See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Daniel1212

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Jump to: navigation, search

G'day Daniel1212, and welcome to aSK. We are glad to have you contribute. For more information about aSK, see our About statement. Please see the rules and regulations as soon as you can.
The following links are also useful.

Any significance to the name? My bible says that Daniel 12:12 says that
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days

Not being a Biblical scholar myself, I was wondering if you colud clear that up for me. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wes, and thanks for the welcome. It seems i remember seeing a wesley user in WP or CP.

As for, daniel1212, yes, Emperor, that is from the Bible, and i thought it was fitting because i am in need of patience, though not because of the time the verse states.

Contents

Hello.

In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.

That is quite possibly the most disgusting thing I've ever read on Conservapedia. I'm sure you're proud.Pascal 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was an opening statement by someone else, and edited and moved by me to a different section. And it is odd that you would respond to my user page here. Nonetheless, that the homosexual agenda does in-deed work to censor all who oppose them, and even fail to support them when called to do so, and uses means of intimidation, is well attested to, as that page documents. Nor is invoking civil rights to sanction moral wrongs a valid comparison, rather this only serves as another manifestation of the confusion which homosexual relations themselves are. It is this which may correctly be called disgusting, though all our sins should be, and not be celebrated, or be proud of.Daniel1212 13:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal would be responding here because he is most likely banned at Conservapedia so unable to respond there. This site is a bit of common ground for some in that regard, and although I don't condone it (bringing issues about Conservapedia here), I allow it as long as it doesn't get out of hand (e.g. big arguments).
Regarding the particular issue at hand, you may be interested, Daniel1212, to read this blog entry.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that the blog entry is long on how people are having their rights curtailed and short on examples of the same. I put that this is because no rights are actually being curtailed. ? ListenerXTalkerX 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the right for Christians to have a fair hearing in the mass media? Did you miss that, or don't you think we have a right to that? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that christians do not get a fair hearing? Can you state examples and perhaps posit a reason you believe this? Ace McWicked 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Where does the law guarantee that every group shall receive any sort of "fair hearing" in the "mass media"? ? ListenerXTalkerX 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ace, yes, see the link for an example. See also cp:Suppression of alternatives to evolution for further examples.
ListenerX, where did I claim that the law guarantees that? To the point, I wasn't talking about legal rights, but rights generally. Do I take it from your reply that (perhaps because it's not enshrined in law) you don't think Christians have any right to a fair hearing?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
An opinion piece is hardly damning evidence and one only need to channel surf on any standard cable TV to find christian programming. As to the supression of alternatives to evolution I am afraid to say that a viable alternative has not been presented. And the discovery institute failing to testify at the dover trail didn't do them any favours (this is what I know from the top of my head so forgive me if I am wrong). Ace McWicked 03:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Nobody has a right to a "fair hearing," only a right not to be prevented by the State from expressing their views. (Which, as Ace points out, is quite sufficient to permit a plethora of outlets for "Christian" views.) ? ListenerXTalkerX 03:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, when I walk to work I pass several Christian book stores and 4 churches. When I wake up in the morning there is christian broadcasting on standard, non-cable, TV - though I usually switch over to the news. Hardly a suppresion. Ace McWicked 03:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The sundry sects of every religion do enough damage to each other to make any other suppression almost superfluous, let alone inter-religious discourse. I think that religious sectarianism is the atheists best friend when it comes to giving a "fair hearing" to the sundry nutjobs who want to broadcast their views. How many Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists etc are there on this site for example - oh, sorry: they're probably not Christians. When the leader of the world's single largest Christian sect accepts evolution, all the petty little Biblical literalists denounce him and vice versa. "Alternatives to evolution"[sic] aren't suppressed: they're just shown to be stupid and ignored. User 11speak to me 06:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece is hardly damning evidence... You asked for "examples", not "damning evidence". You've just moved the goal posts after I scored.

...one only need to channel surf on any standard cable TV to find christian programming. So? That doesn't change that they don't get a fair hearing in the media. Further, contrary to my slip in referring to the "mass media", the link was talking about the mainstream media, and Christian programming on cable TV hardly qualifies.

As to the supression of alternatives to evolution I am afraid to say that a viable alternative has not been presented. Ha! So are you saying that blatant, illegal, discrimination is justified because you have the opinion that there is no "viable" alternative? In other words, are you saying that alternative views are okay to be suppressed when some people think those alternatives are wrong?

