Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

[Astargath]

It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

[BADecker]

It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

[Astargath]

It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is, did you even read my post?

[CoinCube]

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.

[CoinCube]

Dennis Prager has an excellent video clip on the seventh commandment. It goes into some detail on the damage caused by the sin of adultery and why this action is forbidden.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B0-epfgG7lI

THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE FAMILY

There is an old joke about the Seventh Commandment, “Do Not Commit Adultery.” Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, and announces: “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is that adultery stays.”

The joke is telling. The prohibition on a married person having sexual relations with anyone except his or her spouse may be, for many people, the most consistently difficult of the Ten Commandments to observe. The reasons shouldn’t be hard to guess. One is the enormous power of the sex drive. It can be very hard to keep in check for the entirety of one’s marriage—especially when an attractive outsider makes him or herself sexually or romantically available. Another reason is the human desire to love and be loved.

For normal people, there is no more powerful emotion than love. If one falls in love with someone while married, it takes great effort not to commit adultery with that person. And if we add in the unfortunate circumstance of a loveless marriage, adultery becomes even more difficult to resist. That’s why the joke with which I began is funny—because it reflects truth. Why is adultery prohibited in the Ten Commandments? Because, like the other nine, it is indispensable to forming and maintaining higher civilization.

Adultery threatens the very building block of the civilization that the Ten Commandments seek to create. That building block is the family—a married father and mother and their children. Anything that threatens the family unit is prohibited in the Bible. Adultery is one example. Not honoring one’s father and mother is another. And the prohibition on injecting any sexuality into the family unit—incest—is a third example.

Why is the family so important? Because without it, social stability is impossible. Because without it, the passing on of society’s values from generation to generation is impossible. Because commitment to a wife and children makes men more responsible and mature. Because, more than anything else, family meets most women’s deepest emotional and material needs. And nothing comes close to the family in giving children a secure and stable childhood.

And why does adultery threaten the family? The most obvious reason is that sex with someone other than one’s spouse can all too easily lead to either or both spouses leaving the marriage. Adultery should not automatically lead to divorce, but it often does. There is another reason adultery can destroy a family. It can lead to pregnancy and then to the birth of a child. That child will in almost all cases start out life with no family—meaning no father and mother married to each other—to call his or her own. And if adultery doesn’t destroy a family, it almost always does terrible harm to a marriage. Aside from the sense of betrayal and loss of trust that it causes, it means that the adulterous partner lives a fraudulent life.

When a husband or wife is having sex with someone other than their spouse, their thoughts are constantly about that other person and about how to deceive their spouse. The life of deception that an adulterous affair necessarily entails inevitably damages a marriage even if the betrayed spouse is unaware of the affair. Finally, the commandment prohibiting adultery doesn’t come with an asterisk saying that adultery is okay if both spouses agree to it. Spouses who have extramarital sex with the permission of their husband or wife may not hurt their spouse’s feelings, but they are still harming the institution of marriage. And protecting the family, not protecting protecting spouses from emotional pain, is the reason for the commandment.

Many marriages, sadly, are troubled. And it is not for any of us to stand in judgment of others’ behavior in this realm. No one knows what goes on in anyone else’s marriage. And if we did, we might often well understand why one or the other sought love outside the marriage. But no higher civilization can be made or can endure that condones adultery. That is why it is prohibited in the Ten Commandments.

Thus we see adultery as a harmful deed something that leads ultimately to undesirable outcomes. At a deeper level it disrupts life by undermining the family and thus the society itself. In simpler terms it can be viewed as an act of defection advancing ones personal interests at great cost to society and the social fabric as a whole.

[Astargath]

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

[CoinCube]

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Why do you think it should be an easy question to answer?

The Bible contains several hundred prohibitions on behavior. When examining any one of them and exploring the logic underlying it you need to make a total determination on the effect of the behavior on the entire arc of human development both in the past and into the unknown future.

Whatever the ultimate answer may be it is certainly not easy or simple.

The best we can really do is make an approximate determination that violating a prohibition causes harm on understood metrics. Even that is difficult.

The Bible recommends the death penalty for many high profile sins. This punishment must be viewed in context of the very limited options available to early man. Death, exile, lashes that about it. All crimes pretty much had to be punished with one of the three. It is only now with the wealth and knowledge those ancestors passed to us that other options become available such as prisons to separate violent criminals from society without killing them.

The more important question here is not whether Biblical punishments were severe or if modern technology and wealth will lead to superior and more effective ways to eliminate and punish crime. Clearly the answer to both those questions is yes.

