Those Pesky Scientists Just Keep Closing Those Gaps

[KramitDaToad 0]

Gay brains have different structuresAs far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay - Dr Qazi Rahman Queen Mary, University of Londonand...Hints of time before the Big Bang?

[Loismustdie 0]

Gay brains have different structuresAs far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay - Dr Qazi Rahman Queen Mary, University of Londonand...Hints of time before the Big Bang?

I think it would be great if there were two types of gays, those who choose and those who didn't, and those who didn't/couldn't were just given a pass because they are a defective product. Like a faulty IPOD that you return to Best Buy or something. Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way, it's in there DNA. Of course, only he could make that decision. "Oh, you thought your desire to design clothes meant you should suck dick? Oh, no, you were supposed to be a clothes designer. Done." EDIT: BTW, hopefully people recognize that- aww, **** it. If you don't know I am joking, you don't know me. EDIT EDIT: BT....really, this would be cool."My fellow queen,you get a pass because you are defective." "What, girlfriend?" "You are defective. Enter heaven, my child. " "What, you mean like I am retarded or something?" "Well, up here we like to say developmentally challenged, but, if you must be crude on the cusp of entering the pearly gates, yeah, retarded." Long silence as the queen tries to figure out if accepting being called retarded is worth it.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think it would be great if there were two types of gays, those who choose and those who didn't, and those who didn't/couldn't were just given a pass because they are a defective product. Like a faulty IPOD that you return to Best Buy or something. Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way, it's in there DNA. Of course, only he could make that decision. "Oh, you thought your desire to design clothes meant you should suck dick? Oh, no, you were supposed to be a clothes designer. Done."

This sentence seems to disagree with the rest of your post. I'm assuming that I misread it, because I disagree with the bolded part.

[vbnautilus 48]

Gay brains have different structuresAs far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay - Dr Qazi Rahman Queen Mary, University of London

I just read the study in PNAS. It's interesting, but Rahman's quote is an incredible overstatement, and quite an absurd thing to say really. There's essentially two findings in the study. The first has to do with cerebral asymmetry, where the homosexual men showed female-like asymmetries and homosexual women had a male pattern. One methodological issue is that they classify all subjects as right-handed but don't report how this was determined, or how strongly right-handed they were. Handedness varies continuously (saying right-handed is not enough), is strongly related to hemispheric differences, and also varies between gay and straight populations, so this is a big issue. Does cerebral asymmetry indicate something originating before birth? Possibly, but that is far from a settled issue. We know know that cerebral volumes can change throughout the lifespan (a good example is a study of london cab drivers who grew larger hippocampal volume as they became more expert at the streets) so unless you show that this asymmetry is there at birth it really has nothing to do with the origins of homosexuality, and more to do with the correlates of homosexuality. Same thing goes for the other finding, which was the pattern of functional connectivity with the amygdala. This is even more likely to be plastic and change according to use.Edit: Even if these neural traits are there at birth, we have no evidence that they actually play a role in sexual orientation. So they could provide for a set of social traits that are related but not determinant of sexuality for example.

[Loismustdie 0]

This sentence seems to disagree with the rest of your post. I'm assuming that I misread it, because I disagree with the bolded part.

Then you would be wrong. Do you really think God looks at say, somebody with a handicap that leaves them virtually unable to choose right and wrong, unable to function in society, and they were LITERALLY born that way, you really think God holds that person to the same standard as you and I? No. Technically, they can do sinful actions but they are still innocent, they are born without the capability to realize what they are doing is wrong, they just do it. Perpetually innocent. That being said, would a lesbian or homosexual be able to accept that idea, that they are flawed and a defective product? I'm not saying that's the case, but would that be okay with the community at large?

