Health and Religion

[ASNAKU]

The problem with this approach is that religion is much more than just an abstract understanding. This main function does not understand the universe but defines our purpose in the universe. Agnosticism may not suffer cognitive dissonance attached to hard atheism but it is still a rejection of traditional morality and behavior without clear consideration.

You can view religion as a moral code given to humans by God or as a behavioral code that evolves adaptively with the most functional most righteous that is alive today. Both in religious scenarios are expected to be highly optimized to promote healthy and sustainable group behavior. Massive rejection of religion is also expected to unfold the previously unhealthy patterns of unhealthy behavior.

I'm of the opinion that this is exactly what we see today. Many diseases of modernity can be traced back to the cult of hedonism, personal wisdom, and ethnicity, the 'firmware' of mankind. Indeed, the data in the opening post can be seen abstractly as a recovery of selective pressure on mankind not through violence and war but through hedonism and decadence. Euthanasia voluntarily and gradually through pleasure.

[CoinCube]

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

I don't agree that the Bible is wrong. Many of the rules listed in Exodus for example seem dated. Not many people own oxen for example. However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics. The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law. The depth reveals itself on deeper reflection

“Things that at first appear irrelevant, primitive, or even immoral turn out to be important and often great moral leaps forward.” -Dennis Prager - The Rational Bible--Exodus

Being infertile is not a sin, engaging in sex when you are is. See how that works, it doesn't."

Being infertile is not a sin, deliberately making yourself infertal via castration or chemical sterilization because it makes you happy is.

Severe depression is not a sin. Committing suicide because you are depressed is.

Pathological dislike of your weight is not a sin. Starving yourself with aneorexia is.

Now do you see how that works?

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.

Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational and not compatible with sustained existence. You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them.

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.

Yes this seems to be the progression of your thought process. First a small error in denial of the reality of a single sin with subsequent extrapolation to ever larger errors until you end up arguing that your genetic death is a great thing because it makes you happy.

Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin.

Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin. Thus it is sin. There are lots of sins. Homosexuality does not even make the top 10. It's minor league sin.

[CoinCube]

You are looking at this from a completely wrong angle.

It could be that nature makes you gay because it wants to rid of your genes.  Perfectly natural process, IMHO.  We see homosexual behaviors in other animals.

This talk about sin is just nonsense.  It is what it is.  It is like saying nature is a sin.

Go see a professional...

Go see a professional said the fool for I am wise.

You have it backwards once again. Nature is not sin. Willful violation of natural law is.

Natural law is inviolable. No amount of rationalizing or self justification will protect an individual or society that violates it. If you convince people they can act in ways that violate natural law without consequences then you have lied.

Whatever other factors may be present in an act of wrongdoing, folly is one that is never absent. To do a wrong act a man must for the moment think wrong; he must exercise bad judgment.

Sin, I repeat, in addition to anything else it may be, is always an act of wrong judgment. To commit a sin a man must for the moment believe that things are different from what they really are; he must confound values; he must see the moral universe out of focus; he must accept a lie as truth and see truth as a lie; he must ignore the signs on the highway and drive with his eyes shut; he must act as if he had no soul and was not accountable for his moral choices.

Sin is never a thing to be proud of. No act is wise that ignores remote consequences, and sin always does. Sin sees only today, or at most tomorrow; never the day after tomorrow, next month or next year. Death and judgment are pushed aside as if they did not exist...

Sin is basically an act of moral folly, and the greater the folly the greater the fool.

[Astargath]

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

I don't agree that the Bible is wrong. Many of the rules listed in Exodus for example seem dated. Not many people own oxen for example. However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics. The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law. The depth reveals itself on deeper reflection

“Things that at first appear irrelevant, primitive, or even immoral turn out to be important and often great moral leaps forward.” -Dennis Prager - The Rational Bible--Exodus

Being infertile is not a sin, engaging in sex when you are is. See how that works, it doesn't."

Being infertile is not a sin, deliberately making yourself infertal via castration or chemical sterilization because it makes you happy is.

