. All children enter the world as active shapers of their own environment. Parents and teachers experience this as their charges frustrate attempts to be shaped in particular ways. And increasing independence gives young people ever more opportunities to choose the cognitive complexity of the environments they seek out. The genetically brighter an individual, the more cognitively demanding the tasks and situations they tend to choose, and the more opportunities they have to reinforce their cognitive abilities.

Given that an individual's ability to exploit a given environment is influenced by their genetic endowment, and given that "better" family environments tend not to produce overall increases in IQ, it is not surprising that attempts to raise low IQs by enriching poor school or home environments tend to disappoint. Narrow abilities can be trained up, but g apparently cannot. This makes sense if g is an overall property of the brain. That does not mean intensive early educational interventions lack positive effects: among other things they may reduce rates of teenage pregnancy, delinquency and school dropout. Besides, even if we cannot boost low intelligence into the average range, we do know how to help all children learn more than they currently do and achieve more with the intelligence they have.

6 Different types of intelligence

Consider the engineer's superior spatial intelligence and the lawyer's command of words and you have to wonder whether there are different types of intelligence. This question was debated ferociously during the early decades of the 20th century. Charles Spearman, on one side, defended the omnipotence of his general factor of intelligence, g. On the other, psychologist Louis Thurstone argued for seven "primary abilities", including verbal comprehension (in which females excel) and spatial visualisation (in which males excel). Thurstone eventually conceded that all his primary abilities were suffused with the same g factor, while Spearman came to accept that there are multiple subsidiary abilities in addition to g on which individuals differ.

This one-plus-many resolution was not widely accepted until 1993, however. It was then that American psychologist John B. Carroll published his "three stratum theory" based on a monumental reanalysis of all factor analysis studies of intelligence. 

At the top is a single universal ability, g. Below this indivisible g are eight broad abilities, all composed mostly of g but each also containing a different "additive" that boosts performance in some broad domain such as visual perception or processing speed. These in turn contribute to dozens of narrower abilities, each a complex composite of g, plus additives from the second level, together with life experiences and specialised aptitudes such as spatial scanning.

This structure makes sense of the many differences in ability between individuals without contradicting the dominance of g. For example, an excellent engineer might have exceptional visuospatial perception together with training to develop specialist abilities, but above all a high standing on the g factor. The one-plus-many idea also exposes the implausibility of multiple-intelligence theories eagerly adopted by educators in the 1980s, which claimed that by tailoring lessons to suit the individual's specific strength – visual, tactile or whatever – all children can be highly intelligent in some way.

7 Physical Attributes of the brain

How is intelligence affected by the brain's physiology? 

7.1 Brain Mass 

It was once thought that a heavier brain means higher intelligence because it would have more neurones ("grey matter") and axons (white matter). However, "more" doesn't mean "better" as shown by the Kleiber's Law diagram, in which humans are at the apex of intelligence. Further increase in brain mass entails more increase in body weight such that the add-on brain cells are allocated for neural housekeeping chores (such as controlling more muscle fibres) unrelated to intelligence.

7.2 Neural Connections

The human brain contains about 120 billion neuronal cells, with an approximately equal number of non-neuronal cells (glial cells). These cells pass signals to each other via as many as 1000 trillion synaptic connections. The communication networks (at about 2% of our body weight) consume about 20% of the energy that we expend at rest. In newborns, it is an astounding 65% so infants rely on parental care for survival. Further increase in neural connections will demand more resource at the expense of the other biological processes in our body.

7.3 Transmission Time

The transmission time between neurones depends on the travelling distance. That's why the motion of elephants appears to be rather slow. The transmission time is also determined by the speed of the signal. It is found that thicker axons carry signals faster. This advantage is negated by greater consumption of energy and occupies more space (the same trade-off as for more neural connections).

7.4 Neurone Density

It was discovered recently that unlike other mammals, cortical neurones in primates enlarge very little as the brain increases in size. This kind of packing strategy allows for a greater number of cortical cell as brains enlarge; and it also permits faster communication, because the cells pack more closely. However, thermal motion triggers random firing of the action potential if the axons or neurones become too small.

7.5 Evolutionary Limits

Restricted by the above-mentioned constraints, it is doubtful that a major evolutionary leap could lead to a smarter brain. The evolution of brains started about 600 million years ago. Since then all kinds of animals have now evolved to a point where the brain circuits have arrived at a similar design for running tasks such as vision, smell, navigation, etc. Such evolutionary convergence usually suggests that a certain anatomical or physiological solution has reached maturity so that there may be little room left for improvement. If our brains were bigger, we would think slower and too much energy would be required. If our brains had increased neural connections or faster transmission times, it would again cost too much energy. And if our neurone density increased, the transmission signals would be too noisy.  

Absolute Certainty

A Christian Apologist argues against absolute certainty when it comes to believing in God - And I agree with him.


JimC says...

Socrates always made it cleat that any of his views on the supernatural could be wrong. And that resonated with me.

Christian Apologist says...

I don't know of anyone here who doesn't acknowledge that his/her understanding of anything and everything could be wrong

JimC says... 
A survey by the Pew forum in 2013 revealed that 90% of Evangelical Christians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA are absolutely certain in the existence of God or a universal spirit.

Some typical statements from Evangelical Christians in that 90%...

“So, is there a God? Yes, there is. He is specifically revealed to us in the Bible and more specifically in the person of Jesus Christ.”

“I know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us. I know that He created the World and me”

“I know that God is real because I have had things happen in my life that are not simply "coincidence.”

“I know that God is real because He speaks to me. He doesn't speak to me with His own voice, though I'm sure He has one.”

"We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ."

You seem to represent the other 10% with your statement that...

"our understanding of anything and everything could be wrong" 

So who is right – the 90% of Evangelicals who have absolute certainty, or the 10% like yourself who have an element of doubt?

Christian Apologist says...

There will always need to be a faith element. One would need to converse with those who apparently claim "absolute" certainty to understand the basis for their claims.

JimC says...

I think it would be difficult to "converse" with 75 million people to "understand the reasons for their claims" but we can at least read what they say their reasons for absolute certainty are, such as... "I know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us." 

Christian Apologist says...

I can only offer my perspective. I don't presume to pre-judge anyone's intentions or reasoning processes on the matter. Again, we would need to hear from those who do claim certainty regarding God's existence to know how they came to their conclusions.

JimC says...

I wonder how you would respond to a Christian who asserted that... "We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ." Would you tell them that their understanding could be wrong?

Christian Apologist says...

I wouldn't tell them anything--I'd ask for clarification.

JimC says...

I assume you would tell them they could be wrong (because as you've said previously, anything and everything could be wrong - correct?)

Christian Apologist says...

Pick any specific points you might choose - from you or me. Anything you or I believe might be wrong. In the case of Christians, in fact, such is required--otherwise there would be no such thing as faith.

