Why is homosexuality wrong?

Greatest I Am · Post by **Greatest I Am** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:44 pm

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:14 am

[Replying to post 1377 by DefenderofTruth]

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria.

https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/t ... laims.html

Ergo your example statements are still subjective as they are a reflection of belief and opinion and cannot be proven true or false just like the example I gave.

What you are trying to say is 2+2=X and 2+2=y are objective statements where xâ‰ y. Only one statement is correct yet it remains undetermined as to which one is. So anyone making a claim to the veracity of either one of these statements is making a subjective statement based on their belief of x or y.

If you could show the value of x or y then you could make an objective statement.

The article you cite more or less agrees with my posts and goes into a deeper nuance.

enviousintheeverafter · Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:14 pm

DefenderofTruth wrote: Maybe if someone said something like "evolution is a bad way to describe change in species" it would be subjective, because the word "bad" is completely subjective. But if we are investigating evolution and its mechanisms, and one person might say "evolution works by an undirected process", and another might say "evolution works by a directed process", these statements are both objective statements about an objective subject. Just because they go against each other and both can't be true doesn't make it a subjective subject. It is irrelevant to whether they believe it or not that evolution might be a directed or undirected process, their personal beliefs about how evolution works is irrelevant to to if its true or not.

Yep. Whether something is objective depends on whether it refers to some fact, some subject-invariant state of affairs. Whether evolution is teleological- guided by some purpose or goal, enacted by a purposeful agent- is indeed an assertion of an objective matter of fact; that isn't to say it is true (all evidence suggests evolution is not so directed), or even that we presently have the means to determine whether it is true or false. But it is certainly an objective claim- and the "evolution is bad" example is a good case of a subjective claim; a statement of preference or value, what is good/bad, what one likes/dislikes, etc.

Now if they said "evolution is a bad way to explain change in species", that becomes a subjective statement which is based off of personal belief. It is his/her personal belief that evolution is a 'bad' way to explain something.

Whether someone believes something doesn't really change whether it is objective or subjective- that Paris is the capital of France is an objective matter of fact, and yet, most people also believe it. Same for mathematical truths. And many other trivial, objective truths; they aren't subjective simply because people believe them. What matters is the content of the belief- is it about some state of affairs in the world, does it assert that things are a certain way? Or does it assert a valuation, a matter of preference or taste?

So if there is disputes about the factual nature of something, that does not mean it is then therefor subjective like you suggested.

Agreed. Else there could be no such thing as a factual dispute; if my friend and I disagree that the restaurant is 3 blocks away or 4, we disagree as to what the facts are. But the restaurant can't be both 3 and 4 blocks away, so one of is (objectively) right and one of us (objectively) wrong. Disagreement doesn't imply subjectivity.

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:46 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1377 by DefenderofTruth]

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria.
https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/t ... laims.html

Ergo your example statements are still subjective as they are a reflection of belief and opinion and cannot be proven true or false just like the example I gave.

What you are trying to say is 2+2=X and 2+2=y are objective statements where xâ‰ y. Only one statement is correct yet it remains undetermined as to which one is. So anyone making a claim to the veracity of either one of these statements is making a subjective statement based on their belief of x or y.

If you could show the value of x or y then you could make an objective statement.

The article you cite more or less agrees with my posts and goes into a deeper nuance.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Look, the article even gives an example of an "objective statement" as

"Five plus four equals ten."(Butte College, "Objective and Subjective Claims", butte.edu)

Even though it is the wrong answer that doesn't make it a subjective statement. So 2+2=x and 2+2=y, where xâ‰ y. They are still both objective statements.

Now, that would be different is someone said "I think 5+4=10", then it would be a subjective statement because it is derived from opinion. Just like if someone said "I think Jesus is the Son of God", that is subjective because it is based on a persons opinion. But that is not the same as saying "Jesus is the Son of God", which is an objective statement. Even if you "think" that is based on an opinion doesn't make it an objective statement because it is not talking about an opinion but instead is talking about the factual nature of Christ.