Nobody has a right to a "fair hearing," Oh? Why not? Are you saying that it's okay to be unfair? And by the way, you failed to answer my question, "where did I claim that the law guarantees that?"

...only a right not to be prevented by the State from expressing their views. Try telling that to the (Australian, government-owned) ABC!

...when I walk to work I pass several Christian book stores and 4 churches. You're moving the goal posts again. We were talking about the mass media.

When I wake up in the morning there is christian broadcasting on standard, non-cable, TV - though I usually switch over to the news. Hardly a suppresion. Did you fail to read the blog? Regardless of some opportunities for paid programming, the blog gave examples of suppression. Pointing out examples of non-suppression is not the same as refuting examples of suppression.

The sundry sects of every religion do enough damage to each other to make any other suppression almost superfluous, let alone inter-religious discourse. "Every" religion? And "every" sect too? Have you checked every one? Or are you stereotyping?

...the sundry nutjobs who want to broadcast their views. Theresa, either withdraw and apologise for that remark, or specify exactly who you are talking about and justify the comment.

How many Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists etc are there on this site for example - oh, sorry: they're probably not Christians. "Probably"? You don't know? Then why are you commenting? And what does this site have to do with the mainstream media. Yet more moving of the goalposts!

When the leader of the world's single largest Christian sect accepts evolution, all the petty little Biblical literalists denounce him and vice versa. Do you really think abusive ad hominem argument is rational? Withdraw the remark and apologise or be blocked.

Alternatives to evolution"[sic] aren't suppressed: they're just shown to be stupid and ignored. So your answer to documented evidence of suppression is to simply deny it? Do you call that rational argument?

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's okay to be unfair? Quite all right. But even if it were not, what is your case that these "Christian" viewpoints, which were once dominant but were displaced on a playing field stacked in their favor, merit a hearing in the mass media, for any other reason but the fact of their existence?
Where did I claim that the law guarantees that? You linked to an article supportive of the teaching of creationism in public schools; a fairly good indicator. But remember that this is something you have to convince atheists with. Are you claiming that atheists recognize other sources of rights besides the law, or their interpretation of the law?
Try telling that to the (Australian, government-owned) ABC! Just because some sects of Christians do not get the level of coverage they want in State media does not mean that the State is stopping them from expressing their views. ? ListenerXTalkerX 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Philip, you have to be totally bananas to think that your religion is being persecuted in any fashion. I mean really, you have utter and total freedom to worship so just get on with it instead of bitching about "not being fairly treated in the main stream media". What do you care? You have your religion and intellectually dead-end wiki, you can visit any church any hour of the day, you can check into a hotel any where in the world and find a bible for your own comfort. What more do you want? A theocracy? Ace McWicked 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Repeat: "Petty little Biblical literalists".
"...simply to deny it?" No READ IT! "Shown to be stupid" it says.
Yes, Philip, you're a nutjob just as much as anyone else who takes more notice of 2000 year old plus myths and legends over scientific knowledge is.
Bye. User 11speak to me 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and Ace: yes he does want a theocracy, but only if it's HIS KIND OF THEOCRACY. Imagine how he'd scream if the RCs got the whip hand! User 11speak to me 02:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite all right. It's alright to be unfair? What was that about atheists and morals?
But even if it were not, what is your case that these "Christian" viewpoints ... merit a hearing in the mass media...? My case is that it's unfair to promote anti-Christian viewpoints and simultaneously suppress Christian viewpoints. I'm not arguing that Christian viewpoints should be heard in the absence of anti-Christian viewpoints.