"Our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect. When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away." [ 1Corinthians 13:9-10]

Determinism

A Christian Apologist insists I am a "rigid determinist" because I consider free will to be an illusion. If a label is required to define my views on free will then I would suggest "compatibilist" or "probabilist".  But then again, there are many types of determinism.

I will start by trying to summarise my perspective on determinism. Eventually I will expand this to provide an overview of types of determinism...  

1 Summary 

I don't believe the universe is deterministic because I believe (a) not everything that happens is completely determined by prior events and (b) there are multiple (perhaps infinite) possible futures. So for example, if it were possible to rewind the universe back to its original state and restart the Big Bang process, we would end up with a different, albeit similar, universe.

However it is a fact that many events can be predicted, but only to a certain level of probability - the weather is a good example which I will use later, as I don't think anyone would suggest the weather has free-will.   So rather than seeing the universe as deterministic, I think a better word is probabilistic.  However, any discussion on determinism is complicated because there are many types of determinism and I will discuss those later.

So let's apply this to what we know of the brain. Empirical evidence shows that moments before we are aware of what we will do next, our brain has already determined what we will do. We then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that we are in the process of making it.  So the brain determines what we will do, but the brain is not "deterministic" because we can't predict with certainty what decision it will come to - the decision the brain makes can't be completely determined by prior events. Influenced, yes, but not determined.    Maybe my brain will cause me to eat that delicious hot fudge sundae on the menu, maybe it won't.  All we do know is that the decision, whatever it is, was made by my brain before I was conscious of the decision.   

A Religious Apologist might argue that if brain processes can be described by biology and chemistry then they must be deterministic because the actions of atoms and molecules can be absolutely determined. In fact they can't, because we know the subatomic world is probabilistic. The Religious apologist might then argue that the weather and the brain appear to be probabilistic but that's just because they are very complex.  It would then follow that in the distant, deterministic future,  an "omniscient" computer could be built which will be able to predict the weather across the planet for years into the future, and therefore a similar computer could determine a person's actions from when they are born to the day they die just by calculating the trajectory of their molecules.  I don't think any of that is possible because it is not just the complexity that makes determination of events difficult. The real reason is that at the most fundamental level, physical processes are subject to quantum-mechanical unpredictability and randomness, whether it's in the brain or in DNA or in the planet's atmosphere.  

So now randomness has entered the explanation, does that mean our thoughts would have to be random if they are the result of probabilistic, sub-atomic processes? No it doesn't. The inherent quantum randomness of matter results in probable outcomes, not random outcomes.  A good analogy is a lottery where the jackpot winner picks 6 number between 1 and 49. The chances of winning are 14 million to one - which is almost zero. But every week, at least one person wins on average, because over 14 million tickets are sold. 

If we know a lot about someone's life and history and experiences, and if we have studied what they've said and what they believe, and if they are of sound mind, then we can make a good assessment of how they will behave and the choices they will make - but not with 100% certainty.  When we say we "know how someone thinks", we are assessing how their brains are "programmed".  But the brain is "re-programmed" every second of every day so although we can make a good guess as to whether they will, for example, eat a hot fudge sundae within the next 10 minutes, perhaps they will experience something tomorrow which will put them off hot fudge sundaes for the rest of their lives. 

2 The definition of determinism 

For this I turn to the excellent book "Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy" by Bob Doyle. 

"Determinism is the idea that everything that happens, including all human actions, is completely determined by prior events.  There is only one possible future, and it is completely predictable in principle, most famously by Laplace’s Supreme intelligent Demon, assuming perfect knowledge of the positions, velocities, and forces for all the atoms in the void.

More strictly, I strongly suggest that determinism should be distinguished from pre-determinism, the idea that the entire past (as well as the future) was determined at the origin of the universe. 

Determinism is sometimes confused with causality, the idea that all events have causes. Despite Hume’s critical attack on the necessity of causes, and despite compatibilists’ great respect for Hume as the modern founder of compatibilism, many philosophers embrace causality and determinism very strongly.

Some even connect it to the very possibility of logic and reason. And Hume himself believed strongly, if inconsistently in necessity. “‘tis impossible to admit any medium betwixt chance and necessity” he said.  Bertrand Russell said “The law of causation, according to which later events can theoretically be predicted by means of earlier events, has often been held to be a priori, a necessity of thought, a category without which science would not be possible.”  

But some events may themselves not be completely determined by prior events. This does not mean they are without causes, just that their causes are probabilistic. Such an event is then indeterminate. It might or might not have happened. It is sometimes called a “causa sui" or self-caused event. But a probabilistically caused event may in turn be the adequately deterministic cause for following events. These later events would therefore not be predictable from conditions before the uncaused event. We call this “soft” causality. Events are still caused, but they are not always predictable or completely pre-determined."

3 Types of Determinism

Again, from the excellent book "Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy" by Bob Doyle. 


Actualism is the idea that only whatever actually happens could ever have happened. It denies the existence of alternative possibilities for actions. This idea began with the logical sophistry of Diodorus Cronus’ Master Argument for determinism. Statements about a future event that are true today necessitate the future event.

Sophisticated defenses of this idea include the so-called Frankfurt cases, which claim that an agent’s actions can be free even if a hypothetical intervening controller can change the agent's decisions, preventing any alternative possibilities that might have appeared as what John Martin Fischer calls “flickers of free-dom”.

Behavioral Determinism assumes that our actions are reflex reactions developed in us by environmental or operant conditioning. This is the Nurture side of the famous Nature/‘Nurture debate - note that both are determinisms. This view was developed to an extreme by B. F. Skinner in the early 20th century, who had great success “programming” the behaviors of animals, but never with perfect control of behavior. Many cognitive scientists are behaviorists who see the mind as a computer that has been programmed, by accident or deliberately, by education, for example.

Biological Determinism finds causes for our actions in our genetic makeup. This is the Nature side of the Nature/Nurture debate. Again, both sides are determinisms. There is little doubt that our genes pre-dispose us to certain kinds of behavior. But note that our genes contain a minuscule fraction of the information required to determine our futures. Most of the information in the adult brain is acquired through life experiences.

Causal Determinism assumes that every event has an antecedent cause, in an infinite causal chain going back to Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Nothing is uncaused or self-caused (causa sui). Galen Sttrawson supports this view with his Basic Argument. Note that there are always multiple causes for any event. Basically,
all the events that are in the past light-cone of an event can have a causal relationship with the event. 

Cognitive Science Determinism results from a computational model of mind that sees the mind as a computer. The mind may be evolving its own computer programs, but the overall process is completely pre-determined, say cognitive scientists, and philosophers like Daniel Dennett.