[Sal Paradise 57]

Then you would be wrong. Do you really think God looks at say, somebody with a handicap that leaves them virtually unable to choose right and wrong, unable to function in society, and they were LITERALLY born that way, you really think God holds that person to the same standard as you and I? No. Technically, they can do sinful actions but they are still innocent, they are born without the capability to realize what they are doing is wrong, they just do it. Perpetually innocent. That being said, would a lesbian or homosexual be able to accept that idea, that they are flawed and a defective product? I'm not saying that's the case, but would that be okay with the community at large?

but if they're born that way, that they're attracted to the same sex, but without any other handicaps of any kind, wouldn't they still be able to know that god doesn't want them to be homosexual? seems to me that if someone is born homosexual, the only thing that changes or is different is what sex they're attracted to. it wouldn't really interfere in their decision making. I know what you mean about the handicap thing but isn't this quite a bit different?and no I'm not trying to bait you into anything, just thinking out loud myself.

[El Guapo 8]

A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists

If they are going to make stuff up, they should start with a better fake name for an institute.

[Loismustdie 0]

but if they're born that way, that they're attracted to the same sex, but without any other handicaps of any kind, wouldn't they still be able to know that god doesn't want them to be homosexual? seems to me that if someone is born homosexual, the only thing that changes or is different is what sex they're attracted to. it wouldn't really interfere in their decision making. I know what you mean about the handicap thing but isn't this quite a bit different?and no I'm not trying to bait you into anything, just thinking out loud myself.

I'm just thinking out loud as well. What if the retardation- which is just a brain abnormality that manifests itself in physical ways when you break it down- what if the retardation is so severe they literally cannot see the wrong, it is just impossible. God could give them a pass- he could just say,"Not your fault, you are defective." The question is how would that sit withe gay community? I would imagine they would not agree with Gods assessment-"I am not retarded, I do as I please!!" The question then is,"Really? So this is your choice?" And, we are back where we started. This scenario could be played out for every sin. Somebody could claim they were born that way, and God could say,"That's true, you are a genetic mistake. Your mother was a crack addict, your father was a child molester, and you were born demon seed. You are physically wrong, your defective. I apologize, enter the gates." It's an interesting slope to say the least.

[brvheart 1,752]

Then you would be wrong.

Why do you talk like this? It's a real conversation killer.

Do you really think God looks at say, somebody with a handicap that leaves them virtually unable to choose right and wrong, unable to function in society, and they were LITERALLY born that way, you really think God holds that person to the same standard as you and I? No. Technically, they can do sinful actions but they are still innocent, they are born without the capability to realize what they are doing is wrong, they just do it. Perpetually innocent. That being said, would a lesbian or homosexual be able to accept that idea, that they are flawed and a defective product? I'm not saying that's the case, but would that be okay with the community at large?

1. You spoke earlier in a vast generality... saying, "Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way"... which is unbiblical. Will be not fault sinners who are born that way? What about drunks? Or nymphos? Your statement was ridiculous. 2. Then you spoke specifically about a retarded kid and said, "How dare you brvheart!" 3. Don't you want to have valuable conversations? This is just stupid.

[LadyGrey 6]

The issue with religion and homosexuality has largely been that Christians have viewed homosexuality as a choice. That is why there are institutions and organisations which exist purely to attempt to 'correct' this behaviour. If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is natural/biological rather than optional/psychological, that line of argument is completely disproved. Of course it raises more issues: if babies could be tested for homosexuality it might affect the childhood they receive. The parents might decide to give the child up for adoption because they don't agree with the lifestyle. They might change their parenting style, encouraging the child to embrace traits of the opposite sex in anticipation of the expected outcome, or perhaps more probably do the opposite.It's definitely not politically correct to consider homosexuality a form of abnormality. However in evolutionary terms it seems reasonable to consider it abnormal, as it is natural for humans to pursue reproduction. Scientific findings such as the one in the OP will further complicate these issues.

[Loismustdie 0]

Why do you talk like this? It's a real conversation killer.1. You spoke earlier in a vast generality... saying, "Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way"... which is unbiblical. Will be not fault sinners who are born that way? What about drunks? Or nymphos? Your statement was ridiculous. 2. Then you spoke specifically about a retarded kid and said, "How dare you brvheart!" 3. Don't you want to have valuable conversations? This is just stupid.