You linked to an article supportive of the teaching of creationism in public schools... No article that I linked to in this discussion claimed that the law guarantees a right to a fair hearing, and in any case we were talking in the context of the mainstream media, not schools. So your claim about me is shown to be false.
But remember that this is something you have to convince atheists with. What do I have to convince atheists with? You have to convince me that I made that claim, and you've failed to do so.
Are you claiming that atheists recognize other sources of rights besides the law, or their interpretation of the law? Atheists tell me that! I point out that atheists have no basis for morality, and despite acknowledging that many or most athiests still hold moral values even so, I'm accused of being wrong. Now you're implying that they don't hold moral values, and only recognise the law!
Just because some sects of Christians do not get the level of coverage they want in State media does not mean that the State is stopping them from expressing their views. I was stretching things a bit in using a government instrumentality in place of the government itself, but I'm not talking about a "level of coverage", I'm talking about suppression of a viewpoint by a government instrumentality within the area they control.
Philip, you have to be totally bananas to think that your religion is being persecuted in any fashion. Well, you're simply wrong. The page I linked to on Conservapedia gives some examples. The blog I linked to gives another (and other pages in that blog list others).
...you have utter and total freedom to worship... So as long as I can "worship", I'm asking too much to also have my point of view be heard in the mainstream media? That's utter and total nonsense. There are also signs of that freedom to worship being restricted more and more (not to mention some hotels not allowing Gideons’ Bibles).
What do you care? So you're saying that I shouldn't care about being marginalised, insulted, and so on?
What more do you want? A theocracy? Haven't you been reading? I want the freedom to be heard in the mainstream media when viewpoints opposing mine are put. I want to stop the situation in which only one side is heard. You atheists are worse than Voltaire, who at least apparently had the attitude of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Repeat: "Petty little Biblical literalists". I really do wonder how some people can claim to be rational yet deliberately engage in abusive ad hominem arguments. I also wonder why others who also claim to be rationale seem to think that just because they have a common "enemy", they will not call them on it.
"...simply to deny it?" No READ IT! "Shown to be stupid" it says. Claiming that they are shown to be stupid is not a refutation that they were suppressed. Rather, it's more of a justification for suppression. As such, the denial was unsupported, and my response was correct.
Yes, Philip, you're a nutjob just as much as anyone else who takes more notice of 2000 year old plus myths and legends over scientific knowledge is. Name-calling (and I'm referring to "myths and legends" as well as "nutjob") is also not a hallmark of rational debate. It's the resort of someone who has no argument to make.
Oh and Ace: yes he does want a theocracy, but only if it's HIS KIND OF THEOCRACY. I have disputed this claim before, but here you are repeating your own incorrect beliefs about me without any substantiation. Further abusive ad hominem argument.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So as long as I can "worship", I'm asking too much to also have my point of view be heard in the mainstream media? That's utter and total nonsense. Quote without comment. ħuman Number 19 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They're still "Myths & Legends". Your saying otherwise won't change the truth. Wallace (User 11) 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
And you saying it doesn't make it so. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
And you saying they're not doesn't make them true, Philip. ħuman Number 19 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but where did I ever simply say that they're not, without either backing it up, or in response to a simple assertion by someone else? "Wallace" did simply assert that they are; I did not simply assert that they are not. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