Fatalism is the simple idea that everything is fated to happen, so that humans have no control over their future. Notice that fate might be an arbitrary power and need not follow any causal or otherwise deterministic laws. It can thus include the miracles of omnipotent gods, and thus be a theological fatalism. Some philosophers use the term fatalism loosely to cover other determinisms. Richard Taylor’s well-known article, Fatalism, in the Philosophical Review was about logical arguments denying future contingency. The Idle Argument claimed that since things are fated, it is “idle” to take any actions at all, since they can have no effect. 

Historical Determinism is the dialectical idealism of Hegel or the dialectical materialism of Marx that are assumed to govern the course of future history. Marxists have often felt they could revise the past to suit their purposes, but claimed that the future is economically determined.

Logical Determinism reasons that a statement about a future event happening is either true or it is not true. This is the Principle of Bivalence and the Law of the Excluded Middle. lf the statement is true, logical certainty then necessitates the event. Aristotle’s Sea Battle and Diodorus Cronus’ Master Argument are the classical examples of this kind of determinism. If the statement about the future is false, the event it describes can not possibly happen. In logic, as in other formal systems, truth is outside of time, like the foreknowledge of God. Fortunately, logic can constrain our reasoning, but it cannot provide us with knowledge about the physical world nor can it constrain the world.

Linguistic Determinism claims that our language determines (at least limits) the things we can think and say and thus know. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that speech patterns in a language community constrain the conceptual categories of a linguistic community and thus determine thought.              

Mechanical Determinism explains man as a machine. If Newton’s laws of classical mechanics govern the workings of the planets. stars, and galaxies, goes the argument, surely they govern man the same way. Note that although Rene Descartes described human bodies and all animals as deterministic machines, he said that the human mind was free and undetermined (indetermiriata).

Necessitarianism is a variation of logical and causal determinism that claims everything is simply necessary. This was Leucipus’ view at the beginning of determinism. This was the most popular name for determinists in the 18"‘ century, when they were opposed to libertarians.

Neuroscientific Determinism assumes that the neurons are the originators of our actions. “My neurons made me do it.” The Libet experiments have been interpreted to show that decisions are made by the brain’s neurons significantly before any action of conscious will.

Nomological Determinism is a broad term to cover determinism by laws, of nature, of human nature, etc.

Physical Determinism extends the laws of physics to every atom in the human mind and assumes that the mind will some day be perfectly predictable, once enough measurements are made. The paradigmatic case is that of Laplace’s Demon. Knowing the positions, velocities, and forces acting on every particle in the world, the demon can know the entire past and future. All times are visible to such a super intelligence.

Psychological Determinism is the idea that our actions must be determined by the best possible reason or our greatest desire. Otherwise, our acts would be irrational. Since all the possible actions are presented to the mind, determined by prior actions, the choice is not really made by the agent.

Pre-determinism claims that everything that ever happens was pre-determined at the beginning of the universe. Theological predestination is similar, but if God is assumed to be omnipotent, the events may have been pre-destined more recently. Some theologians insist that God is unchanging and outside of time, in which case predestination reduces to pre-determinism.

Religious or Theological Determinism is the consequence of the presumed omniscience of God. God has foreknowledge of all events. All times are equally present to the eye of God (Aquinas’ totem simul). Note the multiple logical inconsistencies in the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God. If God knows the future, he obviously lacks the power to change it. And if benevolence is assumed, it leads to the problem of evil.

Spatio-temporal Determinism is a view based on special relativity. The “block universe” of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein is taken to imply that time is simply a fourth dimension that already exists, just like the spatial dimensions. The one possible future is already out there, up ahead of where we are now, just like the city blocks to our left and right. J.J.C. Smart is a philosopher who holds this view. He calls himself “somewhat of a fatalist."

Finally, Compatibilism is the idea that Free Will is compatible with Determinism. Compatibilists believe that as long as our Mind is one cause in the causal chain then we can be responsible for our actions, which is reasonable. But they think every cause, including our decisions, are pre-determined. Compatibilists are Determinists. Although some modern compatibilists say they are agnostic on the truth of determinism (and indeterminism).

Some of these determinisms (behavioral, biological, historical-economic, language, and psychological) have demonstrable evidence that they do in fact constrain behaviors and thus limit human freedom. But others are merely dogmas of determinism, believed primarily for the simple reason that they eliminate random chance in the universe.

Chance is anathema to most philosophers and many scientists. But without indeterminacy, there are simply no possibilities for the world to be different from what these many determinisms claim that it will be. 

4 Taxonomy of Determinism

The "family tree" of determinism shows how determinism is not black and white.   

From Bob Doyls aka The Information Philosopher

Illusionism 

llusionism is the position that free will does not exist and is merely an illusion. Many ancient and modern thinkers have made this claim. They have usually been strong determinists, from Hobbes to Einstein. Classical compatibilists, from Hobbes and Hume on, have held that free will exists but that it is compatible with determinism (actually many determinisms).

Since the discovery of irreducible quantum mechanical indeterminism, most scientists and some philosophers have come to understand that determinism is a dogmatic belief unsustainable from the evidence.

It is strict determinism that is the illusion. Quantum mechanics suggests that all physical processes are statistical, and all knowledge is only probabilistic. Hence strict determinism is an illusion

The Valerian Model
Faniel Dennett is a compatibilist and argues for a two-stage model of free will named"Valerian" after the poet Paul Valéry, who was influenced by Poincaré's two-stage approach to problem solving, in which the unconscious generates random combinations. In his book The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Mind, Hadamard quoted Valéry...

It takes two to invent anything. The one makes up combinations; the other one chooses, recognizes what is important to him in the mass of things which the former has imparted to him.

Although Valery describes two persons, this is clearly William James's temporal sequence of random chance ("free") followed by a determining choice ("will"). For James, chance and choice are part of a single mind. So perhaps this two-stage mind model is better named "Jamesian" free will.

Dennett makes his version of a two-stage model very clear, defending it with six reasons. However, Dennett remains a compatibilist.


Libertarianism
(Not to be confused with political Libertarianism i.e. the movement promoting individual liberty and minimised government)

Libertarianism says humans are free from all forms of determinism and that freedom seems to require some form of indeterminism. "Radical" libertarians believe that one's actions are not determined by anything prior to a decision, including one's character and values, and one's feelings and desires. This extreme view, held by leading libertarians such as Robert Kane, Peter van Inwagen and their followers, denies that the will has control over actions.

A more modest libertarianism has been proposed by Daniel Dennett and Alfred Mele. They and many other philosophers and scientists have proposed two-stage models of free will that keep indeterminism in the early stages of deliberation, limiting it to creating alternative possibilities for action.

Most libertarians have been mind/body dualists who, following René Descartes, explained human freedom by a separate mind substance that somehow manages to act in the physical world. Some, especially Immanuel Kant, believed that our freedom only existed in a transcendental or noumenal world, leaving the physical world to be completely deterministic.

Religious libertarians say that God has given man a gift of freedom, but at the same time that God's foreknowledge knows everything that man will do.