Then we literally have a huge gap in our understanding of God and his mercies, and you have a gap in the understanding of this purely hypothetical what if thinking out loud conversation. That being said, God is not cruel he is not without understanding,and sin is not just about knowledge it's also about comprehension. Somebody could, hypothetically, be born with a brain abnormality that hampers there ability to see something, anything, and it would be a pretty harsh being that would actually fault somebody for something which they had absolutely no control over.(and I mean since birth, not as a result of sin. Manson is who he is due to his sin. The kid next door that can lift cars and has seizures is because he was born that way. Is God going to fault him because he crushed a parakeet with his bare hands? How about if he suffocates a child? Where is the sin?) Why would it not make sense that God would have mercy on those who had no choice in the matter?Edit: Also, we are not born sinners, there are no born sinners. It's learned behavior. There is a huge difference.

[Loismustdie 0]

The issue with religion and homosexuality has largely been that Christians have viewed homosexuality as a choice. That is why there are institutions and organisations which exist purely to attempt to 'correct' this behaviour. If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is natural/biological rather than optional/psychological, that line of argument is completely disproved. Of course it raises more issues: if babies could be tested for homosexuality it might affect the childhood they receive. The parents might decide to give the child up for adoption because they don't agree with the lifestyle. They might change their parenting style, encouraging the child to embrace traits of the opposite sex in anticipation of the expected outcome, or perhaps more probably do the opposite.It's definitely not politically correct to consider homosexuality a form of abnormality. However in evolutionary terms it seems reasonable to consider it abnormal, as it is natural for humans to pursue reproduction. Scientific findings such as the one in the OP will further complicate these issues.

My hypothesis is that the gay community at large would rather claim they choose than to be identified as abnormal. It's convenient to claim one has no choice, it absolves one of all responsibility. The real question is, does it matter? I am a part of the christian community and could care less about gay marriage or the gay community, it bothers me as much as shoplifters. People can be who they want on this earth, thank God.

[vbnautilus 48]

The issue with religion and homosexuality has largely been that Christians have viewed homosexuality as a choice. That is why there are institutions and organisations which exist purely to attempt to 'correct' this behaviour. If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is natural/biological rather than optional/psychological, that line of argument is completely disproved.

I just want to add that is likely the issue is much more complex than either of those two extremes (one being it is biologically determined the other being it is a "choice"). There are is a whole world in between 'optional' and 'natural' and so far the evidence lands sexual orientation in this grey zone. It seems more to result from a complex interaction between genetics, perinatal environment, early social experiences and lots of other things. In other words, I'm pretty sure both biology and choice figure into it at some point, and really that distinction is not as real as it seems to begin with.

[Loismustdie 0]

Why do you talk like this? It's a real conversation killer.1. You spoke earlier in a vast generality... saying, "Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way"... which is unbiblical. Will be not fault sinners who are born that way? What about drunks? Or nymphos? Your statement was ridiculous. 2. Then you spoke specifically about a retarded kid and said, "How dare you brvheart!" 3. Don't you want to have valuable conversations? This is just stupid.

BTW, I didn't stop at "you would be wrong" I then told you why, in detail. You should read that part to because that was the actual continuing of the conversation.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

I can't say that I've ever seen a retarded faggot

[Balloon guy 158]

The issue with religion and homosexuality has largely been that Christians have viewed homosexuality as a choice. That is why there are institutions and organisations which exist purely to attempt to 'correct' this behaviour. If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is natural/biological rather than optional/psychological, that line of argument is completely disproved. Of course it raises more issues: if babies could be tested for homosexuality it might affect the childhood they receive. The parents might decide to give the child up for adoption because they don't agree with the lifestyle. They might change their parenting style, encouraging the child to embrace traits of the opposite sex in anticipation of the expected outcome, or perhaps more probably do the opposite.It's definitely not politically correct to consider homosexuality a form of abnormality. However in evolutionary terms it seems reasonable to consider it abnormal, as it is natural for humans to pursue reproduction. Scientific findings such as the one in the OP will further complicate these issues.