The important question is to confirm that the sins listed are indeed harmful. That the sins lead to problems that should be taken seriously.

[CoinCube]

You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

That's is a challenging question. Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent.

Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it.

Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice.

The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals.

That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg37626428#msg37626428

I see no logical flaws in his reasoning.

The issue would be less problematic if those with this tragic condition made every effort not to spread it to others who are vulnerable but not destined to it. Sadly the opposite situation appears to be the case.

One in 10 male, same-sex Craigslist ads seek men who don't identify as gay
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/cums-oit032414.php

...
To examine the subgroup of men seeking non-gay-identified (NGI) men in the online sexual marketplace, the researchers reviewed 1,200 Internet personal ads posted on Craigslist
...
Among the ads studied, 11% were placed by men seeking NGI partners... only 24% of online advertisements seeking NGI men were posted by men who were themselves non-gay-identified. This suggests that many of the posts are placed by gay men seeking NGI men, perceived by some gay men to be more masculine, dominant, or "straight-acting."
...
Only a small number of ads by NGI-seeking men mentioned safe sex or condom use. The analysis revealed that men seeking NGI partners were significantly less likely to mention that they wanted to have safer sex/use condoms (15% vs. 33%) and were more likely (66% vs. 42%) to omit mention of condoms or safer sex in their advertisements.
...
The findings have unique implications for sexual health research targeting non-disclosing, NGI MSM and their same-sex partners.
...
the research has allowed us to document the existence of a subgroup of men who actively seek out sexual encounters with men who do not identify as gay

[CoinCube]

...
Anyone who advocates Bible's moral code is just a psychopath.
...

A recent study estimated that there will be 2.6 billion Christians by 2020.

Which is more likely that there are 2.6 billion psychopaths in the world or that you lack the wisdom or intellect to understand the moral code the Bible makes possible?

Ultimately the readers of this thread will need to decide for themselves.

[BADecker]

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Why do you think it should be an easy question to answer?

The Bible contains several hundred prohibitions on behavior. When examining any one of them and exploring the logic underlying it you need to make a total determination on the effect of the behavior on the entire arc of human development both in the past and into the unknown future.

Whatever the ultimate answer may be it is certainly not easy or simple.

The best we can really do is make an approximate determination that violating a prohibition causes harm on understood metrics. Even that is difficult.

The Bible recommends the death penalty for many high profile sins. This punishment must be viewed in context of the very limited options available to early man. Death, exile, lashes that about it. All crimes pretty much had to be punished with one of the three. It is only now with the wealth and knowledge those ancestors passed that other options become available such as prisons to separate violent criminals from society without killing them.

The more important question here is not whether Biblical punishments were severe or if modern technology and wealth will lead to superior and more effective ways to eliminate and punish crime. Clearly the answer to both those questions is yes.

The important question is to confirm that the sins listed are indeed harmful. That the sins lead to problems that should be taken seriously.

You got this wrong buddy.  Killing people for working on Saturday is wrong.  Slavery is wrong.  Killing someone because they are gay is wrong.

Anyone who advocates Bible's moral code is just a psychopath.

You need to look in the mirror.  You are rationalizing your psychopathic tendencies.

You are entirely mistaken. God set the whole universe and life up. He is the Owner. He is the only One Who knows how it works. When He commands, He is to be obeyed, simply because He is the Owner, but also because He is the righteous Owner.

Anyone who advocates not following Bible morals is a destroyer, because God laid down what works best in the Bible.

Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever.

[BADecker]

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Many religions have so-called gods that do things without reason. The God of the universe has set down laws within the Bible that make total sense, and that are to be fully obeyed. The fact that God is patient with lawbreakers, shows His great love for people, since He is giving them a chance to change their wicked ways.

[BADecker]

It is all arbitrary.  

If one truly embraces the view that it is all arbitrary then one might conclude that morals themselves are subjective constructs rather then objective truths. Then of course there is no such thing as sin. Every crime is morally permissible. Secular laws become arbitrary behavior constraints nothing more.

On the other hand if one takes the position that objective morality exists then it follows that there is such a thing as sin. At a minimum it is objectively immoral behavior.

And yet homosexuality is none of those, it is not a bad idea or harmful at all, it's like saying some people prefer blondes over brunettes, that's not harmful, it's just preference, so we can conclude that homosexuality should not be a sin and yet it is?

If you want to understand objectively why something is a sin you first have to define sin. Then you have to figure out a way to map that definition onto the behavior.