Incompatibilism

Incompatibilism says determinism is incompatible with human freedom. It is a complex idea, because it is not committed to the truth or falsity of determinism. It was invented by Peter van Inwagen as a new free will position that denies the truth of "compatibilism." It is an "anti-compatibilism" that is more subtle than the question of the existence of free will or determinism.

Hard Incompatibilism

Hard incompatibilists think both free will and moral responsibility are not compatible with determinism.  

5 Do the Laws of Physics Deny Human Freedom?

Of all the determinisms listed above, physical determinism stands out as a special case.

All the fanciful logical, theological, and nomological determinisms described here are basically just ideas.

Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics was also an idea at first, of course, just a theory. But then it was confirmed experimentally, by observations that have grown more and more accurate with every passing decade.

To be sure, the theory has been revised and refined, first for the case of matter moving at velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity goes beyond classical mechanics, but it asymptotically approaches the classical theory as velocities go to zero.

The next grand refinement was Einsteins general theory, but it too corresponds to ordinary Newtonian physics in the limit.

The most important refinement is the quantum mechanics of Werner Heisenberg and Neils Bohr. Again, it corresponds to the classical theory, in the limit of large numbers of particles.

When Arthur Stanley Eddington revised his 1927 Gifford lectures for publication as The Nature of the Physical World, there he dramatically announced “It is a consequence of the advent of the quantum theory that physics is no longer pledged to a scheme of deterministic law.” There is nothing in the laws of physics, or any wider “laws of nature”, that in any way puts constraints on human freedom.

...and then along came neuroscience...

6 The Evidence from Neuroscience

Any discussion on determinism, especially in the context of free-will,  has to take account of observations of physical phenomena. Experiments show that prior to the conscious intention to perform an action, unconscious brain activity which causes the movement  (the “readiness potential”) is detectable by EEG recordings.  In other words, your brain appears to decide to move before any conscious intention to do so, suggesting that the conscious decision “I choose to move” is an afterthought - not the cause. Things are already set into motion long before any conscious awareness of that decision is made. For more about free will go here 

Love the sinner, hate the sin

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" has become a slogan for Christians who consider homosexuality to be a sin but at the same time, want to give the impression they are caring and empathetic.  

 