You need to understand objective vs subjective statements better. You can't just deem something subjective because you don't think its true and therefor conclude it is subjective. Even if it is false, and even if it is based on 'opinion', the statement "evolution works by directed processes", that is still a statement about the factual matter of evolution and is not a statement about the opinion of a person. Even if ultimately it was diverted on "opinion" (which philosophically, everything might be based on peoples own opinions), it is still an objective statement. We could go on to say that everything a person believes in their own opinion, but an objective statement is still and objective statement.

The main point though is that it is possible for objective statements to be wrong... You say it is only an "opinion" if the statement if false... That because it is a false or unknown conclusion then therefor that make it subjective. That is just wrong, an objective statement is a statement about the factual nature of something and a subjective statement is about someones opinion. We recognize the different between the two from the statement itself and not from the truth of the claim.

So An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false.(Butte College, "Objective and Subjective Claims", butte.edu)

And historical matters have their own 'recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false".

If Christ can't be proven to be the "Son of God", the statement "Christ is the Son of God" is still an objective statement. In fact we could scrutinize the entire past if we wanted to, and the historical aspects of it, you can't just say the entire past is subjective because people can disagree on the factual/historical matters of the past. That is because the past is not subjective, only your belief about the past is subjective. And just because you might believe something historical to be true or false, that does not make the past subjective because the past is not determined on what you believe but instead on what actually happened.

Thats the entire point dude, anything that is not dependent on your opinion is objective and anything that is dependent on your opinion is subjective. It is frustrating debating this subject, which is relatively easy to understand, with someone who doesn't understand it.

Past events are not determined on what we "believe" happened, but instead on what really happened. The past itself is objective because it actually happened. It is not determined by what any one person believes about it, but instead by what actually happened.
__________________________________

I want to note again that anything that is not dependent on your opinion is objective and anything that is dependent on your opinion is subjective. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't even care to debate this further with you...

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:06 pm

[Replying to post 1380 by DefenderofTruth]

Yes, I get that I am talking about unknown variables. Stuff that cannot be proven as factual. 5+4=11 is talking about something that can be proven 2+2=x and 2+2=y where x /= y is an unprovable statement hence it's subjectivity.

Here is a simple way can you prove that evolution is guided by a divine hand? If you can its objective if you can't it's subjective. An objective statement is provable.

In 5+4=11 all you have to do is add up the numbers it is provable. In the statement, evolution is genetic variation over time in a population you can prove that by taking genetic samples of the parents and offspring. Your statements were statements about something that is inherently not provable. That is the essential difference, I am pointing out. I think there was some miscommunication earlier when I thought we were discussing objective truth in which case there is only one objectively true statement vs objective claims.

Which if we bring it back to the earlier discussion about god being objective or the scriptures being objective. The issue is that there are unprovable statements made in scripture any beliefs opinions etc held on them remain subjective because of the unprovability. When you say Jesus is the son of god and that's a fact, I say is that provable? If you can't prove it then it can't be an objective fact.

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:56 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1380 by DefenderofTruth]

Yes, I get that I am talking about unknown variables. Stuff that cannot be proven as factual. 5+4=11 is talking about something that can be proven 2+2=x and 2+2=y where x /= y is an unprovable statement hence it's subjectivity.

Here is a simple way can you prove that evolution is guided by a divine hand? If you can its objective if you can't it's subjective. An objective statement is provable.

In 5+4=11 all you have to do is add up the numbers it is provable. In the statement, evolution is genetic variation over time in a population you can prove that by taking genetic samples of the parents and offspring. Your statements were statements about something that is inherently not provable. That is the essential difference, I am pointing out. I think there was some miscommunication earlier when I thought we were discussing objective truth in which case there is only one objectively true statement vs objective claims.

Which if we bring it back to the earlier discussion about god being objective or the scriptures being objective. The issue is that there are unprovable statements made in scripture any beliefs opinions etc held on them remain subjective because of the unprovability. When you say Jesus is the son of god and that's a fact, I say is that provable? If you can't prove it then it can't be an objective fact.

Sure if it is provable then it is an objective "fact". But saying "Christ is the Son of God" is an objective "statement" (if not a "fact" from a Holy God which is what Christianity teaches), But it certainly is not a subjective "statement". And in fact it is similar to many historical inquiries, you are still not getting to the fundamental idea of "subjectivity" and "objectivity"... Provable or not, that is not what makes a statement objective or subjective.