How do you feel about the practise in India and China where they abort childen once they confirm they are female?

[checkymcfold 0]

My hypothesis is that the gay community at large would rather claim they choose than to be identified as abnormal. It's convenient to claim one has no choice, it absolves one of all responsibility. The real question is, does it matter? I am a part of the christian community and could care less about gay marriage or the gay community, it bothers me as much as shoplifters. People can be who they want on this earth, thank God.

fwiw, there are large contingents in the glbt community on both sides. the language of "abnormal" is odd, though--neither would call such a genetic/brain structure difference as "abnormal" any more than they would say the same about being born with black skin. "different" would be fine.

[Balloon guy 158]

fwiw, there are large contingents in the glbt community on both sides. the language of "abnormal" is odd, though--neither would call such a genetic/brain structure difference as "abnormal" any more than they would say the same about being born with black skin. "different" would be fine.

So you think blacks are 'different'??

[Sal Paradise 57]

I'm just thinking out loud as well. What if the retardation- which is just a brain abnormality that manifests itself in physical ways when you break it down- what if the retardation is so severe they literally cannot see the wrong, it is just impossible. God could give them a pass- he could just say,"Not your fault, you are defective." The question is how would that sit withe gay community? I would imagine they would not agree with Gods assessment-"I am not retarded, I do as I please!!" The question then is,"Really? So this is your choice?" And, we are back where we started. This scenario could be played out for every sin. Somebody could claim they were born that way, and God could say,"That's true, you are a genetic mistake. Your mother was a crack addict, your father was a child molester, and you were born demon seed. You are physically wrong, your defective. I apologize, enter the gates." It's an interesting slope to say the least.

but the thing is they do have the ability to infer that homosexuality is wrong in gods eyes as you and braveheart have (not trying to argue either way whether it actually is wrong or not, or even wrong biblically which some say is debatable). if there is a gene of some sort, or some sort of genetic cause to homosexuality, it doesn't affect the person's reasoning ability. there are plenty of really smart homos out there. so I mean, to say that they don't have the ability to judge that that one specific thing is wrong doesn't seem too likely to me. what would be nice from this (though it won't happen) though, would be if homosexuality became more "accepted" so to speak in the christian world and therefore they aren't quite as persecuted and whatnot as they are now. we'll see, but I doubt it.also, what is this a freaking bizzarro world where I'm arguing that god still doesn't like gays but lois says he does? must be taking crazy pills.

I can't say that I've ever seen a retarded faggot

you haven't looked hard enough.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Oh, I've looked while hard.

[Loismustdie 0]

So you think blacks are 'different'??

Bwahahahaha. It's fun to watch them toe the line, isn't it?

[Loismustdie 0]

but the thing is they do have the ability to infer that homosexuality is wrong in gods eyes as you and braveheart have (not trying to argue either way whether it actually is wrong or not, or even wrong biblically which some say is debatable). if there is a gene of some sort, or some sort of genetic cause to homosexuality, it doesn't affect the person's reasoning ability. there are plenty of really smart homos out there. so I mean, to say that they don't have the ability to judge that that one specific thing is wrong doesn't seem too likely to me. what would be nice from this (though it won't happen) though, would be if homosexuality became more "accepted" so to speak in the christian world and therefore they aren't quite as persecuted and whatnot as they are now. we'll see, but I doubt it.also, what is this a freaking bizzarro world where I'm arguing that god still doesn't like gays but lois says he does? must be taking crazy pills.you haven't looked hard enough.

