Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further peers. It is not some elite panel sitting there peer reviewing everything. It is an entire community watching each other, reproducing (or failing to) each others results. And actual career progress is made by those who can falsify the claims of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Well since it appears most scientists and/or universities are hostile to anything that supports Christianity or goes against homosexuality
That is not entirely true. What they are "hostile" to is unsubstantiated claims made without a shred of back up or support.
Your claims about Christianity and your arguments against homosexuality, are two such examples. You have failed to support either, anywhere, ever. And in your attempts to do so you have distorted figures, ad hominemed atheists, and simply ignored whole swaths of arguments and posts you could not answer.
So you can pocket the victim card. These institutions are not specifically hostile to you. They are hostile to unsubstantiated claims in general. You just happen to be making many of them and want to act like this means they are specifically targeting the groups you love.
We all know that science that disproves or brings to question issues such as this are rejected for peer review and publication. That's the reason you see it asked for as proof so often. It's a dishonest ploy to deceive and promote their faith and to prevent any science that goes against their bias.
Peer review does not guarantee quality or correctness.
Peer review does not prevent fraud.
Peer review is rarely ever objective.
Peer review can lead to bias.
Peer review can lead to censorship.
Further peers. It is not some elite panel sitting there peer reviewing everything. It is an entire community watching each other, reproducing (or failing to) each others results. And actual career progress is made by those who can falsify the claims of another.
That is not entirely true. What they are "hostile" to is unsubstantiated claims made without a shred of back up or support.
Your claims about Christianity and your arguments against homosexuality, are two such examples. You have failed to support either, anywhere, ever. And in your attempts to do so you have distorted figures, ad hominemed atheists, and simply ignored whole swaths of arguments and posts you could not answer.
So you can pocket the victim card. These institutions are not specifically hostile to you. They are hostile to unsubstantiated claims in general. You just happen to be making many of them and want to act like this means they are specifically targeting the groups you love.
These are the people who gave us a hoax as science for 41 years called Piltdown Man. Very trustworthy folks!
These are the people who gave us a hoax as science for 41 years called Piltdown Man. Very trustworthy folks!
That is the whole point. There will always be bias and deception at the level of individuals. There will always be bad eggs, agendas, and so forth in some elements of any human community. That is what the process of peer review is about. Others in that community test and..... whether quickly or slowly.... eventually find and weed out the bad results, the error results, or even the fabricated results. "Trustwothy folks" simply does not come into it with a "trustworthy process".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge
We all know that science that disproves or brings to question issues such as this are rejected for peer review and publication.
That is your fantasy and you are welcome to it. The reality however is that papers are only rejected if their substantiation does not hold up. You are using the failure of those papers to meet standards as a leaping point to create the same fantasy biases as your cohort.
We all know that science that disproves or brings to question issues such as this are rejected for peer review and publication. That's the reason you see it asked for as proof so often. It's a dishonest ploy to deceive and promote their faith and to prevent any science that goes against their bias.
Peer review does not guarantee quality or correctness.
Peer review does not prevent fraud.
Peer review is rarely ever objective.
Peer review can lead to bias.
Peer review can lead to censorship.
And now you know why the question is posed so much. And in such a stalking manner.
And this is the same thing found in the writing of the Bible:
A passage in the Bible does not guarantee quality or correctness.
A book claimed to be written by a particular man is sometimes fraudulent.
None of the biblical writers were objective--all had a spiritual purpose in mind.
Millions of people read scripture and establish their own "godly" bias.
The Bible has been used on numerous occasions to censorship of other materials.
So does that mean the scripture should not be read? Peer review of scripture may not always be correct but it has started Christians on the quest of questioning validity of scripture. That is what peer review does for science.
Like science that is constantly changing, God changes, too--despite the false claims that God doesn't change.
Over the last century God has changed his mind about:
Divorce (quite prevalent in churches)
Movies (if you go to the correct ones)
Dancing (now even sponsored by some churches)
card-playing
alcoholic beverages (in moderation)
All of the above were the object of plenty of Christian diatribe. As a very young man I heard it preached from pulpits. But not any longer---so God apparently changed his mind.
Why can't God change His mind about people. If you look hard enough there are scriptural examples of God changing His mind. I'm not going to do the research for a Bishop, since you need to look a bit closer at the scriptures you are relying on.
And if you do--they might change you!!
And here is a reason to NOT take the gospels as "historical evidence." I do believe they were written by men of faith to other men and women of faith. It is a "faith" book, not a history book. God, imo, did not even want us to mistakenly "think" the books written were historical. He wants men of faith, not those relying on evidence. Evidence is the tool of scientists and historians. Faith is the tool of men of faith. Falling into the trap of arguing secularly with those who think in that fashion, puts one on their ground--not on the ground of faith.
Taking the Bible as "historical" evidence, God breathed in a plenary fashion, Jesus as writing the OT, all lead to the horrible misapplication of scripture with regard to homosexuality. It is a book of faith, written by flawed men TO flawed men, about how they felt God worked in the community of faith. Looking at it in any other fashion has led to the terrible atrocities committed by Christians, from the medieval tortures of the church, to the Salem witch trials, to slavery ordained by God, to the present "homosexuals are abominations." Believing the "book" to be like every other book has drawn millions of bigots to the side of God. It has never drawn God to bigots.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-04-2014 at 09:48 AM..
