A_Very_Big_Fan

Cat chirality

If he gets executed it could trigger an actual class war

Okay this one goes hard, Micky, gotta give you credit.

authorized provider

It's sad that this is even a phrase.

I love this

I feel like the room for malicious compliance here is palpable.

Even a post like this, that I'm sure you felt was wholesome, somehow managed to be degenerate boomer slop.

Congratulations...?

ELI5 for someone who's too busy Doordashing to Google what these do?

Ornstein and Smough

Porque no los dos?

There is probably a natural instict to it ...

I don't see how any of this supports or meaningfuly elaborates on your original claim.

Morality is still subjective, but we can choose to apply objective criteria to it. Animals can still infringe on human morality regardless of if we choose to hold them morally responsible.

sure they had knowledge that it was wrong to eat the fruit, just not about everything else, eg, nudity. They ate the fruit out of malice.

I don't recall anything in Genesis or the rest of the Bible that could possibly support this.

I'm fairly certain there isn't anything that supports this. You're simply claiming it's true, to which I can simply say it's not.

Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:18-23

These two texts, at best, support the idea that Adam's sin is the reason natural disasters happen and in my opinion, even that is a stretch. They do not suggest that our sins cause natural disasters.

Even if I grant you that point, you still don't need to invoke sin or the Bible to explain natural disasters. Hindus probably have their own etiological myth to explain natural disasters, but the existence of the myth doesn't prove their gods or religious concepts have anything to do with the natural disasters.

Plus, I found a passage that actually refutes this idea. Luke 13:1–5. Jesus explicitly says they are wrong to assume the 18 victim's sins had anything to do with the disaster they died from.

Overall, the state of many of these countries is due to greed. Which is sinful. The love of money is the root of all evil.

I don't disagree with that. The problem is that you're being unnecessarily vague to the point of being incorrect.

You chose to say "sin" rather than "greed". You chose a word that includes things like mockery, homosexual sex, and pride. This makes your claim imply those things cause people to be impoverished. And somehow start a hurricane.

This is why those far-right preachers I mentioned love to preach this rhetoric. Why else choose language that includes homosexual sex and cross dressing instead of "greed"?

People listening to you are likely to think you're probably a homophobe/transphobe. Hence them not giving you a chance, being hostile, and downvoting you.

Marginalising and instilling prejudice against a group of people is sinful.

I'm willing to grant you that because I don't feel like searching the Bible again. But at the end of the day, the Old Testament saying "crossdressing and homosexual sex is an abomination to the LORD your God"(paraphrased) is the root of the vast majority of the marginalization of queer people. Using the word "sin" here is still too vague.

The Old Testament codified these gender/sexual norms into law, religious institutions enforced these rules, and for the longest time in the western world, these rules were absorbed into our laws. And in a lot of the middle east they're still there.

I'm not suggesting that all Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. are homophobes or transphobes or whatever. But the marginalization against us didn't come from nowhere. And it didn't come from a nebulous concept like "sin".

I'll assume what happened in the USA. Which yes, ...

Same story. Invoking sin here is too broad, and it sounds like you're saying traits like wrath, lust, greed, and sloth cause people to be marginalized and impoverished, which just just isn't accurate. It also makes your claim sound prejudiced.