Health and Religion

[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?

[CheraFaye]

I don't think IQ depends on one's religious position, but I guess that this phenomenon can be explained anyway. Nobody is absolutely rational. This is just how human nture works for us. We have feelings, sometimes we want to do something totally useless not having much of a clue why... I suppose a rational person needs something to rationalize. And this something must be irrational. Just like a belief in God, who created everything and can even communicate with people in some ways. I guess it is something like a source of inspiration for a person. Therefore, if you have something unexplainable to think of, you appear to be smarter than those who try to be totally rational

[BADecker]

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.

Since even science agrees with what I said, why are you so against science? And on what do you base your supposed logic? Certainly you are not a religious person, are you?

[BADecker]

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.

You forgot to read what I said. Homosexual sex is wrong. Heterosexual sex between married people is almost required by God. Why do you continue to defy God, the Maker and Designer of the universe?

[CoinCube]

Nature is what it is.  I'm not sure what 'God' is so I cannot comment whether 'God' is nature or nature is 'God'.
...
Gay men are physically capable of having sex with women, so your talk about disability does not make sense.  They can physically have sex with straight women or have children through artificial insemination.  Their sexual preference is hardly a disability.  They can reproduce if they want to.  There are many examples of gay men that have been married to straight women and had children.

As for 'fixing' gay genes, well, who says we should be fixing anything.

We are doing enough 'fixing' of nature as it is.
...
PS. Not having to worry about God and scriptures, will free up your mind.  Try it.  Your mind will become very lucid in no time.

I am sure you would agree that there are a lot of "natural" things that are not good things. It is natural to steal if you can get away with it. It is natural to want to have sexual relations with your neighbors wife if you are heterosexual and she is young and attractive. It is natural to want to murder your arch enemy if you can safely do so and avoid punishment.

Nature is clearly not always good. That's why you have your one moral rule. Some form of overarching moral structure is NECESSARY or we truly degenerate into something worse than an animal.

Let's run with your theory and say homosexuality is a culling mechanism like cellular apoptosis that occurs at some low frequency randomly and is triggered by severe environmental stress or toxic exposure. I cited several studies above showing that homosexuality is induced in animals by multiple different toxins so your theory is plausible.  

If we are condemning large number of children to genetic death in the womb or in early childhood because we are inadvertently poisoning them with toxins or by placing them in situations of severe environmental stress are we not harming them? Isn't that a huge violation of your moral standard of do not harm others and in need of urgent and critical rectification?

Gay men are physically capable of having sex with women. They can reproduce if they want to. The problem of course is that they don't want to and that lack of desire is in part not a choice. If that lack of desire is in any way the result of human action however unintentional then they are victims of a horrible crime. One we have a moral obligation to understand and reverse if the victims wish or at least stop committing in the future.

If you are serious about your moral standard and truly believe your own theory about homosexuality I am curious as to how you can see it any other way.

[Astargath]

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.

Since even science agrees with what I said, why are you so against science? And on what do you base your supposed logic? Certainly you are not a religious person, are you?

Science agrees that god made everything, where, in your mind? Show me the scientific paper/theory/hypothesis of that. Science agrees homosexuality is wrong? Where, show me.

[Astargath]

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.

You forgot to read what I said. Homosexual sex is wrong. Heterosexual sex between married people is almost required by God. Why do you continue to defy God, the Maker and Designer of the universe?

Saying homosexual sex is wrong doesn't make it wrong, why is it wrong, if it's consensual. It's pleasure, it doesn't hurt anyone, why is it wrong badecker?

[CoinCube]

Modern pollution is a problem.  I agree.  It changes our bodies, our digestive, nervous and hormonal systems.  

Polluting businesses should be held accountable for their actions.  IMHO, all processed food industry should be on trial.

What you are suggesting is that we somehow can control what nature puts out and how nature controls living organisms.  I don't think we have the technology to 'save the gay people'.  I don't feel they need to be 'saved' because I don't think they are 'disabled' or 'damned'.  Many straight people decide not to have children at all, are you going to go after them and correct their genes (assuming the issue is genetic in nature)?  It is a slippery slope.  I would stay away and let the nature deal with it.  When two gay people are having sex they are not harming anyone.  It is their choice, let them be happy.  And you be happy.  

Nature is cruel, but it works.  Sometimes interfering with it causes more long-term damage than it is worthwhile.

PS. Human population doubles every '70/growth rate' years.  If nature can find a way to slow it down, the better our chances of survival as humanity.  We'll have to leave Earth sooner rather than later because of our exponential population growth.  Currently we are adding 1 billion people every 12 years.  That is the root cause of most of our pollution problems.  But nobody wants to talk about it.  Politicians, businessmen want 'growth'.

You do realize that this "acceptance/worship of nature" can take you to some very dark places. Nature is amoral. There is great evil in nature.

Here are some comments on the topic by Dennis Prager. He is the author of The Rational Bible.

"Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally."

Essentially you are making the case that we don't know for sure yet that toxins are causing human homosexuality and even if they are the earth is overpopulated so it is for the best if a large number of humans end up being involuntary modified so they don't want to reproduce. More room for you and your offspring. Let nature sort it out via survival of the fittest.

Yours is a very natural argument and it is not logically incorrect. It is however very flawed in other ways deeper fundamental ways.

I agree with you that we will have to leave Earth sooner rather than later. That is inevitable. Miscreanity shared some thoughts on this topic. I found them quite insightful.


Faith and Future

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion:
The moral argument for God
Why Does God Allow Evil?

Regardless, thank you I understand your position. I will now step away from this conversation as I have other obligations that will occupy my time for the next two weeks. I will give you the last word.

[BADecker]

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.

You forgot to read what I said. Homosexual sex is wrong. Heterosexual sex between married people is almost required by God. Why do you continue to defy God, the Maker and Designer of the universe?

Saying homosexual sex is wrong doesn't make it wrong, why is it wrong, if it's consensual. It's pleasure, it doesn't hurt anyone, why is it wrong badecker?

God says it is wrong. So it is wrong no matter the reason. You figure it out.