Severe depression is not a sin. Committing suicide because you are depressed is.

Pathological dislike of your weight is not a sin. Starving yourself with aneorexia is.

Now do you see how that works?

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.

Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational and not compatible with sustained existence. You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them.

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.

Yes this seems to be the progression of your thought process. First a small error in denial of the reality of a single sin with subsequent extrapolation to ever larger errors until you end up arguing that your genetic death is a great thing because it makes you happy.

Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God. Sin is a disruption of this connection and thus sin is death. Sin is also folly for it is ultimately irrational to consciously choose self harm and death over life and self preservation. Finally sin is an opportunity to recognize our failings and understand the negative consequences of harmful deeds. Thus sin is also an opportunity to redeem ourselves by refining our nature and rejecting the sin.

Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin. Thus it is sin. There are lots of sins. Homosexuality does not even make the top 10. It's minor league sin.

''However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics.'' How can you even use this as an argument to defend the bible when the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, I expect the book to never become dated, otherwise what's the fucking point of the bible? If the bible is the only evidence god left, then he is a fucking idiot.

''The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law'' And what values did we learn here? The bible says, ''kill homosexuals'' what's the value learned here? That the bible is wrong?

''Now do you see how that works?'' No I don't. You said acting on your homosexuality is a sin but the analogy should be ''choosing to be homosexual is a sin'' No one chooses his sexual preferences on purpose. I didn't choose to like women, I didn't choose to like them slim, etc etc

''Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational'' Says who, you? ''You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them. '' I'm not trying to kill myself, I just don't want or need children and there is no argument on why that's wrong. It is certainly not morally wrong, in fact, you could argue that having kids is morally wrong, you are basically creating them just so they die later on and the possibility of having a very miserable life is also there.

''Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin'' Is it? ''Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God.'' Having sex as a men with other men is not a harmful deed, though. There are plenty of homosexuals who believe in god as well, so it does not destroy the connection to god thus homosexuality is not a sin, you failed again.

[CoinCube]

Tell it to the 10% of sheep.  You are lost aren't you?  Animal homosexual behaviors are well documented.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

From your Wikipedia link above.

"although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]

So the one known example of large scale exclusive homosexual behavior occurs in domesticated sheep? Ovis aries has been artificially selected by humans for at least 12,000 years.

Thousands of years of artificial inbreeding, linebreeding, and outcrossing makes for a bad example when discussing nature and natural law.

Or are you trying to say that humans are like domesticated sheep? I agree that there are certain similarities.

Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-06/sheep-logic-age-high-functioning-sociopath

These are baby-doll Southdowns, and yes, they’re exactly as cute as they look in this picture. We only have four today on our “farm”, as sheep have a knack for killing themselves in what would almost be comical fashion if it weren’t so sad. We keep them for their so-so wool, which we clean and card and spin and knit. It’s so-so wool because the Southdowns were bred for their meat, not their fleece, and I can’t bring myself to raise an animal for its meat. Well, I could definitely raise birds for meat. Or fish. But not a charismatic mammal like a baby-doll Southdown.

Here’s the thing I’ve learned about sheep over the years. They are never out of sight of each other, and their decision making is entirely driven by what they see happening to others, not to themselves. They are extremely intelligent in this other-regarding way. My sheep roam freely on the farm, and I never worry about them so long as they stay together, which they always do. But if I only count three in the flock, then I immediately go see what’s wrong. Because something is definitely wrong.

That’s the difference between a flock and a pack. A flock is a social structure designed to promote other-awareness. It has no goals, no coordinating purpose other than communication. A flock simply IS. A pack, on the other hand, is a social structure designed to harness self-aware animals in service to some goal requiring joint action — the raising of cubs, the hunting of meat, etc. Both the flock and the pack are extremely effective social structures, but they operate by entirely different logics.

We think we are wolves, living by the logic of the pack.

In truth we are sheep, living by the logic of the flock.