EZ edit button

so as long as I can "worship", I'm asking too much to also have my point of view be heard in the mainstream media? That's utter and total nonsense. Well then, what do you want? Every documentary should have a disclaimer - "Please note that Philip does not believe this"? Or everytime David Attemborough speaks he must also spend the next hour explaining how every other religion believes something different? We all want our point of view to be heard, I dont have mine heard. Why dont you write a book? Richard Dawkins got his point of view out there by writing a popular book. Try something like that perhaps? What do you want? Ace McWicked 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What was that about atheists and morals? You tell me.
What do I have to convince atheists with? Whom if not atheists are you attempting to convince that "Christians" have a right to a fair hearing in the mass media?
...we were talking in the context of the mainstream media, not schools. Within that context I concede that point.
...I'm not talking about a "level of coverage"... How not? The mass media are giving "Christians" a certain level of coverage (purportedly, nil) and they wish a different level (a right to airtime to present their views on any mass media outlet that airs "anti-Christian" viewpoints).
...it's unfair to promote anti-Christian viewpoints and simultaneously suppress Christian viewpoints. You did not answer my question here. What is your case that "Christian" viewpoints merit any hearing at all in the mass media? ? ListenerXTalkerX 04:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well then, what do you want? Every documentary should have a disclaimer... How about we start with not suppressing alternative views? I'll give an example that's not even from the creation/evolution issue. The Australian ABC very much promotes the idea of human-caused global warming (GW). Various programs they have run have promoted this view in a very one-sided way. When a well-known documentary was made against the idea (I don't recall the name just now), the ABC programmers had to be instructed to run it by the ABC board. So, obviously under protest, they ran it with an up-front disclaimer that it was not necessarily supported by the ABC, despite not running any such disclaimer with pro-GW programming. And they followed it with a discussion panel wherein people debated the merits of the claims in the documentary, again unlike when they run pro-GW programming. This is clear and blatant bias, and yet the creationary view doesn't even get that much of a look in.
As a friend of mine made the point in a letter to the ABC, he was not asking them to say anything about the creationary views. He wouldn't be worried if they never mentioned it. But he thought it only fair that if they do mention it, it be given a fair hearing and not just a negative one. The ABC has on numerous occasions discussed biblical creation, but never to my knowledge have they had a biblical creationist on any of their programming to give that point of view. So no, I'm not asking for a disclaimer for every documentary. I'm simply asking for a fair go.
We all want our point of view to be heard, I dont have mine heard. You are an evolutionist, and evolution is rampant on the mass media, so that claim is hollow. I'm not talking here about a view held by the odd individual, but a view held by a large number of people. The ABC, to use them as an example again, is clearly pro-homosexual, running programs specifically about and in favour of homosexuality, despite homosexuals making up only around 2% of the population. But evangelical Christians, who I'm sure make up an equivalent if not larger percentage of the population (and I'm talking about Oz where the percentage is much lower than in America) get no real hearing on the ABC. "We don't all get our POV heard" is not an answer to that.
You tell me. I keep being told that atheists have morals, yet here you are apparently saying that it's quite okay to act unfairly.
Whom if not atheists are you attempting to convince that "Christians" have a right to a fair hearing in the mass media? I don't see how that now-explained comment fits the original context, but it was not whom I have to convince that I was questioning, but what I have to convince them of. You've now answered that.
How not? The mass media are giving "Christians" a certain level of coverage (purportedly, nil) and they wish a different level... I'm not saying that we need 20% of airtime, or anything that puts it at a particular "level". I'm just asking for it to be fair and to not suppress.
What is your case that "Christian" viewpoints merit any hearing at all in the mass media? I believe I did answer it, even if briefly and not that directly. First, I believe that if a viewpoint is being overtly rejected, then proponents of that viewpoint should have a right of reply. In fact this principal is often enshrined in journalistic codes, even if ignored when convenient. Second, the Christian viewpoint is still a reasonably common one, so surely by dint of numbers they deserve some hearing. Third, I'll also point out that in the case of the example in the linked blog piece, part of the complaint was that reasoned argument was being rejected in favour of ridicule and mudslinging aimed at Christian views.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I keep being told that atheists have morals... You will have to ask an atheist about that.
Regarding the case you made, you seem to have three lines of argument. I will dismiss the second as an argumentum ad populum, and the third by stating that we all have very different conceptions of what constitutes "reasoned argument;" indeed, a rationale commonly cited for having a right of reply is so people can decide for themselves which side has the more reasoned argument.
The first has some merit, but you have made no allowance for the content of the viewpoints, so (excuse the reductio ad Hitlerum) would you then allow neo-Nazis a "right of reply" anytime someone put forth an anti-racist piece in the mass media? ? ListenerXTalkerX 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
An argumentum ad populum is an argument that something is correct because a majority believe it to be so. I was not arguing that anything was correct, but that it deserved a hearing. See more below.