We should start with something easy like adultery because most people intuitively agree that adultery is wrong.

If we can't figure out objectively why something simple like adultery is a sin we are unlikely to succeed with something difficult like homosexuality.

Do you have any objections to the definition of sin above? We need to reach at least a partial agreement on what sin is before we can hope to determine if an action constitutes sin.

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is, did you even read my post?

That's only a suggestion that you have a very weak understanding.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? - http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa.

[CoinCube]

Not to worry.  I give your myth another 100 years.  Then it will disappear.

Your grasp of both reality and demographics seem slightly tenuous.

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

Astonishing Church growth in Russia sees record number training for priesthood
https://www.christiantoday.com/amp/astonishing-church-growth-in-russia-sees-record-number-training-for-priesthood/110512.htm

Africa poised to be axis of Christianity
https://mg.co.za/article/2015-12-03-africa-poised-to-be-axis-of-christianity

[Astargath]

You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

That's is a challenging question. Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent.

Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it.

Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice.

The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals.

That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg37626428#msg37626428

I see no logical flaws in his reasoning.

The issue would be less problematic if those with this tragic condition made every effort not to spread it to others who are vulnerable but not destined to it. Sadly the opposite situation appears to be the case.

One in 10 male, same-sex Craigslist ads seek men who don't identify as gay
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-03/cums-oit032414.php

...
To examine the subgroup of men seeking non-gay-identified (NGI) men in the online sexual marketplace, the researchers reviewed 1,200 Internet personal ads posted on Craigslist
...
Among the ads studied, 11% were placed by men seeking NGI partners... only 24% of online advertisements seeking NGI men were posted by men who were themselves non-gay-identified. This suggests that many of the posts are placed by gay men seeking NGI men, perceived by some gay men to be more masculine, dominant, or "straight-acting."
...
Only a small number of ads by NGI-seeking men mentioned safe sex or condom use. The analysis revealed that men seeking NGI partners were significantly less likely to mention that they wanted to have safer sex/use condoms (15% vs. 33%) and were more likely (66% vs. 42%) to omit mention of condoms or safer sex in their advertisements.
...
The findings have unique implications for sexual health research targeting non-disclosing, NGI MSM and their same-sex partners.
...
the research has allowed us to document the existence of a subgroup of men who actively seek out sexual encounters with men who do not identify as gay

I thought you were smarter than badecker but you really aren't. Homosexuality is not morally wrong. Having no arm is also biologically harmful, so is being infertile, they are not sins, though and they are not morally wrong. The bible says homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals should be put to death, that's ridiculous and retarded, if a god said that then he is not a god. I don't even know what you are trying to argue here. Just admit it, homosexuality is not a sin and homosexuals shouldn't be killed.

[Astargath]

And you see that's another problem, you claim these texts have so much depth and all that bullshit and yet the bible never clearly defines what sin is, how does god expect us then, to not sin? I can agree with your definition of sin but as I said, homosexuality does not fit in there.

1 John 3:4:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

That's not an explanation of what a sin is...

The Bible defines sin at least in part as a violation of one of its prohibitions. It ultimately makes the claim that these actions a deviations from fundamental truth aka universal law.

The question you seem to be asking, however, is a rational explanation for why certain actions are sin. Why certain actions are violations of universal law.

That is not always an easy question to answer. It requires a full analysis of the impact of a sin across time. We must determine what consequences were avoided by avoiding the sin in the past, the impact of the sin in the present and project its consequences into the future.

It should be an easy question to answer and the bible should answer it clearly, why would a god expect people to follow his laws when they are senseless and without logic? You know exactly what I'm asking and you are not able to provide evidence on why homosexuality is bad (pd: it's not).

Even if it was bad that would still not be a good reason to kill them. The bible is garbage, just admit it already.

Many religions have so-called gods that do things without reason. The God of the universe has set down laws within the Bible that make total sense, and that are to be fully obeyed. The fact that God is patient with lawbreakers, shows His great love for people, since He is giving them a chance to change their wicked ways.

If they make total sense it wouldn't be difficult to explain why homosexuality is a sin and you haven't been able so far...

[CoinCube]

...
Clearly homosexuality is a tragic condition the mismatch of desire with biological reality that is to some degree inherent.

Equally clear is that the response of society to this condition should be to try and help people who have it especially males as they appear to be by far the most damaged by it.