*  *  *

There’s no domesticated animal species that has had more of a reputational fall from grace than the sheep. To call someone a sheep today is just about the worst insult there is. To call someone a sheep is to call them stupid and — more pointedly — stupidly obedient and in thrall to some bad shepherd.

It wasn’t always this way. Jesus isn’t insulting you when He calls you a sheep. The point of all those Biblical allegories isn’t that sheep are stupidly obedient or easily led, but that the healthy life of a willful sheep requires a good shepherd.

Ask anyone who actually keeps sheep. Sheep are weird. Sheep are evolved to have a very different intelligence than humans. But sheep are not stupid. Sheep are not obedient. And sheep are definitely not easily led.

Of course, no one except a dilettante farmer like me keeps sheep today, so all of the Old Stories about sheep and shepherds have lost their punch. They’ve all been diminished through the modern lens of sheep-as-idiot-followers...

Sheep are evolved to have a specific type of intelligence which has the following hallmarks.

Enormous capacity for other-regarding behaviors. Sheep are unbelievably sensitive to what other sheep are doing and their emotional states. If another sheep is happy — i.e., it’s found a good source of food, which is the only thing that makes a sheep happy — then every other sheep in the flock is filled with jealousy (there’s really no other word for it) and will move in on that good thing. If another sheep is alarmed — which can be from almost anything, as bravery is not exactly a trait that tends to be naturally selected in a prey species — then every other sheep in the flock is immediately aware of what’s going on. Sometimes that means that they get alarmed, too. As often, though, it’s just an opportunity to keep going with your own grazing without worrying about the alarmed sheep bumping into your happy place.

Zero altruism and overwhelming selfishness. The most popular misconception about sheep is that they are obedient followers. It’s true that they’re not leaders. It’s true that they are incredibly sensitive to other sheep. But it’s also true that they are the most selfish mammal I’ve ever encountered. They don’t lead other sheep or form leadership structures like a pack because they don’t care about other sheep. Every sheep lives in a universe of One, which makes them just about the most non-obedient creature around.

The determination to pursue any behavior that meets Hallmark #1 and #2 to absurd ends, even unto death. My worst sheep suicide story? The first year we kept sheep, we thought it would make sense to set up a hay net in their pen, which keeps the hay off the ground and lets the sheep feed themselves by pulling hay through the very loose loops of the net. Turned out, though, that the loops were so loose that a determined sheep could put her entire head inside the net, and if one sheep could do that, then two sheep could do that. And given how the hay net was hung and how these sheep were sensing each other, they started to move clockwise in unison, each trying to get an advantage over the other, still with their heads stuck in the net. At which point the net starts to tighten. And tighten. And tighten. My daughter found them the next morning, having strangled each other to death, unable to stop gorging themselves or seeking an advantage from the behavior of others. The other sheep were crowded around, stepping around the dead bodies, pulling hay for themselves out of the net. That was a bad day.

In both markets and in politics, our human intelligences are being trained to be sheep intelligences. That doesn’t make us sheep in the modern vernacular.

We are not becoming docile, stupid, and blindly obedient. On the contrary, we are becoming sheep as the Old Stories understood sheep … intensely selfish, intensely intelligent (but only in an other-regarding way) and intensely dogmatic, willing to pursue a myopic behavior even unto death.
...
We need a lot more shame in the world. The loss of our sense of shame is, I think, the greatest loss of our modern world... to put it in sheep logic terms: the tragedy of the flock is that everything is instrumental, including our relationship to others. Including our relationship to ourselves.

Why do we need shame? Because with no sense of shame there is no sense of honor. There is no mercy. There is no charity. There is no forgiveness. There is no loyalty. There is no courage. There is no service. There is no Code. There are no ties that bind us as citizens, as fellow pack members seeking to achieve something bigger and more important than our ability to graze on as much grass as we can. Something like, you know, liberty and justice for all...

This is the Age of the High-Functioning Sociopath. This is the Age of Sheep Logic. We have to survive it, but we don’t have to succumb to it. How do we Resist?
...
We resist by changing the System from below, by carving out local spheres of action where we are relentlessly honorable and charitable, relentlessly un-sheeplike. We resist by Making America Good Again, one pack at a time, which is a hell of a lot harder than making America great ever was.
...