I rather go by what the Bible says in regards to Sodom:
1. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7
You don't seem to know what the Bible says about Sodom:
Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Why do you ignore the clear fact that inhospitality (a grave sin in Judaism) is the primary sin and the cause for Sodom's destruction?
And FYI, rape is not homosexuality regardless of the gender of the perpetrator and victim. Most rapists who target men are in fact heterosexual.
This is simply not true. The largest Christian denominations still do not support homosexuality. This includes Baptists, Pentecostalism, and Catholics.
More than half of American Catholics reject the Vatican's stance on homosexuality, and 70% of Jews have no issue with it.
Regardless, what's your point? Argumentum ad popularum. The vast majority of Christians also used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth. Were they correct, because it was the majority?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge
These are the people who gave us a hoax as science for 41 years called Piltdown Man. Very trustworthy folks!
Are you still swallowing that fundy story?
From Wikipedia:
Scientific investigation[edit]
From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above).
G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[11] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.
But, nice try for bringing up a 100 year old hoax. THAT sure showed everyone how prejudiced science is, didn't it?
The percentage of Americans who believe homosexuality is a sin has decreased significantly in a year, according to a survey by LifeWay Research.
A November 2012 survey of adults in the United States found 37 percent affirm a belief that homosexual behavior is a sin - a statistically significant change from a September 2011 LifeWay Research survey asking the same question. At that time, 44 percent answered, "Yes."
In contrast, the percentage of Americans who do not believe homosexuality is a sin remains nearly the same between the two surveys - 43 percent in September 2011 and 45 percent in November 2012 indicate this belief, with an increase in the percentage of those unsure of what they believe. Seventeen percent in the November 2012 survey said, "I don't know;" an increase of 4 percent over the September 2011 survey.
-----
The November 2012 survey also reveals Americans in the South (40 percent) are the most likely to select "Yes" to the question "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" as are Americans who attend religious services at least about once a week (61 percent), and those calling themselves "born-again, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian" (73 percent).
So a full quarter of the most conservative Christians, evangelicals, are no longer calling homosexuality a sin.
Quote:
On June 19, 2014, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest U.S. Presbyterian body, voted to change its definition of marriage and allow its pastors to officiate same-sex ceremonies in states where gay marriage is legal. By a vote of 429-175, leaders of the 1.76 million-member Church voted during the biennial General Assembly in Detroit to change the denomination's Book of Order to describe marriage as being between "two people".
The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, affirms that gay and lesbian persons are welcome in the church and the ministry. The resolution "A) That all persons,
regardless of their sexual orientation, who profess Jesus Christ and obedience to Him, are welcome to be or become full member of the Church. B) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered for the Ordered Ministry." was passed in 1988.
same source
Quote:
Quakers in many countries, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, are supportive of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, seeing this as necessary aspect of the Equality Testimony and part of historical Quaker activism against injustice and oppression. Quakers in these countries have become active in the fight for equality of marriage for same-sex couples, and perform same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies as part of Quaker business. In the United
States of America, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is deeply divided on the issue.
same source
The following Wikipedia table summarizes various denominational practices concerning members who are currently in a homosexual relationship: Allowing membership in the denomination
Adventist--No
American Baptist--Varies
Assemblies of God--No
National Baptist Convention---Varies
Southern Baptist Convention--No
Reformed Church in America--Yes
Church of Nazarene--No
Church of England--Yes
Church of Scotland--Yes
Eastern Orthodox--Yes, but denied sacraments
Episcopal--Yes
Mormons--No
Community of Christ--Yes
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America--Yes
German Lutheran and United Churches in Germany---Yes
Mennonite---Varies
United Methodist--Varies
Orthodox Presbyterian--No
Presbyterian Church USA--Yes
Society of Friends--Yes
Roman Catholic Church---Yes, but deny sacraments to practicing homosexuals
Old Catholic--Yes
Traditionalist Catholic--No
Church of Sweden--Yes
United Church of Canada--Yes
United Church of Christ--Yes
(partial list)
The pattern is very interesting. Most churches of other nations have once again left the United States in the dust. Only in America is there strong religious effort to deny church membership, let alone marriage to homosexuals. We are now second economically in the world which leaves the U.S. in the lead in only one category---the mass production of weapons of war. Not a very good testimony for a "Christian" nation.
When God's judgment begins it will begin right here in America. Because we claim being Christian without practicing being Christian.
You don't seem to know what the Bible says about Sodom:
Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Why do you ignore the clear fact that inhospitality (a grave sin in Judaism) is the primary sin and the cause for Sodom's destruction?
And FYI, rape is not homosexuality regardless of the gender of the perpetrator and victim. Most rapists who target men are in fact heterosexual.
I look at all the verses about Sodom. You only look at Ezekiel. Are you telling me it is impossible that they were committing multiple sins including homosexuality? It doesn't make logical sense that God would be so mad at this city only because they weren't being nice to the poor and needy when neighboring cities committed far worse atrocities.
The rape argument fails too because God put judgement on this city well before the angels arrived so now you have to prove that raping men was a regular practice in that city. You can't. Also it doesn't fit with Lot offering up his daughters to the men which would essentially be the same sin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians with changing views of homosexuality
