Topic: Health and Religion - page 29. (Read 210823 times)

+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.

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.

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.

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.

''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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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, 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?


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.


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.

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...

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.

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

You are done in Europe
...

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

...
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.

...
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.

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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.37626428

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