...
I think your IQ is below average
...
 'sin' only applies to homo sapiens?  You are digging deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
...
You are fan of Mormons, what is your view of polygamy?  You support it?  I bet you do.

Sin my ass, I don't even know what 'sin' suppose to be.
...

Random topics here but you were better off with the insanity argument. There is a reason my second citation in this thread was from Mensa magazine.

Sin by definition requires knowledge of good and evil so yes it is uniquely human. No one thinks that a lion who eats a man sinned.

Polygamy is harmful to society under most but not all circumstances. Thus it is illegal which is reasonable. Here is an interesting article on the topic.

The link between polygamy and war
Plural marriage, bred of inequality, begets violence
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war

...thus homosexuality is not a sin, you failed again.

Unfortunately I have a significant project coming up so I must bow out of the conversation for a couple of weeks.

For the record I do not believe male homosexuality prevents one from being an amazing person. Nor does it prevent one from being a force for good in the world. However, it is clearly a tragic condition that is biologically quite harmful to those unlucky enough to suffer from it. Female homosexuality is a separate issue and appears to be much less biologically harmful.

We have both articulated our positions and appear unlikely to reach consensus.

[CoinCube]

My feeling is that homosexuality is perfectly natural process of restricting or completely eliminating some genes from the gene pool.  The key word is natural.  You fail to see it.  Your judgement is clouded by your religious indoctrination.

Remind me not to trust your feelings.

The key word here is unnatural and the evidence for that is growing every year.

Mercury Poisoning Makes Birds Act Homosexual
Metal may influence sexual development in white ibises, expert says.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homosexual-birds-mercury-science/

A Common Herbicide Turns Some Male Frogs into Females
One of the mostly widely used weed killers, atrazine, may be disrupting male frogs' sexual development--even reversing it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-herbicide-turns-male-frogs-into-females/

Exposure to BPA potentially induces permanent reprogramming of painted turtles' brains
BPA can disrupt sexual function and behavior in painted turtles. Now, the team has identified the genetic pathways that are altered as a result of BPA exposure
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517143612.htm

Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA
Associations between specific epi-marks predicted sexual orientation with almost 70% accuracy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Your logic of assigning homo sapiens some special 'sin' status is hilarious.

One of the primary themes of the Bible is that it is the knowledge of good and evil that separates us from the animals.

To knowingly choose evil is to sin. Animals do not know what evil is and thus cannot sin.

The fact that you find that hilarious is odd.

[BADecker]

That is your problem. You think we are not animals. That is just absurd!!!  You are batshit crazy, on the BADecker level.

You are ignoring a simple fact that you did come out of your mommy vagina and you did suck on her nipples.
You are a mammal whether you like it or not.

All this talk about us being different (divinely inspired aka make from dirt and rib bones) is just to make your 'sin' concept work
only in Homo Sapiens.  Reality is different.  But you don't care about reality, or if anything in your religious framework is true.

You invented the 'sin' framework and then just said, we are the only species that knows about it, so let's say our new 'sin' framework only applies to us.  It is all about control of other people.  That is the reason you and people like you invent religions.  There is no other reason.
It is to coerce and exploit others.

You derived this conclusion based on your 'extensive' research of the Bible?

Have you heard of Biology?  Try reading some Biology textbooks for a change.

You might learn something.

Anyway, good luck with your Bronze Age world view.  It does not really matter what you think anyway.

There is one way you can make a contribution to humanity:  don't reproduce.

Whatever you do, don't teach your BS to children.  

PS. Homosexuality existed in ancient times, so your argument that it is induced by the modern pollution is not valid.

The smartest chimp or gorilla or dolphin is not even close to how smart people are naturally. You can't train a chimp or gorilla or dolphin, or any other animal, to even come close to understanding the things that people can understand when they put their minds to it. You can't even come close.