Name-calling and vilification is not reasoned argument, so your reply fails to answer. In any case, my point was effectively that people can't decide which is the more reasoned argument if one is being suppressed!
The problem with your response to what you referred to as my first point is that it is a circular argument. How is anybody supposed to decide which view is correct if someone (e.g. journalists) decide that only the "correct" one will be aired? So argument A is considered correct because someone decides that only argument A will be aired because they consider it correct! As for your example of neo-Nazis, this is where the supposed argumentum ad populum comes in: One solution is to put views according to the how widely they are held. This is the principle put by Eugenie Scott in trying to argue that creationists don't deserve a hearing, only she falsely claimed that there is no dissent (see cp:Suppression of alternatives to evolution#The Science Show, ABC Australia).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not arguing that anything was correct... I was referring to the proposition that "Christian" viewpoints merit a hearing in the mass media, which you were arguing was correct.
Name-calling and vilifcation is not reasoned argument... Many people would have it that the "Christian" views on homosexuality are name-calling and vilification; again, not everyone agrees on this. As to the specific example from the blog entry, it struck me as being satiric rather than just an exercise in name-calling.
As for your example of neo-Nazis... Ms. Scott made no argumentum ad populum, nor did she claim that there was "no dissent," at least not in the quote provided on the Conservapedia page. She quite openly acknowledged the controversy, such as there is one, and cited no statistics regarding the prevalence of creationism within the general population. On the other hand, going by the slim majorities by which constitutional referenda to repeal anti-miscegenation laws passed in the U.S., I would estimate that just as many people here would disagree with anti-racist views as would disagree with "evolutionist" views.
...it is a circular argument. How is anybody supposed to decide which view is correct... Except that journalists do not decide which view is heard and which is not; no view is "suppressed" when everyone is free to grab a printing press or a website (or, in this case, a television channel) and make their views known. If freedom of the press is restricted by law, then the argument is absolutely correct, but journalists are not the arbiters either. ? ListenerXTalkerX 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the proposition that "Christian" viewpoints merit a hearing in the mass media, which you were arguing was correct. You're equivocating. There's two separate propositions here:
  1. The proposition that the creationary view is correct.
  2. The proposition that the creationary view deserves a hearing.
Which proposition was I arguing? No. 2. About which proposition did I say, "I'm ... talking here about ... a view held by a large number of people."? No. 1! So I was not arguing No. 1, but pointing out that No. 1 is held by many people, and I did not say that proposition 2 was correct on the basis that No. 2 is held by a large number of people. So, as I said, no argumentum ad populum.
Many people would have it that the "Christian" views on homosexuality are name-calling and vilification;... This is meaningless weasel words. If the type of argument (reasoned vs. name-calling and vilification, for example) cannot be known with any certainty, then we might as well do away with things like lists of logical fallacies. The point is that we can determine what type of an argument is being made (in most cases at least), so this comment is incorrect, at least to the extent that it implies that those "many people" have any sort of case.
Ms. Scott made no argumentum ad populum, nor did she claim that there was "no dissent,": Hmmm, you're correct to the extent that she didn't say it explicitly. But she said, " When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard.", then proceeded to try and justify why there's no need to have both sides in this case, including claiming that "You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments...", which is basically a (false) claim that scientists agree on this, which means that there is no dissent. Claiming that there is agreement/no-dissent is an argumentum ad populum.
She quite openly acknowledged the controversy, such as there is one, and cited no statistics regarding the prevalence of creationism within the general population. Perhaps that's the distinction she was making (as I've seen others make), that there is a controversy in the general population, but not in science. If that's what she is saying, it's still an argumentum ad populum, simply within the realm of the science community rather than the general community.
Except that journalists do not decide which view is heard and which is not;... Within the realm of their control, they most certainly do.
...no view is "suppressed" when everyone is free to grab a printing press or a website (or, in this case, a television channel) and make their views known. I've answered this before. The fact that it is not suppressed in medium A does not refute that it is suppressed in medium B. That argument is logically fallacious. Further, I don't know about the U.S., but not everyone is free to start a television channel.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is meaningless weasel words. To provide a specific example, Paul Cameron claims that there is a strong link between homosexuality and both child-molestation and serial-murder. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers this "hysterical" and defamatory, [1] and he was drummed out of the American Psychological Association on similar grounds. Conservapedia, by contrast, calls his work good science.
