The world is happy as long as we keep 'religion' private...
But once we bring our faith to the place where the rubber meets the road, where politics or ethics or national issues are discussed... where it actually affects the way we live, we can expect to be some opposition ('contra mundum')
A sign of how 'modern' our society really is can be seen in how public discourse is taking place in Malaysia. If a religious scripture is quoted, it would be met with a shrug and the usual 'That's just your interpretation'.
But if it's a scientific research, it would be welcomed as 'absolute truth'.
For example, this comment that our behaviour is determined by our biology was posted in the Agora
In NST, a Malaysian doctor similarly wrote to defend an in-born biological factor causing transsexualism here. (Thanks, discordant dude for pointing it out)
How can we respond?
Challenge the scientific findings? It's possible, but most of us dunno the jargons or dun have the know-how. So unless we are experts, it's probably not a great idea.
I think laypersons like us have easier and better options
1) Question the interpretation of the data.
There was a recent study conducted on taxi drivers in London, which found that a region of their brains is bigger than the general population.
Now how do we interpret that data? Does the size of that region in their brains 'determine' or 'cause' them to be taxi drivers?
Or does their 'behavior' of driving around the city (which presumably require more coordination skills) cause that region in their brains to be larger?
Similarly, is the size of region X in the brain a CAUSE or EFFECT of homosexuality or transsexuality? Many scientific findings are inconclusive here.
We are not against the findings of science but just pointing out the need for tentativeness and humility not to over-extrapolate scientific descriptions into moral prescriptions here.
2) What if further research shows conclusively tat there is a biological factor that results in a tendency towards homosexuality or transsexuality?
"Biological abnormalities and psychological disorders" could well be results of the Fall.
Contrary to common opinion, I think discovering a biological 'tendency' has no bearing to justify whether a behaviour is moral or immoral...
Just bcos some testerone-induced, male heterosexuals may 'naturally' feel inclined to grope female pedestrians doesn't mean they are morally entitled to do it..
Or if we discover a pathological killer gene, it doesn't follow that it's ok to murder. Morality often calls us to choose against what we 'naturally' want to do.
Biological (nature) and societal factors (nurture) are VERY important in the development of gender identity, sure. But we are not helpless robots pre-programmed by nature or environment.
We could all choose how to live.
Yet there is redemption and restoration in the person of Christ and His people, the church who is called to represent Him in extending help, love and truth.
The bible teaches that all sinners should be treated with compassion, and when they repent, be restored to 'community with God'. (which is not condoning sin)
There is help available:
Real Love Ministry
Pursuing Liberty With Christ
Exodus Asia
Exodus Global
But once we bring our faith to the place where the rubber meets the road, where politics or ethics or national issues are discussed... where it actually affects the way we live, we can expect to be some opposition ('contra mundum')
A sign of how 'modern' our society really is can be seen in how public discourse is taking place in Malaysia. If a religious scripture is quoted, it would be met with a shrug and the usual 'That's just your interpretation'.
But if it's a scientific research, it would be welcomed as 'absolute truth'.
For example, this comment that our behaviour is determined by our biology was posted in the Agora
One study looked at the brains of heterosexual males, homosexual females, and transexuals. What did they find? In the transexuals, a region, called BSTc, was found to match that found in females, and was clearly different from the same region in the males, both straight and gay. This shows that the transexual brain is more along the lines of the female rather than male.
In NST, a Malaysian doctor similarly wrote to defend an in-born biological factor causing transsexualism here. (Thanks, discordant dude for pointing it out)
How can we respond?
Challenge the scientific findings? It's possible, but most of us dunno the jargons or dun have the know-how. So unless we are experts, it's probably not a great idea.
I think laypersons like us have easier and better options
1) Question the interpretation of the data.
There was a recent study conducted on taxi drivers in London, which found that a region of their brains is bigger than the general population.
Now how do we interpret that data? Does the size of that region in their brains 'determine' or 'cause' them to be taxi drivers?
Or does their 'behavior' of driving around the city (which presumably require more coordination skills) cause that region in their brains to be larger?
Similarly, is the size of region X in the brain a CAUSE or EFFECT of homosexuality or transsexuality? Many scientific findings are inconclusive here.
We are not against the findings of science but just pointing out the need for tentativeness and humility not to over-extrapolate scientific descriptions into moral prescriptions here.
2) What if further research shows conclusively tat there is a biological factor that results in a tendency towards homosexuality or transsexuality?
"Biological abnormalities and psychological disorders" could well be results of the Fall.
Contrary to common opinion, I think discovering a biological 'tendency' has no bearing to justify whether a behaviour is moral or immoral...
Just bcos some testerone-induced, male heterosexuals may 'naturally' feel inclined to grope female pedestrians doesn't mean they are morally entitled to do it..
Or if we discover a pathological killer gene, it doesn't follow that it's ok to murder. Morality often calls us to choose against what we 'naturally' want to do.
Biological (nature) and societal factors (nurture) are VERY important in the development of gender identity, sure. But we are not helpless robots pre-programmed by nature or environment.
We could all choose how to live.
Yet there is redemption and restoration in the person of Christ and His people, the church who is called to represent Him in extending help, love and truth.
The bible teaches that all sinners should be treated with compassion, and when they repent, be restored to 'community with God'. (which is not condoning sin)
There is help available:
Real Love Ministry
Pursuing Liberty With Christ
Exodus Asia
Exodus Global
Comments
"A masterful guide to human development that redefines the nature versus nurture debate
A much-needed antidote to genetic determinism, "The Dependent Gene reveals how all traits-even characteristics like eye and hair color-are caused by complex interactions between genes and the environment at every stage of biological and psychological development, from the single fertilized egg to full-grown adulthood.
How we understand the nature versus nurture debate directly affects our thoughts about such basic issues as sex and reproduction, parenting, education, and crime, and has an enormous impact on social policy. With life-and-death questions in the balance surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and DNA fingerprinting, we can no longer afford to be ignorant of human development. An enlightening guide to this brave new world, "The Dependent Gene empowers us to take control of our own destiny."