	Post	Commentary
1	Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Unitarian Universalist  on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:13PM This phrase is frequently used to refer to lgbt people by evangelical, fundamentalist, orthodox, "Bible believing" or whatever they wish to call themselves Christians. It is often utilized to "politely" oppose equality for this population (often called "special rights"). I've also heard this statement followed such derogatory terms as "Sodomite". Lastly I know of it being used to justify through love by parents to kick out their children.	Very interesting topic. It does seem a weasly phrase.
2	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:24PM "I'm done. I can't look my gay brother in the eye anymore and say "I love the sinner but hate the sin." I can't keep drawing circles in the sand. I thought I just needed to try harder. Maybe I needed to focus more on loving the sinner, and less on protesting the sin. But even if I was able to fully live up to that "ideal," I'd still be wrong. I'd still be viewing him as something other, something different. Not human. Not friend. Not Christian. Not brother. Sinner." "And despite all my theological disclaimers about how I'm just as much a sinner too, it's not the same. We don't use that phrase for everybody else. Only them. Only "the gays." That's the only place where we make "sinner" the all-encompassing identity." http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4521519	Here’s a view from a Christian who has decided to stop using the phrase.
3	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:58AM In my opinion, this guy's testimony "hits the nail on the head"- especially about the condescending nature of this phrase.
4	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:30PM I think what he's saying is that regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin (he's not making a stance on that subject for some reason) he's going to choose to love the "person" as themselves and not look at them as a "sinner" at all. We're all "sinners" after all, so why make this distinction with this one group of people.
5	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:01AM Actually and technically, "sodomy" refers to more than homosexual activity and could easily apply to heterosexual activity--look up the word and you'll see what I mean (I'd post a link but I'm not sure it's permissible given the content). Even more technically--from the content of Genesis--it could refer to forced sexual relations, or rape. That means that when Scripture condemns sodomy, the extent of the first century understanding of the term is somewhat unclear.	Why on earth has the Christian Apologist introduced the word “Sodomy” into the conversation?  This implies the “sin” under discussion  is anal sex. So it seems the basis of the argument is sex. I have always wondered why overtly religious people have such an interest in what other people get up to in private. Perhaps this is just a random, off-topic intervention.
6	Personally--as I've said before--I'm somewhat equivocal regarding my own position on the matter of homosexuality and am not likely to please anyone. I don't know the extent to which volition plays a part in the matter or genetic inheritance. I don't feel I'm in a position to either support or condemn the practice. I believe it is one of those issues that the whole church needs to pray for guidance on and of course perfectly frank discussions on the matter as well. In any case, I know that all Christians are called to live "chaste" lives (obviously not in its total abstinence meaning or we'd become extinct!) and that does seem to call for some restraint on the part of everyone.	Chaste lives? Restraint is a different topic. We were not discussing promiscuity. It does seem to be an off-topic intervention.
7	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:50AM I'm aware that sodomy includes other sorts of activity. But more recently it has been aimed at homosexuals.
8	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 1:22PM I've always thought it weird that religious authorities feel a need to debate and dictate what consenting adults can and can't do behind closed doors, but I think the sodomy objection is part of a wider dogma that any sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not intended.
9	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 2:05PM I wonder why God would have created the act to be pleasurable if it were sinful to do it other than purely for procreation then? Sounds like a case of Un-intelligent Design to me.
10	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:42PM not true with respect to procreation. Married Christians remain sexually active well past their child bearing years. And there is nothing in the Bible that says sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not the goal. If that were God's plan, a woman would get pregnant easier. Sexual activity is sinful if it's outside of a man-woman marriage relationship. That's the biblical standard for everyone.	An interesting interpretation of “God’s Plan”!  And could it really be easier to get a woman pregnant? I’m not sure that this apparent “Biblical Standard” is the standard for everyone. But let’s assume it is true for this Creationist.
11	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:46PM Does the bible specifically say marriage has to be man/woman? I know people say that, but haven't seen which verse(s) make this clear.
12	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:58PM The non-conformist Christian makes a good point. What the Bible actually says is one thing. How it's interpreted is something else.
13	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:52PM well Jesus wasn't married to a woman according to most Christians, so I'll leave what that may mean to your imagination!	It’s interesting to speculate whether Jesus was gay, or asexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual. Of course we will never know.
14	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:36PM There are plenty of places in the Bible where it's clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to say that specifically to understand this. The Bible is completely clear on a lot of things. For example, sexual purity and why it's important. That ties into marriage. As for marriage being between a man and a woman, there are zero verses that say anything about a man and a man or a woman and a woman being in a marriage relationship. But there are plenty of man/woman references: Genesis 2:22-24 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Proverbs 5:18-19 18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Proverbs 12:4 4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones. Proverbs 18:22 22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD. Ephesians 5:22-33 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Matthew 19:4-6 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." There are many more references that can point to man/woman marriage relationships. As for same sex relationships: Romans 1:26–27 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1 Corinthians 6:9 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,	I have to say Proverbs 5:18-19 provides a lot of scope for innuendo! The thing is... the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin quote different verses, or interpret these verses differently.
	Whenever marriage is mentioned in the Bible it is always between a man and a woman. And the Biblical view of marriage is a universal concept for every civilization in the history of the world. Even nature itself argues against homosexuality. Men and women fit together sexually and men and men (or woman to woman) don't.	I’m pretty sure marriage isn’t mentioned in the bible, but that seems irrelevant.  Now... what’s this about nature arguing against homosexuality?  I wonder where that argument comes from.
15	There are plenty of diverse opinions on this. A simple google search (or duckduckgo.com ) will yield plenty of dissenting views.	Very true -    Christians who defend homosexuality will also use the Bible to support their argument. So interpretation is key.
16	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:49PM Those are some good verses, thank you for that, but what about in Luke Chapter 17 when they're talking about the rapture and it says: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." To me this sounds like a homosexual male will be raptured, why would that be if he was living in sin right up until then?	Another example  of how the Bible can be interpreted, in this chase to support a humanist point of view.
17	As far as nature itself arguing against homosexuality, it is true that they don't "fit together sexually" in a conventional way, at the same time isn't it possible that homosexuality is natures way of helping us fight against overpopulation? A way for people to still feel like they are in a loving relationship without any chance of procreation?
18	I don't know what the right answer is to this question, and to be honest I'm actually a bit jaded against homosexuality because of personal issues I've gone through in my past, but I'm trying to see if it is actually a "sin", but even if it is, it's not our place to judge others for their sins, so we should still treat them with love and respect and let God make the judgment when it's time. JMO
19	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:13PM Other versions have that Luke 17 passage as "two people" But either way, it's a stretch to suggest that this passage would speak in terms of homosexuality. It's speaking of the principle of the rapture. Nothing else.	Interpretation, again.
20	I don't think homosexuality is natures way of dealing with population. Nature isn't a thing at any rate and it's simply used as a metaphor regarding God's design.	Nature isn’t a thing?!  Nature is the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. That’s definitely a thing!  This does highlight a  Creationist contradiction: Nature is a metaphor for “God’s design” – and all the things in nature are designed by God.
21	Any sex outside a marriage covenant is sinful. And clearly sex between a man and a man (or woman and a woman) is sinful as the Bible clearly articulates. The culture says otherwise but that's not the standard that I go by on this issue. I probably have more questions on this issue than I do answers but at this point I can't see the issue any differently than what I've said here.	“clearly articulates”? If that was true there would be no disagreement among Christians.
22	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:39PM How can you say "nature itself argues against homosexuality" when homosexuality exists nature?
23	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:40PM I think that argument is seriously flawed. You know know that men and women have different plumbing right?	Hilarious!
24	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:43PM LOL But seriously... how can you say that nature itself is against homosexuality, when homosexuality exists in nature?
25	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:44PM So your saying it's perfectly natural?	Not sure how “perfectly” applies here because nature is not perfect but anyway...
26	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:47PM Yes of course. It's also "perfectly natural" for a percentage of the population to be infertile, or asexual, or any other biological trait you can mention.