If the type of argument...cannot be known... It cannot, in the general case, hence the need for formal logic, in which the distinction can actually be made in an indisputable fashion. ? ListenerXTalkerX 05:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was imprecise. When referring to "vilification", was meaning unsubstantiated mud-slinging and various other fallacious arguments; no doubt it's possible to vilify by speaking the truth. The form of Cameron's argument (I'm just referring to your comment about him) is reasoned argument, not name-calling or logically-fallacious mud-slinging. (This says nothing about the merit or accuracy of his claims.) The Law Center's response that Cameron is "hysterical", on the other hand, is not reasoned argument, but appears (from my very quick look) to be simply avoiding the reasoned argument in favour of denigrating him. Whether or not it's defamatory depends on whether or not Cameron's claim are correct, hence also a separate issue. So, in summary, you've failed to support your contention that it's not weasel words.
I was able to determine the type of Cameron's argument without it using formal logic, as could most people in most cases.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I used weasel words. The example was an attempt to be more specific. ? ListenerXTalkerX 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, it does look like I've missed your point there. But then I think you've missed the point also. The conversation went like this:
  • PJR (14:02, 30 June ): reasoned argument was being rejected in favour of ridicule and mudslinging aimed at Christian views.
    • LX (16:37, 30 June): we all have very different conceptions of what constitutes "reasoned argument;"
      • PJR (13:31, 4 July): Name-calling and vilification is not reasoned argument.
        • LX (16:49, 4 July): Many people would have it that the "Christian" views on homosexuality are name-calling and vilification.
          • PJR (03:59, 5 July): This is meaningless weasel words.
            • LX (05:23, 5 July): To provide a specific example, Paul Cameron claims ...
              • PJR (05:51, 5 July): Cameron's argument ... is reasoned argument. ... you've failed to support your contention that it's not weasel words.
So my last comment made the wrong point. It should have said that you've failed to support your argument that there are 'different conceptions of what constitutes "reasoned argument;"'.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
All right; since I failed to convince you that some people hold different opinions than others on what is "reasoned argument" and what is not, a question: Precisely what is it in Ms. Pryor's column that is so unreasonable? And how is Mr. Muehlenberg in his response being more reasoned or not calling names? ? ListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
What's unreasonable about Pryor's column? See Muehlenberg; he details a fair bit, including calling people with opposing views "bigots" and "fundamentalists" without any justification, having a mocking attitude of suggesting a "novel" idea that is actually not novel at all, but as though people she disagrees with hadn't thought of it, a total failure to actually address the arguments that Christians do put in preference to knocking down straw-man arguments, and so on. How is Muehlenberg not calling names? By not calling names! How is he being more reasoned? By addressing the issue (the issue in this case is the attitude of the mainstream media). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Muehlenberg says that Ms. Pryor is "not very smart," "not great with logic," and "long on perversity." By contrast Ms. Pryor uses the term "bigot" to refer to anti-gay-marriage people, which is entirely correct, as Webster's dictionary defines "bigot" as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices," and thinking your opinions equal God's is the height of obstinacy. She also uses the term "fundamentalist" to refer to certain anti-gay-marriage people, which is also correct.
Ms. Pryor uses sarcasm to deliver her point. She possibly makes a straw-man characterization of Christianity with her talk of "love and acceptance," although this view is taken by a significant number of Christians, going by the number of "open-and-affirming" churches in my city, and she explicitly labeled that statement as her own speculation, at any rate.
By contrast, I count in Mr. Muehlenberg's article, besides the ad hominems mentioned above, an argument by assertion, a non sequitur, a redefinition made directly before a criticism of Ms. Pryor for making one, a very ridiculous misreading, and a whole lot of adherence to the principle that "if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it." Specifically:
  • He makes certain assertions about Christianity as fact without providing any argument for them; a contrast to Ms. Pryor's speculation.
  • He makes quite a false claim that gay marriage must by necessity lead to a loss of civil rights for the anti-gay crowd. Besides his gross exaggerations of the actions taken against anti-gay preachers, etc., his general point is also incorrect. For example, we have had a right to drink alcohol for quite a long time — we even have laws here protecting the rights of drinkers in employment — and it has not led to a loss of rights for prohibitionists.
  • He makes his own definition of marriage that is not exactly in line with most religions' views on it, including the one presented in the Bible (thinking Genesis 2:20 and I Corinthians 7:1-2 here), and certainly not in line with what civil marriage is said to be.
  • Although it is glaringly obvious that Ms. Pryor was speaking of marriage in her last paragraph, Mr. Muehlenberg for some reason speculated that she was talking about church membership or admission to churches, something for which he was immediately called out in the comment section.
  • He repeatedly injects terms like "inane," "irrational," "illogical," "smearing," etc. If the arguments in question fit those descriptions, he would have no need to use them to that extent in the sort of serious argument he claims to be using.
...the issue in this case is the attitude of the mainstream media... I was under the impression that the issue was the legal status of gay marriage. Where is Ms. Pryor addressing the media's attitude toward homosexuality? o ListenerXTalkerX 23:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Mr. Muehlenberg says that Ms. Pryor is "not very smart," He does not.