Why do you think it is not "bad"? It is definitely biologically harmful to the males who are unlucky enough to have it. Research on the condition indicates that it varies in severity. Some suffer from an extreme variant that makes functional reproductive activity inconceivable. Others have a milder variant where they have some greater or lesser degree of choice.

The condition can thus be looked at as a disability that is partially inherent and partially transmissible to susceptible individuals.

That ultimately is the argument of Oxford professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg37626428#msg37626428

I see no logical flaws in his reasoning.
...

...
I don't even know what you are trying to argue here. Just admit it, homosexuality is not a sin and homosexuals shouldn't be killed.

I am sorry you do not understand. The argument was clear enough. Maybe if you read it again slowly it will come together for you.

There are many sins and we are all sinners of varying degrees. I for example have not honored the Sabbath for most of my adult life violating one of the 10 commandments. That's major sin much higher league then mundane homosexuality.

I have mentioned several times now that I don't think homosexuals should be killed. Why repeat the same questions over and over?

Being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexuality is. Any free choice that unnecessarily harms the self and/or others is a sin. Professor Swinburne correctly noted that homosexual acts qualify.

The bigger problem is not so much the sin we are all sinners. The serious problem is the inversion of reality that follows the denial of sin. Once we celebrate sin we are in trouble as we lose the ability to gradually move towards rectification and improvement.

In the case of homosexuality long term rectification of the sin would require we find a way to cure it. Given our current rate of technological progress that should be possible in the near future if we prioritized it.

However, we won't prioritize it. That is the evil that comes from celebration of sin. Not only will we not prioritize it attempts will be made to ban and outlaw the quest for a cure. That is the inevitable insanity that results from the celebration of sin.

[CoinCube]

The War on Wisdom Continues

California Assembly Bill 2943 would make the selling or advertising of sexual or gender conversion therapy a violation of the state’s consumer fraud laws.

Does Science Support Bans on ‘Conversion Therapy’ for Gender-Identity Issues?
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/does-science-support-bans-on-conversion-therapy-for-gender-identity-issues#.Wv85_kFlCEc

...
Transgender-rights activists are adopting claims of the therapy’s harm as they seek to ban therapies designed to help patients realign their gender identity with their biological sex.
...
Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, challenges the claim that science supports a ban on corrective or neutral responses to this condition. Likewise, he questioned whether research endorses an “affirmative model,” which has led to guidelines that direct students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

“The vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will realign their gender identity to match their sex,” Hruz told the Register.

“The transgender identity will persist in a small percentage, 5%-20%, and usually the dividing line is adolescence,” he added.

He noted that those who identify as their opposite sex after their teenage years are less likely to change. He also emphasized that specialists still cannot predict “who will continue in that transgender identity and who will not.”

Given these established facts about the small percentage of young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria — about 0.05% of the population — Hruz worried that the “affirming model” could lead more young people to retain their identification with the opposite sex into adulthood and may play a role in the reported increase in adolescents receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy, often in preparation for “sex reassignment” surgery that alters their bodies to appear more like the sex with which they identify.

Hruz is equally concerned about the long-term impact of puberty suppressants, which are introduced around age 12, and cross-sex hormones, introduced after age 14.

The Endocrine Society supports these medical interventions for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But the guidelines published by the professional society acknowledge that they are based on low-quality scientific evidence, and in many areas solely on expert opinion and not scientific studies, Hruz said.

“Puberty suppression — the first stage during which endocrinologists are asked to intervene — is presented as ‘safe and reversible,’” he said. “But there is no scientific evidence to support the view that this is safe.”

“You are disrupting the normal process of physical and psychological development that takes place during this period, and that could have serious long-term consequences,” Hruz stated.

The American College of Pediatricians’ statement raised similar concerns. Treatment protocols that combine puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones result “in the sterility of minors,” the professional group stated, while disputing the scientific basis for arguments that present gender-identity disorder as “innate,” and thus fixed.
...
clinicians may find themselves under attack if they seek to cure, rather than affirm, patients dealing with gender dysphoria.

The story of Kenneth Zucker, a leading Canadian researcher and clinician who adopted a nuanced two-step approach for treating children with gender dysphoria, is instructive.

For decades, Zucker operated without much public controversy as he encouraged his patients to realign their gender with their biological sex and only approved medical interventions when the initial therapy proved unsuccessful.

“Just because kids are saying something doesn’t necessarily mean you accept it, or that it’s true, or that it could be in the best interests of the child,” said Zucker, explaining his approach in a BBC documentary, Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?

Then, a few years ago, Zucker began to face mounting criticism from “LGBT” activists. And in late 2015, he was fired from his post.