It was purely a hypothetical, and just because someone is abnormal doesn't mean they can't be extraordinary in other ways, and they wouldn't have to lack capabilities when it comes to reasoning. Let's go deeper, though. What if it's possible that there is something you could never be because of some sort of abnormality which you are not aware of? Like, let's say you could never, ever, no matter what, see the color purple, yet God made it a requirement that one must see and worship purple to gain access to heaven. What are you to do? You CAN'T. God is a merciful God, he's not going to tax your ass when it is obviously out of your control. It's interesting to look at it from different angles, and I must admit I busted up laughing at the person who said I should just say "different". Splitting hairs like that is awesome. Different, abnormal, whatever. Homosexuality IS accepted in the christian world, a homosexual could go to heaven. He would just have to take up his cross and fight like anyone else, fight his urges, his lusts, etc. It would be hard but it's no different than any other person dealing with a sin that they have a hard time with. Mexico brought up a good point- he has never seen a retarded homosexual. Me either. Now, I do see retarded straights getting frisky at Subway. Makes me wonder if maybe even the handicapped mind knows that a normal relationship would consist of the one that perpetuates the species. I don't have any fake science centers backing my research but I am well funded.

[Loismustdie 0]

Oh, I've looked while hard.

Points for this as well. I have always been a fan of Mexico.

[brvheart 1,752]

The issue with religion and homosexuality has largely been that Christians have viewed homosexuality as a choice. That is why there are institutions and organisations which exist purely to attempt to 'correct' this behaviour. If it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is natural/biological rather than optional/psychological, that line of argument is completely disproved. Of course it raises more issues: if babies could be tested for homosexuality it might affect the childhood they receive. The parents might decide to give the child up for adoption because they don't agree with the lifestyle. They might change their parenting style, encouraging the child to embrace traits of the opposite sex in anticipation of the expected outcome, or perhaps more probably do the opposite.It's definitely not politically correct to consider homosexuality a form of abnormality. However in evolutionary terms it seems reasonable to consider it abnormal, as it is natural for humans to pursue reproduction. Scientific findings such as the one in the OP will further complicate these issues.

I agree that this has historically been a problem. The problem is that it doesn't matter as Shake says perfectly. IF the Bible says it's wrong it doesn't matter if they are born that way or not. If someone is born with alcoholic tendencies God isn't going to be ok if they get drunk. The Bible says to not get drunk. It doesn't matter if it is genetic or not. This is an important issue that the Christian community has really failed in. They seem to condemn the sinner or the gay community, and they should be loving these people. If Jesus were alive today, he would be hanging out in a rainbow t-shirt in the middle of San Francisco... most Christians wouldn't be caught dead there.

Then we literally have a huge gap in our understanding of God and his mercies, and you have a gap in the understanding of this purely hypothetical what if thinking out loud conversation. That being said, God is not cruel he is not without understanding,and sin is not just about knowledge it's also about comprehension. Somebody could, hypothetically, be born with a brain abnormality that hampers there ability to see something, anything, and it would be a pretty harsh being that would actually fault somebody for something which they had absolutely no control over.(and I mean since birth, not as a result of sin. Manson is who he is due to his sin. The kid next door that can lift cars and has seizures is because he was born that way. Is God going to fault him because he crushed a parakeet with his bare hands? How about if he suffocates a child? Where is the sin?) Why would it not make sense that God would have mercy on those who had no choice in the matter?Edit: Also, we are not born sinners, there are no born sinners. It's learned behavior. There is a huge difference.

I may have misunderstood the conversation, but not the issue at hand. I could care absolutely less about what you think the truth is. I ignore everything you say with absolutism and generality, unless you quote a verse that backs up what you say. I take issue with your general statement that "Gods not going to fault somebody who was born a certain way". Now you say that the conversation was purely hypothetical and that's fine, but that sentence as a general statement is incorrect. It may be true in some cases yes, but it is certainly not true in general.Also, I want you to give me a verse that says we are born blameless and sinless. Because you saying it, doesn't make it true. hint: Matthew 18:3 isn't saying what some think it says.Not that you even consider anything other than your own thoughts, but if I wasn't walking with God at all, (and had no desire to walk with him) should anyone listen to my thoughts on doctrine? I don't think they should.