People might have DNA, and live with the carbon cycle, but they are not animals. If there were only 1 or 2 people who could think like people do, and the rest only thought in the limited way that the animals do, you might have a point. But all normal people can think way beyond the animals... way beyond, like the stars in the heavens are higher than the ground.

People are not animals. Biology proves this out.

[BADecker]

Tell it to the 10% of sheep.  You are lost aren't you?  Animal homosexual behaviors are well documented.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I think your IQ is below average, despite all the pseudo scientific articles you manage to find on the net.

What is next?  Gay sheep do it without knowing about the Bible?  That is why it is not a sin for them?
Or 'sin' only applies to homo sapiens?  You are digging deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

You are fan of Mormons, what is your view of polygamy?  You support it?  I bet you do.

Sin my ass, I don't even know what 'sin' suppose to be.  I know when the action is wrong.

Talking to morons like you and BADecker just tells me that our species might be splitting up.

You find some animals that are gay. You like it that way. Why not stop posting on the forum? None of the animals post on the forum.

[BADecker]

''However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics.'' How can you even use this as an argument to defend the bible when the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, I expect the book to never become dated, otherwise what's the fucking point of the bible? If the bible is the only evidence god left, then he is a fucking idiot.

''The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law'' And what values did we learn here? The bible says, ''kill homosexuals'' what's the value learned here? That the bible is wrong?

''Now do you see how that works?'' No I don't. You said acting on your homosexuality is a sin but the analogy should be ''choosing to be homosexual is a sin'' No one chooses his sexual preferences on purpose. I didn't choose to like women, I didn't choose to like them slim, etc etc

''Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational'' Says who, you? ''You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them. '' I'm not trying to kill myself, I just don't want or need children and there is no argument on why that's wrong. It is certainly not morally wrong, in fact, you could argue that having kids is morally wrong, you are basically creating them just so they die later on and the possibility of having a very miserable life is also there.

''Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin'' Is it? ''Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God.'' Having sex as a men with other men is not a harmful deed, though. There are plenty of homosexuals who believe in god as well, so it does not destroy the connection to god thus homosexuality is not a sin, you failed again.

You still haven't answered the fact that since God made everything, and since He knows all about it better than anybody, and since He owns it all, homosexuality is wrong simply because God said it is wrong. It doesn't need a reason other than God said it.

[BADecker]

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.

Again, it is not the homosexual nature or tendencies that are the sin, although they show the sinful nature in us all. Rather, it is doing the homosexual acts that are the sin.

[centation]

Religion is not only “researchable,” but it is also of essential interest to clinicians, doctors, patients and health psychologists. Religion has the benefit of empowering the individual through connecting him/her to a community, and to a superior force, that might in turn give psychological stability (Oman & Thorensen, 2003). This ability to empower could be used by health psychologists in medical settings (and not only) to help those who struggle with a disease or to promote a healthier lifestyle. However, because this resource is not investigated and used at its full capacity, health psychology risks promoting a cultural iatrogenesis (healer-induced disability to cope with illness) (Oman & Thorensen, 2003). In a world dominated by a culture of consumption, religion offers a venue for individuals to commit to something beyond themselves, in addition to empowering the community, overall. This empowering happens through consciousness of religious principles, such as the sanctity of human life, shared identity, meaningful roles in the community and society at large, a variety of spiritual, social and economic support, social networks, and even leadership for social change and protection in time of conflicts.

[Astargath]

''However, almost any legal code becomes dated in its specifics.'' How can you even use this as an argument to defend the bible when the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, I expect the book to never become dated, otherwise what's the fucking point of the bible? If the bible is the only evidence god left, then he is a fucking idiot.

''The issue is the values and teaching we can derive from the law'' And what values did we learn here? The bible says, ''kill homosexuals'' what's the value learned here? That the bible is wrong?