27	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:59PM so what follows from that?	I don’t think anything follows. What does he mean?
28	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:01PM I don't know what you mean.
29	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:16PM You crack me up Columbo. In Kindergarten Cop the little 5 year old boy informs his teacher, "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina." Unless I missed something, those two go together like hand in glove. All the mechanics of those two "things" work in harmony with each other. And that's the end of it. The way and P and V work together is NOT duplicated in any way like a P and a P or a V and a V. It's so simple that even a kindergarten student gets it.	Oh dear. The Creationist seems to be losing the plot here.   I predict a meltdown. Should I point out that The Creationist is basing his argument on the sexual knowledge of a 5 year old? Better not. It wouldn't go down well. (No pun intended).
30	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:22PM As I said it is natural for a percentage of the population to be infertile, homosexual, asexual or whatever. I don't see how an aspect of nature can be unnatural. You appear to have a reasonable grasp of the mechanics of human reproduction, but it's not "unnatural" to use your word, if every indiviual in the entire population does not or cannot reproduce. It's just nature.
31	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM actually you are wrong. When someone is infertile, there is something that is not working properly. The same can be said of asexual or whatever. So you're using the word "natural" incorrectly here.	Actually I'm not wrong!  Is he seriously suggesting that an infertile man or woman is “unnatural”??
32	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM I'm using the word natural to mean "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind." Infertility (due to natural causes) and indeed any aspect of biology, including homosexuality, fits that definition. Ironically, several treatments for infertility do not fit that definition.
33	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:35PM Well than any thing that happens in nature is natural according to you.	I think the Creationist is confusing "immoral" with "unnatural". Things can be natural and moral, or natural and immoral, or unnatural and moral... etc.
34	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:37PM That's a truism.
35	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:51PM Except that: Definition of UNNATURAL 1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events Which means that "natural" is defined as being "in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events"	Interesting use of the dictionary to define an antonym. Well I suppose I can use the same logic (except it’s not logic of course)...
36	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:04PM Except that unnatural is also defined as "not existing in nature" which means that, using your logic, natural is defined as existing in nature. In any case, I don't see a problem if you consider something to be unnatural and I don't, because the word has different meanings.
37	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:33AM well if there are different meanings you just flattened your own argument	This is quite a common flawed argument used by apologists and creationists. If someone uses a dictionary to  explain the meaning of the word they are using, they feel it can somehow be negated if the word has two meanings.
38	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM homosexuality exists in other animals as well as humans, so it must be natural. There are also the added complication of hermaphrodites (both true & pseudo), X-Y females and animals that change sex ( Sequential hermaphroditism in several marine species)
39	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:28PM And dogs will hump couches and little lady's legs. hmmmmmm....could it be???	The Creationist really does seem to have gone into a tail spin. What point is he trying to make with the example of a dog in heat having the need to masturbate when there is no female available?
40	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM don't be so ridiculous and do some proper research, before you fall off your high horse - you look quite precarious perched up there
41	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:38PM Homosexuality in animals is a myth. And if you're now going to cite "behaviors" you'd better explain the couch humping and the humping on Aunt Jean's leg while yer at it.	Is the Creationist really unaware of the explanation of why a dog (among other animals) would masturbate?  He also seems totally unaware of the animal behaviour research which shows that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. However, I’m not sure if any of this is relevant n the context of “sin”
42	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:49PM Homosexuality in other species is not a myth because it's been observed - but even if it hadn't - there are many behaviours that are not seen in every species. So it wouldn't matter if homosexuality was unique to humans. But it isn't
43	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:54PM Something has been observed and then explained but it doesn't mean that the explanations are correct. A male dog with hump another male but a female will also do some humping. And then there's poor Aunt Jean's leg. I wonder if some dogs have legosexuality? After all, it's been observed. I saw a dog hump air molecules once. At least he was humping something and he was all alone so.....	Again... an apparent complete lack of knowledge of why a dog would “hump” – I wonder if this disanalogy of dog masturbation an homosexuality has come from a Creationist website?
44	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:01PM That's not unique to dogs by the way.	It’s also true of Creationists. LOL. Sorry.
45	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:39AM then it more supports my point that homosexuality in animals is a myth. And even if it was, what follows from that? That homosexuality in humans is perfectly fine and "normal?" Some animals eat their young. Other animals kill each other either for food or status. This argument "animals do it" is simply weak and silly.	There is a good point hiding in here somewhere... whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant. The argument is about morality. So yes, the argument “animals do it” is weak and silly if we are deciding what’s moral. But it’s not silly if we are discussing what’s natural, and  it was the Creationist who introduced the “against nature” justification on line 47 He appears to be retreating from his own argument now. About time too...
46	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:46AM If one insists on appealing to animal sexual behavior suggesting that somehow it proves homosexuality in humans is normal, the need to do better than "it's been observed." True a male chimp will mount another male chimp but the will also mount a tree stump. It's the sexual instinct that's at work here and not a sexual preference.	Where DOES he get this stuff? LOL
47	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:08AM The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not "officially" observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior, innocent confusion, or even from a fear of "being ridiculed by their colleagues." Georgetown University biologist Janet Mann states "Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics." They also noted "Not every sexual act has a reproductive function ... that's true of humans and non-humans." It appears to be widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. The true extent of homosexuality in animals is not known. While studies have demonstrated homosexual behavior in a number of species, Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, speculated that the true extent of the phenomenon may be much larger than was then recognized: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals	A good summary
48	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:26AM Wikipedia is no "proper research"	Well, that’s true, but only if one takes a Wikipedia article at face value. One should check out the citations, rather than just rely on the article.
49	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:01AM And then there's this from the NARTH Institute “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”	Oh dear. The NARTH institute. Hahahahaha!! he Creationist demolishes his “proper research” argument by using information from the NARTH institute – an organisation that aims to provide “therapy” which will change the sexual orientation of homosexuals an which uses theology to justify its methods. “The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish”
50	Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89; as quoted in Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” at c/2010/09/the-animal-homosexuality-myth/	This is even funnier. = one can only assume the Creationist googled “animal homosexuality myth” and came up with this
51	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:30AM For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such This is the part I'm referring to, it seems like flawed logic. Of course the majority of individuals in any species are going to be determined to ensure the procreation of the species, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a few members of said species to be "different".	Good point
52	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:31AM Basically it points out the the sexual instinct behavior in animals may resemble homosexual behavior, but it is simply The animal acting on instincts. The animal is not displaying a sexual preference. They are simply behaving according to their instincts	And what is a “sexual preference” if it is not behaving according to instincts? One could argue that homosexual and heterosexual human beings are behaving according to their instincts.
53	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM terrible website, can't find anything on it, the link doesn't go to what you've indicated. Hardly impartial research either...
54	NARTH Institute Position Statements   Right to Treatment The Alliance respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality. What a load of dingo's kidneys "diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential" ROFL!	NARTH is certainly a dodgy organisation.
55	Try to look at these references https://web.archive.org/web/20070528115402/http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/homosexuality-common-in-wild-scientists-say/ http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
56	now, if you can find some "real" evidence that it's fiction - I might listen, otherwise crawl back into your religious homophobic box	Tempers are running high – but that’s a bit harsh!
57	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:00AM It's a nice intellectual discussion to talk about who is natural & unnatural until one realizes they are talking about someone's loved ones or to real people who are lgbt. No one would choose to be gay & subject themselves to assertions that they are unnatural or worse. And so called reparative therapy is a joke. So, i have to believe it is natural for them to be that way and a loving God would want their loving relationships to be honored & celebrated.	Very good point
