Is religion still relevant in modern society?

[theprof00]

padib said:

Runa216 said:

padib said:

Regarding italics, I appreciate you acknowledging my effort. I trust you understand this has been a painful process for me.
Regarding bold italics, I truly appreciate your clarity on the matter. That though you disagree, you see that at the very least the position is logically robust. You have no idea what this means to me.

With this said, in light of regarding underlined italics, I kindly urge you revise my example of substance abuse. Having used said example as a bridge between both our points of view, I hoped to find an area that you considered harmful due to science, but which I considered harmful both due to science, and due to the biblical moral standard, as stated in Ephesians 5:18:  Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Your participation in this effort of respect is a huge light to me. You have my gratefulness.

the main issue I'm having with this logic is that Alcoholism and homosexuality are in no ways similar, unless you're making the grand assumption that homosexuality is as harmful to your spirit as alcoholism is to your body

You are absolutely correct on this. Scientifically speaking, homosexuality and alcoholism have nothing in common. The mental exercise I had you do was assuming an imaginary condition, that homosexuality was a sin. Think of it like working with imaginary numbers in mathematics. I know it's painful for you to see homosexuality as a sin, but for the purpose of my demonstration, it was the assumption I needed temporarily.

To describe homosexuality as sin (consider it an imaginary logical clause), I was able to liken it to alcoholism in sin only. Remember I bold italicised the sentence "for all reasons other than self-harm", within the assumption position of  homosexuality as sin.

I did that because alcoholism is something we both agree is wrong for scientific reasons, I also disagree for scientific reasons, but also for religious moral reasons. In a case where alcoholism, as a sin, can likewise be controlled, it is understandable that homosexuality, as a sin, can be controlled. 

To clarify, I am making the assumption that homosexuality is harmful to your spirit as alcoholism is harmful to your spirit. From there, since alcoholism is also harmful to your body, and it can be controlled, the logic can be unwound back to homosexuality. Granted, I don't want you to hold on to the assumption too long as it is very contrary to your framework, and I hold utmost respect to human freedom of thought.

Better analogy, do you polish the knob?