''Now do you see how that works?'' No I don't. You said acting on your homosexuality is a sin but the analogy should be ''choosing to be homosexual is a sin'' No one chooses his sexual preferences on purpose. I didn't choose to like women, I didn't choose to like them slim, etc etc

''Unless you have a very good reason for choosing extinction over life such as being the carrier of a horrible and untreatable genetic disease then yes your behavior is irrational'' Says who, you? ''You should seek to explore the beliefs led you to embrace death over life and change them. '' I'm not trying to kill myself, I just don't want or need children and there is no argument on why that's wrong. It is certainly not morally wrong, in fact, you could argue that having kids is morally wrong, you are basically creating them just so they die later on and the possibility of having a very miserable life is also there.

''Acting on male homosexual desires meets all of the criteria of sin'' Is it? ''Sin is a bad idea or harmful deed something that leads to undesirable things happening to you. At a deeper level sin is not just a harmful deed, but a harmful deed that disrupts ones "life" with life defined as synonymous with ones connection to God.'' Having sex as a men with other men is not a harmful deed, though. There are plenty of homosexuals who believe in god as well, so it does not destroy the connection to god thus homosexuality is not a sin, you failed again.

You still haven't answered the fact that since God made everything, and since He knows all about it better than anybody, and since He owns it all, homosexuality is wrong simply because God said it is wrong. It doesn't need a reason other than God said it.

If you think like that and you are willing to follow the leadership of a tyrant that sets arbitrary rules then you are already lost. Even if a god existed, I would not follow him if he is using random rules and laws, unfortunately your god is supposed to be benevolent and all loving, something that doesn't fit with the rule to kill homosexuals, therefore god doesn't exist, yours in particular at least.

[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.

Again, it is not the homosexual nature or tendencies that are the sin, although they show the sinful nature in us all. Rather, it is doing the homosexual acts that are the sin.

And that makes sense, how? Having sex is the sin? Why? Because it's pleasure? There is nothing wrong with having sex as long as it is consensual. You are digging your hole even deeper with these arguments.

[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.

Again, it is not the homosexual nature or tendencies that are the sin, although they show the sinful nature in us all. Rather, it is doing the homosexual acts that are the sin.

And that makes sense, how? Having sex is the sin? Why? Because it's pleasure? There is nothing wrong with having sex as long as it is consensual. You are digging your hole even deeper with these arguments.

+1

These two clowns know one thing: "Bible is God inspired, we need to defend it no matter how silly we look."

There are many examples of Bronze Age silliness in that book, homosexuality is just one example.

Do you remember the one with two guys fighting and the wife of one of the guys touches the other guy's junk?  The punishment for her is to cut off her hand.  She was just trying to help her husband, but no, God knows better LOL

This whole book is a joke, and these two imbeciles are trying to defend something that cannot be defended unless you go back in time.

Well, badecker basically admitted that he is against homosexuals and thinks slavery is ok so you can't really argue with him about anything. If a person thinks slavery is ok and killing homosexuals is ok because a book says so then you know he isn't very bright.

[CoinCube]

These two clowns know one thing: "Bible is God inspired, we need to defend it no matter how silly we look."
...
This whole book is a joke, and these two imbeciles are trying to defend something that cannot be defended unless you go back in time.

Well for any readers looking to make this determination for themselves as opposed to taking your word for it I will repeat my prior recommendation.

For a skeptic looking to understand the overarching logical framework of the Bible a reasonable place to start is with Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible or Jordan Peterson's online Biblical Lectures Series.

Both them explore the logical depths of the text and do so from a rational perspective.

[xSplit]

These two clowns know one thing: "Bible is God inspired, we need to defend it no matter how silly we look."
...
This whole book is a joke, and these two imbeciles are trying to defend something that cannot be defended unless you go back in time.

Well for any readers looking to make this determination for themselves as opposed to taking your word for it I will repeat my prior recommendation.

For a skeptic looking to understand the overarching logical framework of the Bible a reasonable place to start is with Dennis Prager's book The Rational Bible or Jordan Peterson's online Biblical Lectures Series.

Both them explore the logical depths of the text and do so from a rational perspective.