I can't say that I've ever seen a retarded faggot

That's because faggotry is learned and retards can't learn anything. ps. I don't really think this.

but the thing is they do have the ability to infer that homosexuality is wrong in gods eyes as you and braveheart have (not trying to argue either way whether it actually is wrong or not, or even wrong biblically which some say is debatable). if there is a gene of some sort, or some sort of genetic cause to homosexuality, it doesn't affect the person's reasoning ability. there are plenty of really smart homos out there. so I mean, to say that they don't have the ability to judge that that one specific thing is wrong doesn't seem too likely to me. what would be nice from this (though it won't happen) though, would be if homosexuality became more "accepted" so to speak in the christian world and therefore they aren't quite as persecuted and whatnot as they are now. we'll see, but I doubt it.

yes.

[brvheart 1,752]

There are several lines of biblical evidence for the historic Christian doctrine that we are all born into the world with sinful natures, due to the sin of Adam.Scripture says that we are born sinners and that we are by nature sinnersPsalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners--for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.Scripture speaks of humans as unrighteous from infancyThere are also verses which declare that we are all unrighteous from the time that we are born. Proverbs 22:15 says "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child." Genesis 8:21 declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." Jonathon Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: "The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."Humanity is Often Described in General Terms as UnrighteousUnrighteousness is often spoken of in Scripture as something belonging to the human race as a whole.This implies that it is the property of our species. In other words, sinfulness is considered a property of human nature after the fall. Thus, it must be concluded that we are all born sinners, since we are all born human and sin is regarded as a property of humanity. In this vein, consider Ephesians 2:1-3:And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.Paul is here reminding Christians of what they were like before their conversion to Christ ("you were dead in your trespasses...in which you formerly walked"). Thus, all people, until and unless they are converted, are sinners. Paul goes on to make it absolutely clear that all Christians came from this state ("...we to all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh") and that all non-Christians are still in this state ("...and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.") Thus, Scripture regards all people before they are saved by Christ as sinners and thus deserving of punishment from God. Which is to say that from the inception of our existence, we are sinful.In Psalm 14:2, 3 we read: "The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Here again we see unrighteousness as a property of the human race: "they have all turned aside...there is no one who does good."Job 15:14 similarly declares that sinfulness is a property of humanity: "What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" Verses 15-16 then speaks of the human race as a whole in shocking terms expressing our general corruption: "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!"Jeremiah 17:9 says that "the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it." This seems to assume original sin--wickedness is a property of the human heart. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares a similar truth: "...the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts through their lives." Again, the human heart is sinful, and therefore all humans are sinful.These texts indicate, then, that human nature is corrupt. Therefore, even infants are corrupt because they are human. And if infants are corrupt, then this is the same as saying that we are born corrupt--which means we are born with original sin. One may, however, object that these texts speak nothing of infants, only those who are old enough to make moral decisions. All of those people are sinful, but this doesn't mean that infants are.This is an ingenious objection, but it does not succeed. First, the texts do not seem to restrict themselves to people who are old enough to make intelligent decisions. They seem to speak of human nature as a whole, a classification under which infants certainly fall. Second, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "..this would not alter the case...For if all mankind, as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting, and knowing their own moral state, find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature."In other words, even if these verses were only speaking of people old enough to mentally understand sin, they would still be teaching original sin. For on that view, these verses would be saying that all people, as soon as they know good from evil, find themselves sinners. But if all people, as soon as they are capable of moral decisions, find themselves sinners, this proves that they are that way by nature.Third, Edwards also says, "why should man be so continually spoken of as evil, carnal, perverse, deceitful, and desperately wicked, if all men are by nature as perfectly innocent, and free form any propensity to evil, as Adam was the first moment of his creation?" If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn't we expect there to be some people who have "beaten the odds" and never sinned?If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact that everybody sins needs some explanation. The best explanation is that we are sinners by nature. Someone might argue that the reason all people sin is because society is sinful, and thus society renders it impossible for anybody to keep themselves entirely pure. But that only pushes the question back one step. How did society get sinful in the first place? If people are born morally good, then how did it come about that they congregated into societies that influence all people to sin?