58	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM Adults should be able to have such discussions without worrying that someone's feelings will get hurt. We are after all currently focusing on the animal kingdom. And I have relatives that are gay. I would not discuss this with them unless the asked. But this is a discussion forum. If you choose to read what's here...
59	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:19AM We can add whatever we want to these discussions. I started this thread so I know what its about, & i choose to address sensitivity issues now.
60	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 9 Mar 2015 at 8:55AM I think this thread clearly demonstrates two things: - scripture is interpreted to suit pre-conceived opinions - ignorance makes a significant contribution to prejudice.  Also, it's not the first time here that a Christian admits to having opinions which they can only share anonymously. I'd be questioning the basis of my beliefs if I was in that situation.
61	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Born Again Christian  on 9 Mar 2015 at 12:37PM This thread demonstrates nothing of the kind, Jim. The Scriptures that A Creationist quoted are clear statements of "one man/one woman" marriage, which is how God created it "from the beginning". There is no interpretation necessary, unless you want to make it fit your preconceived (an ironic description, BTW) idea that homosexuality is "natural". Ignorance has nothing to do with A Creationist's points. His point that at a certain stage in the "discussion", the name calling starts is valid. Why don't you back that statement up with facts, Jim? The Creationist did not say that he would only share his opinions anonymously (neither did I, if that's who you were referencing). He was merely stating that he has compassion for people and that context determines conversation, as it should. Do you have the same discussions at work that you do with your wife in bed? I hope not!	ahhh... if only Scriptures really were "clear statements"  Then they wouldn't need interpretation. I'm not defending name calling - but the ignorance was to do with biology (see lines 39 to 44)
62	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 9 Mar 2015 at 2:33PM Christians who are in favour of <insert moral standpoint here>, and Christians who are against <insert moral standpoint here>, each interpret Scripture to suit their point of view. That is a fact. The ignorance I was referring to relates to biology and animal behaviour rather than theology, specifically the example of canine masturbatory behaviour, which was used to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin.  And as I said, if I held a religious belief that was going to offend my family, or my co-workers, or my wife in bed, I'd seriously ask myself why I held that belief. (I also can't help wondering why the religiose are so fixated with what goes on in other people's beds!) Anyway, I wasn't referring to you regarding religious opinions that may be offensive but I am now curious as to why you thought that. I will skim through what you've said in the past to see what it might have been!
63	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:41AM Yikes! Got busy for a couple of days and came back to a board with well over 100 new posts! Fascinating discussion--here's my two cents worth that hopefully somewhat clarifies my take on the subject. Scripture is, indeed, straightforward regarding the purpose and role of sex in loving, bonded, faithful heterosexual relationships, from Genesis to the words of Jesus: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." --Genesis 2:24 I like this passage from the OT for its further clarity regarding God's purpose: "Has not the one God made you? You belong to Him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth." --Malachi 2:15 The words of Jesus: "Pharisees came up to (Jesus) and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” --Matthew 19:3-6	Aaaahh. Here we go again with the Bible interpretations.  All well and good, but the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin have a different interpretation. Typically they will tell that whatever the Bible says may have been appropriate thousands of years ago, but not today. For example... commandments not to ear mixed fibres, or stoning women to death for adultery and so on.
64	Several other passages support sex as only between a man and a woman and only within marriage. In the continuation of the excerpt from Matthew, Jesus goes on to condemn divorce further, stating that marrying a divorced person or marrying if one is divorced is an act of adultery!	This proves the point that the Bible is not always appropriate. Jesus concerns divorce but most 21st Christians are OK with divorce. So why not apply the same logic to gay marriage?
65	Likewise, sexual practices that are not part of a loving familial context are condemned--whether such practices involve homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, incest, or other matters referred to as "perversions" and even include lustful intent: "he who looks at another in lust commits adultery." Presumably fetishes and other sexual practices and proclivities which would interfere with loving relationships between a husband and wife could be added as well.	It is a common tactic by the anti-gay community to put homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality and incest. And notice the assumption that homosexual "sexual practice" is not part of a "loving familial context". The bias and bigotry is clear.
66	Get the picture? Are any of us in a position to throw stones at anyone else when it comes to violating God's perfect plan and perfect will? I'm certainly not!! Singling out homosexuality for condemnation while giving--say--divorce and remarriage or "looking at others in lust" a wink and a nod is not being consistent with what Scripture actually states! Furthermore, as Jesus makes clear, even if one is guilty of sin--as we all are--we are still to treat each other with love, and as the title of the thread states "love the sin and not the sinner!"	Actually I don't get the picture at all. One minute it's wrong to throw stones, the previous minute stones were being thrown by the bucketful!
67	There is also the issue of culpability depending on one's circumstance. Just as one's involuntary attention to the sexual attractiveness of another does not become a matter of sin unless or until one chooses to indulge such, there is the question of whether those with a particular unusual sexual proclivity are born that way or develop that proclivity through choice. One cannot fault another who just isn't genetically disposed to the type of sexual attraction leading to procreation and loving families and expect them to "perform" or "function" in that way. Of course, if one develops such proclivities through personally choosing to indulge such--whatever those proclivities might be--it would be a different matter and involve culpability.	What does "indulge" mean I wonder?  And I see the old chestnut about "choosing" has crept it. I wonder when the Apologist chose to be straight?
68	So the long and the short of it on my take on the matter: yes, homosexuality is outside of God's will if undertaken voluntarily, as are any of the other practices which would interfere with a loving and faithful relationship between a man and a woman and their ability to procreate and raise a loving family--but that's in the abstract. What of those physically unable to either sexually perform or procreate in those circumstances? What of infertility? Spousal abandonment? Forced marriage? Early exposure to incidents which would warp one's ability to form healthy, loving, bonding, procreative heterosexual relationships? There are a host of issues that need addressing from a consistent overall moral perspective in accordance with God's will. That's why I believe it is so important for Christians to come together and seek clarity on all of these issues and how to respond to such consistently through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit!	Long and the short? Rather, the long and the long!!  But interesting to know that homosexuality is OK if it's not voluntary!! I suspect most Christians will eventually realise there's nothing wrong with being gay, in the same way as they used to oppose mixed race marriages.  Having said all that, there is a much easier way of looking at this...
69	Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:45AM Alternatively, we can just accept that what consenting adults do in private is none of our business.
70	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 1:30AM That would ignore the absolutely vital role that healthy, loving, procreative families need to play in perpetuating any society! One of the glaringly obvious problems faced by those societies which have discarded and/or denigrated valuing such and become too "secularized" is that they no longer reproduce at rates necessary to sustain those societies--and that is true of many societies all over the globe! Undoubtedly it was true of various cultures throughout history that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons unrelated to apparent violence! Undoubtedly it is also true of most societies in Europe and other Western nations and cultures in the present era!	What?! Where on earth did that theory come from! Did ancient cultures disappear because they were too gay?  LOL
71	Even if there are those who cannot form the type of loving, caring, procreative bonds between a man and a woman that lead to ideal environments in which to raise children and afford them the best opportunity to achieve their potential, that is the overall ideal that God calls us to--and given the myriad ways in which we can allow our sex drives to be misdirected and interfere with this vital purpose, Scripture makes strong points in support of focusing our drives toward this purpose. Christians are not (or rather should not be) prudish killjoys as some would portray us to be, but rather fully focused in expressing our drives in the most loving, caring, and constructive way--and these values ought to be given societal support as well!	Once again - I'm baffled why the overtly religious are so obsessed with sex.
72	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 6:42AM Jesus said nothing about homosexuality & the Bible does not address loving & commited relationships between people of the same gender. There is a lot more knowledge about such relationships now than there was in Biblical times. It has been my privilege to know gay people who have been together with one partner longer than than heterosexual married couples we know. They have been there to support my wife & I when needed, and we have been there for them. If that is not a part of God's overall plan, I can't imagine what is. I also guess my wife & I don't fit into God's "perfect" plan either according your reading of scripture because for some very good reasons, we decided not to have or raise children.
73	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:10AM exactly and there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that Jesus himself may have been gay, but that's another topic, IMHO it is far more likely he was married with a family, but the bible also fails to mention that either