What makes something "objective" is that it is not dependent on your opinion, or anyones opinion, and what makes something "subjective" is that it is dependent on someones opinion.

The literal, historical, factual, past is not dependent on our opinions, therefor it is objective. But your own personal view on the past can be subjective to what you know about the past...

get it?

Even if a statement is wrong about the past, that doesn't mean it is subjective. And even if we can't "prove" an event in the past (by who's standards anyways? Historians can't prove anything in the past except what "most probably happened") that doesn't make it subjective. You are not understanding the root of the words... You are interchanging "objective" and "subjective" with "true" and "false"... That is not what the words mean!

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:04 pm

[Replying to post 1382 by DefenderofTruth]

The literal, historical, factual, past is not dependent on your opinion, therefor it is objective. But your own personal view on the past can be subjective to what you know about the past...

Red = corrected typo( correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that the historical factual past is not dependent on opinion. But your claim Jesus is the son of god is subjective to opinion. He very well could be the son of god but that is neither her nor there as it comes to the claim since your claim is unprovable. It is not a historical fact that Jesus was the son of god that is your opinion based on your view of scripture. A statement like Jesus existed or Jesus did not exist is more of an objective claim. Jesus the character is an objective historical fact, from which objective and subjective claims can be made.

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false.

It has to be provable for it to be an objective claim? Can you prove Jesus was the son of god?

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:16 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 1382 by DefenderofTruth]

The literal, historical, factual, past is not dependent on your opinion, therefor it is objective. But your own personal view on the past can be subjective to what you know about the past...
Red = corrected typo( correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that the historical factual past is not dependent on opinion. But your claim Jesus is the son of god is subjective to opinion. He very well could be the son of god but that is neither her nor there as it comes to the claim since your claim is unprovable. It is not a historical fact that Jesus was the son of god that is your opinion based on your view of scripture. A statement like Jesus existed or Jesus did not exist is more of an objective claim. Jesus the character is an objective historical fact, from which objective and subjective claims can be made.

Yes...reread what i typed, i always make corrections and sometimes i elaborate on my posted comments... But saying "Christ is the Son of God" is objective... This is where you are missing the point of objectivity and subjectivity... I can only assume you are missing the point because of your own views about the subject... remove yourself... saying "Jesus Christ is a real man" is just as objective as saying "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"(hence the word "is").. The critical factor is that these statements are not based on opinion (or rather dependent on opinion) like saying "I think Jesus Christ is the Son of God"... Then that would be a subjective statement...

And i would like to point out (like my elaboration in my last post) that Historians can't prove anything in the past except what "most probably happened"... Thats what historians go by, that doesn't make it subjective...

DefenderofTruth · Post by **DefenderofTruth** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:18 pm

[Replying to post 1383 by DanieltheDragon]

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false.
It has to be provable for it to be an objective claim? Can you prove Jesus was the son of god?

You are wrong... something that is provable doesn't make it objective. They said that because they were talking about the factual nature that is apart from opinion...

THATS NOT WHAT OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE MEANS it has nothing to do with "proof" that makes it objective. What they were commenting on was the factual nature of objectivity...

You are interchanging "objective" and "subjective" with "true" and "false" (respectively)... That is not what the words mean!

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:01 pm

[Replying to post 1384 by DefenderofTruth]
Objective

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Facts

something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

I am talking about provability. Not true or false. Take true and false out of it, I am talking about a claims provability. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is true or false. Jesus is the son of god cannot be proven one way or the other, hence the subjectivity of the claim. It cannot be shown to be true or false. Objective claims can be shown to be true or false.

Yes there can be false objective claims but they are still provable. Facts are provable, they are not unprovable. The claim about a fact can be true or false be we can prove the validity of it.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:05 pm

[Replying to post 1384 by DefenderofTruth]

The critical factor is that these statements are not based on opinion

What is the statement Jesus is the son of god based on then? What is the underlying support for this claim? Please feel free to explain this.