“For more than 30 years Dr. Kenneth Zucker ran Canada’s biggest child gender clinic and was considered a recognized authority on childhood gender dysphoria, until he lost his job,” read a statement released by the BBC, defending the film. “He believes he was fired for challenging the gender affirmative approach.”
...
Activists launched a petition campaign to prevent the airing of the BBC documentary. That effort failed, but it marked their strong desire to control the debate over treatment options and force skeptics in the medical community to fall in line.

The perplexing refusal to tolerate therapies designed to foster an alignment between gender identity and sex has already made it tough for psychologists, doctors and families who want to help patients resolve problems that are associated with serious mental-health problems.
...
Meanwhile, the furious reaction of activists to the nuanced methods of experts like Kenneth Zucker highlights the political stakes for the “LGBT” movement, which increasingly opposes any suggestion that gender (identity) may not be a fixed condition. That resistance deserves more scrutiny from policymakers than it has received, say critics who argue that gender ideology, not science, is behind this trend.

[CoinCube]

...
You are underestimating the gains Atheists have made.

You are done in Europe
...

I am well aware of the large gains Atheists have made especially in Europe. Sadly I cannot dispute the claim that Europe is lost.

Atheist predominance in one geographic area, however, does not make your total denial of the trends in multiple other geographic areas any less silly.

Here is some news that won't require you to jump through hoops of denial or struggle to misinterpret.

Atheism Overtakes Religious Faith in Norway
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/22/for-first-time-in-history-atheism-overtakes-religious-faith-in-norway/

Sweden 'least religious' nation in Western world
https://www.thelocal.se/20150413/swedes-least-religious-in-western-world/amp

52.1% of East Germans identify as Atheists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/22/atheism-east-germany-godless-place

PS. Would you hire an engineer who professes he is a Mormon?  I would question his judgement.

I visited both a Mormon church and a orthodox Jewish synagogue once when I was doing research for the opening post of this thread.

The Jewish service was entirely in Hebrew so I did not understand much but they were welcoming. The Mormons have an interesting central service that is attended by all members even very small children. It made for a somewhat noisy but very family friendly dynamic.

I would be much more likely to hire an observant Jew or a temple visiting Mormon over an rabid atheist assuming they were all qualified for the job. With the former you know their moral code and can better predict their behavior. With the latter you have no idea what they they believe in increasing the risk of erratic and unanticipated behavior.

[Astargath]

I am sorry you do not understand. The argument was clear enough. Maybe if you read it again slowly it will come together for you.

There are many sins and we are all sinners of varying degrees. I for example have not honored the Sabbath for most of my adult life violating one of the 10 commandments. That's major sin much higher league then mundane homosexuality.


I have mentioned several times now that I don't think homosexuals should be killed. Why repeat the same questions over and over?

If you agree the bible is wrong, why do you still believe in a god or the bible?

Being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexuality is. Any free choice that unnecessarily harms the self and/or others is a sin. Professor Swinburne correctly noted that homosexual acts qualify.

Being infertile is not a sin, engaging in sex when you are is. See how that works, it doesn't. ''Any free choice that unnecessarily harms the self and/or others is a sin.'' 2 males or females having consensual sex does not harm them, in fact I'm sure they experience pleasure. Professor bullshit swinburne is a classic bullshiter. ''Thus, if we foster a climate which inhibits the development of homosexuality, Swinburne thinks fewer potential homosexuals will become actual homosexuals (and grow instead into heterosexuals).'' Is he aware that homosexuality is present in animals as well? Is he claiming that animals develop homosexuality because they see that other animals are homosexuals?


The bigger problem is not so much the sin we are all sinners. The serious problem is the inversion of reality that follows the denial of sin. Once we celebrate sin we are in trouble as we lose the ability to gradually move towards rectification and improvement.



In the case of homosexuality long term rectification of the sin would require we find a way to cure it. Given our current rate of technological progress that should be possible in the near future if we prioritized it.

Again, why would you have to cure it? I personally don't want children, does that make me a sinner too? Should I also get ''cured'' because I don't want kids? Your logic is absolutely garbage here.

However, we won't prioritize it. That is the evil that comes from celebration of sin. Not only will we not prioritize it attempts will be made to ban and outlaw the quest for a cure. That is the inevitable insanity that results from the celebration of sin.

Homosexuality is not a sin, is not morally wrong and doesn't hurt anyone directly, the bible is wrong, god is not real, stop believing fairy tails.