At 12 I was able to write a book with a greater logical framework than the bible

[CoinCube]

The key word here is unnatural and the evidence for that is growing every year.

Mercury Poisoning Makes Birds Act Homosexual
Metal may influence sexual development in white ibises, expert says.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homosexual-birds-mercury-science/

A Common Herbicide Turns Some Male Frogs into Females
One of the mostly widely used weed killers, atrazine, may be disrupting male frogs' sexual development--even reversing it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-herbicide-turns-male-frogs-into-females/

Exposure to BPA potentially induces permanent reprogramming of painted turtles' brains
BPA can disrupt sexual function and behavior in painted turtles. Now, the team has identified the genetic pathways that are altered as a result of BPA exposure
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517143612.htm

Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA
Associations between specific epi-marks predicted sexual orientation with almost 70% accuracy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

...
Have you heard of Biology?  Try reading some Biology textbooks for a change.

You might learn something.
...
Homosexuality existed in ancient times, so your argument that it is induced by the modern pollution is not valid.

I see so according to these "Biology textbooks" you like to read a condition that existed at low levels in the past cannot be exacerbated or triggered by an exposure to a toxin or environmental trigger?

Lung cancer predates cigarettes so cigarettes can't cause lung cancer?

Is "Biology textbooks" your secret code word for LGBTQ magazines?

[CoinCube]

...

You don't get to sidestep the question.

You stated that toxin exposure could not be responsible for the modern rise in homosexual behavior because homosexuality existed in ancient times.

This is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying it's impossible for cigarettes to cause lung cancer because ancient people sometimes got lung cancer.

I cited three separate studies highlighting three separate and widely used toxins all of which have now been shown to cause homosexuality in various species of animals.

I also cited another study where it has been shown that human homosexuality is linked to chemical changes in DNA.

You say you are an engineer and value logic so be logical.

Admit you are wrong, or defend your argument.

[CheraFaye]

health depends on it heredity and immunity. From the way of life also depends. But the fact that it depends on religion, personally I have serious doubts

[CoinCube]

...
I said that what you (your articles) imply is not valid because we have evidence that the homosexuality was expressed without modern toxins.

Gene expression can be influenced by various environmental factors (stress etc), but you have to have the right genes to begin with.  External stimuli like modern toxins cannot account for the level of 'gay gene expressions' that are (were) expressed in nature.  Mutations do happen but are rare and it takes generations to change the gene pool makeup.  
...
Homosexuality is natural.  It exists in nature.  The root cause is probably a response to control propagation of one's genes.
...

Again your argument in no way shows that the findings of the scientific studies I highlighted are false. What you are essentially saying is that homosexuality is natures mechanism for eliminating entire individuals from the gene pool. Basically you are making the claim that it is a scaled up form of cellular apoptosis.

Cellular apoptosis for those who do not know is a form of biological cell death. If a cell is catastrophically damaged by toxins or trauma it is considered a danger to the organism. Cells that sustain such damage are hardwired to stop reproducing and self destruct. This process is called Programmed Cell Death or Intrinsic Apoptosis. Every cell in the body has this hard wiring and will self destruct if sufficiently damaged. It is natures primary mechanism of suppressing and preventing cancer.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/intrinsic-apoptosis

Your claim while not impossible is extremely controversial to put it mildly. I am not aware of any data supporting it. Do you have any evidence for it?

Furthermore even if you are correct the conclusions you are drawing remain flawed. Let's run with your hypothesis for a moment and say homosexuality is a programmed mechanism of genetic suicide that is triggered when mother nature decides an individual cannot be allowed to propagate himself to the next generation.

That just pushes the questions back one step. Why is mother nature's condemning so many individuals to reproductive failure? It is toxin exposure? That's whats known to trigger this mechanism on a cellular level. Or is it some other danger to the species as a whole that remains unrecognized?

Nature is not God. If there is a natural mechanism in place that declares certain individuals damaged and eliminates them from the gene pool wouldn't it be better to figure out what was triggering the mechanism and fix the actual problem rather then condemning countless individuals to nature's scissors?