74	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:48AM It's odd that Jesus is used as a role model by some Christians, given his own family situation as described in the Bible (which as you rightly point out may not have been the reality). Perhaps Jesus felt families were irrelevant given His belief in an impending apocalypse. He specifically stated His followers should leave their families behind. And I see the argument that homosexual parents cannot provide an “ideal environment in which to raise children.” has also crept into the thread!  Also, I can't help thinking that if the religiose just accepted that what consenting adults do in private is none of their business, they'd have one less thing to worry about and would no longer have to jump through hermeneutical hoops to rationalise their Biblical interpretations. I thought the argument that secular societies will not be sustained unless they reproduce at a faster rate was quite extraordinary - I wonder where that idea came from? It seems to contradict Christian arguments about abortion rates.
75	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist on 11 Mar 2015 at 3:42PM You are clueless on the matter of "consenting" adults and what they do in private. It's not about what two adults do in private. If it was kept private, who'd know. But the LGBT crowd has brought it out for public witness and they demand political and social acceptance which you know very well. And it's not just about the LGBT. It's LGBTX. They keep coming up with new sexual orientations. In some states, if you're a boy but you claim to identify as a girl, they must, by law, allow you to use the girl's bathroom. A woman was recently kicked out of a fitness club for complaining that a man was in the girl's locker room. When she complained, she was told he identified as a woman and he would be allowed to use the girl's locker room - period. The woman complained to fellow female members and was banned from the facility as a result. So stop with the false narrative about "consenting adults do in private." It's a much bigger picture and people who object to such things have a right to voice those objections.	Actually I know quite a lot about what consenting  adults do in private! It does seem the Creationist is not a fan of the LGBT movement... and relying on proof by anecdote is a bit lame. Oh well.
76	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 5:13PM The question remains unanswered - if the private lives of consenting adults is not the sin, then exactly is the sin that is to be hated? How can you hate the sin if you can't define it?
77	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:28AM I can define it. But you don't even understand the bigger picture. You don't even know the proper question to ask!!! That is because you are confused as to the real issue. BTW, I never gave my opinion on the statement "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I have a lot of thoughts on that but the discussion never really went that way. You introduced the silly notion about the animal kingdom and homosexuality (displaying your ignorance on animal behavior). Your question to me is not in the context of our discussions in the first place!	Classic political dodging... "You don't know the proper question to ask" And how odd that he has a lot of thoughts on the topic but refuses to discuss the topic.
78	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:50AM It seems to me if you could define it you would have defined it by now. But never mind. Also, I think it's a pity you choose not to comment on the specific topic, when you have lots of thoughts on the topic. You are depriving us of your wisdom which we could perhaps learn from.  p.s. your assertion that I introduced animals into the discussion is factually incorrect.
79	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM lol I have been sharing some of my thoughts as the topic progressed. For it I was told I was insensitive and homophobic.  It certainty wasn't me introducing the idea that the animal kingdom demonstrates the legitimacy of homosexuality in humans. You at least defended that silly notion.	I don't think he was accused of being homophobic because he shared his thoughts.  And why is he saying I said stuff I didn't say?
80	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:10PM I did not say that the animal kingdom demonstrates the legitimacy of homosexuality in humans. I said homosexuality in other species is not a myth because it's been observed - but even if it hadn't - there are many behaviours that are not seen in every species so it wouldn't matter if homosexuality was unique to humans.  The natural vs unnatural argument is irrelevant. The homosexuality "sin" argument is a moral argument. A natural thing can be moral or immoral. Similarly, an unnatural thing can be morel or immoral. You can't demonstrate something is moral or immoral on the basis of it being natural or unnatural.
81	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:47PM Your right you didn't bring it up.  My bad. Your right the "behavior" I has been observed. But behavior and orientation are two different things. The label given the observed behavior is wrong. Dogs hump. It's instinctive. Not an observed homosexual act. A female dog will hump. There's a video making the rounds where a little dog is playing with a toy and the she/he begins to hump it. Over and over. Is there a word ford that? Oh yeah. It's called instinct.	The label given to dogs humping is masturbation. What is he talking about?
82	Morality doesn't exist if there is no God	Hahaha!
83	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:03PM If the dog's behaviour is sexually driven then the label for the activity you describe is "masturbation". As you say, it's instinctive and instincts play a crucial role in behaviour. Generally, the more complex the animal's neural system, the lesser the role of instinct and the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and social learning. But I really don't see how you can form an argument relevant to the morality of homosexuality based on what dogs do when they are sexually frustrated and I have to say your apparent fixation with canine masturbatory behaviour is, frankly, starting to get a bit disturbing!  As for your morality assertion, it's a fact that morality exists, but it's not a fact that God exists.
84	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM I've never been called a homophobe (because it's totally untrue but when one can't defend his arguments, name calling will do). If someone wants to stoop that low, then perhaps they need to ignore my posts.   I have no respect for those that call others such things as homophobes or racists or sexists and any other such nonsense. If you don't like a person's position on a matter, don't read what they have to say.	But you were told to crawl into your homophobic box (see line 56)
85	Ultimately, this discussion has nothing to do with the act of homosexuality as an exclusive sin. Because as you well know, it's not exclusive. In fact, the foundational issue has little to do with same-sex sexual relations. It has to do with sexual purity. And the same rules (God's law or demand if you will) apply to me in the same way they apply to the homosexual. I can't engage in any heterosexual act I choose just because I have the desire to do so and was "born that way." I'm under the same expectation to live a life of purity. So ANY act that falls outside of God's standard for sexual purity is in the SAME sin camp. I think you'd agree with that. This is the fact that the secularists fail to understand.	Actually it has everything to do with the act of homosexuality. Unless one wants to evade the subject! Perhaps if we try a simple example, he can answer that...
86	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:41AM You can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose? That does make sense if it's for reasons of consent, but it would be a pity, in my opinion, if that restriction was imposed on you and your partner by your religion. Anyway, back to the topic at hand (so to speak)... I'm still trying to understand what the sin is that we are supposed to be hating. I think you've made it clear that what consenting adults do in private is not the point, so it would help me if we could explore the concept by means of examples. So... 1) Dave is gay but doesn't tell anyone and lives with his parents. He is celibate. 2) Dave is gay, tells his parents, leaves home, becomes a priest and lives alone with his housekeeper for company. He is celibate. 3) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. They are both celibate. 4) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. Their relationship is platonic (i.e. affectionate but not sexual). ...I will stop there for now - but I'd be grateful if you could let me know at which point Dave has crossed the Sin line (if at all).
87	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:37AM You simply don't get it. You know so very little about the Christian faith. I'm actually surprised that you are this confused. Either you are playing dumb to what I mean or you really are that ignorant.   We were on topic.	I don't think it's me that's confused!
88	I already explained that since I never voiced an opinion on the "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase you can't question me about it as if I had shared my views.	I think it makes sense to ask some about their opinion on a topic when they've contributed to a discussion on the topic.
89	Your question on Dave is silly. I can articulate the biblical principle that underlies it all but I won't chase after your silly questions. Get serious.	In which case, apply the principle to answer the question!
90	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:20PM Are you able to explain why you can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose? Is it for reasons of consent (which is the right reason in my opinion) or are you and your partner restricted by your religious beliefs? The reason I ask is because I wonder if there is consensus among Christians about which heterosexual acts are sinful and which are not.
91	It's a pity you can't answer the Dave question. I think it's quite straightforward: 1) Dave has not sinned 2) Dave has not sinned 3) Dave has not sinned 4) Dave has not sinned ...agreed?
92	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:40PM You misunderstand. I can engage in any act my wife and I agree to. I mean I can't go outside the covenant of marriage for it. That would sin against God, my wife, the other, and my own body.	Well that sounds like a reference to adultery - rather than "sex acts"
93	I can answer the dave question. But the question itself misses the point. Purity isn't a set of do's and don'ts	No you can't!
94	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:52PM Ah I see... when you said you can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose just because you have the desire to do so and was "born that way", what you meant was you can't commit adultery. I think many people, including me, would agree with that regardless of their sexual orientation, because it's an abuse of trust.  I'm not sure why you avoid the Dave question, but that's your prerogative of course.