"not great with logic," He does not. And even if he did, that can be a factual statement rather than name-calling.

"long on perversity." Yes, he does say that, but that can be a factual statement rather than name-calling. There's a difference between fair criticism and name-calling.

By contrast Ms. Pryor uses the term "bigot" to refer to anti-gay-marriage people, which is entirely correct, as Webster's dictionary defines "bigot" as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices,"... That begs the question of whether Muehlenberg is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his ... own opinions and prejudices". Further, he actually provides an answer to that: "To affirm the heterosexual nature of marriage is of course no more bigoted that to affirm that parliamentary voting is for adults, not children; that a newspaper opinion piece is for people, not horses; and that the Sydney Roosters is for rugby players, not jockeys."

...thinking your opinions equal God's is the height of obstinacy. Not if they are God's opinions you are citing.

She also uses the term "fundamentalist" to refer to certain anti-gay-marriage people, which is also correct. She does? It is? How so?

He makes certain assertions about Christianity as fact without providing any argument for them; a contrast to Ms. Pryor's speculation. Considering this was in his blog read mainly by Christians, and not in the mainstream media where I expect he would provide the argument, this is irrelevant.

He makes quite a false claim that gay marriage must by necessity lead to a loss of civil rights for the anti-gay crowd. Quite false? It's already happening, as he mentions.

Besides his gross exaggerations of the actions taken against anti-gay preachers... Do you mean this bit: "This is occurring throughout the Western world, where people who dare to counter the militant homosexual activists are being denied their rights and freedoms."? That's no exaggeration.

For example, we have had a right to drink alcohol for quite a long time — we even have laws here protecting the rights of drinkers in employment — and it has not led to a loss of rights for prohibitionists. What about the loss of the right to walk the streets at any time without being hassled by drunks?

He makes his own definition of marriage that is not exactly in line with most religions' views on it, including the one presented in the Bible... How is that not in line with the Bible?

Although it is glaringly obvious that Ms. Pryor was speaking of marriage in her last paragraph, Mr. Muehlenberg for some reason speculated that she was talking about church membership or admission to churches, something for which he was immediately called out in the comment section. I wouldn't put it as strongly ("glaringly obvious"), but I do otherwise agree with you there, but also note that he conceded the point.

He repeatedly injects terms like "inane," "irrational," "illogical," "smearing," etc. If the arguments in question fit those descriptions, he would have no need to use them to that extent in the sort of serious argument he claims to be using. You're saying that if he's using those terms correctly, there's no need to use them???

I was under the impression that the issue was the legal status of gay marriage. Where is Ms. Pryor addressing the media's attitude toward homosexuality? You asked "how is Mr. Muehlenberg in his response being more reasoned", so I was referring to Muehlenberg's issue of the media's attitude, not Pryor's.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He does not/he does not/yes, he does... He makes a generalization with those points and then cites Ms. Pryor as a prime example. And a designation of "perversity" is a statement of opinion, the opinion being what is "normal" to be "perverted" from.
She does? It is? How so? I was under the impression that fundamentalists were much opposed to gay marriage, and vocally so.
...this is irrelevant. The piece did not strike me as a "preaching-to-the-choir" sort of article.
That's no exaggeration. Let us be honest here; the U.S. government only went after Fred Phelps — a very extreme example who made an easy target — when he started picketing military funerals instead of gay events, and even then only stopped him getting too close to the funerals.
What about the loss of the right to walk the streets at any time without being hassled by drunks? There are still laws upholding that; being drunk and disorderly is still a crime, I understand.
How is that not in line with the Bible? It makes no mention of companionship.
You're saying that if he's using those terms correctly, there's no need to use them??? Yes; a Biblical parallel to the principle might be found in Matthew 6:7 KJV.
I was referring to Muehlenberg's issue... How is Ms. Pryor not addressing her issue? o ListenerXTalkerX 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
He ... cites Ms. Pryor as a prime example. Of those sorts of problems, not necessarily of those things in particular.
...a designation of "perversity" is a statement of opinion, the opinion being what is "normal" to be "perverted" from. To clarify, a designation of perversity is a statement of deviating from what is good, and as such is clear enough. You are saying that "what is good" (or "normal") is a matter of opinion, but that is itself a statement of opinion: the opinion that there are no absolute moral standards.
I was under the impression that fundamentalists were much opposed to gay marriage, and vocally so. Probably true, but that doesn't explain why you said that she was using the term "to refer to certain anti-gay-marriage people" (your emphasis). Homosexuality and "homosexual marriage" is opposed by more than just "fundamentalists", so it appears to me that she is labelling anyone opposed to "homosexual marriage" as "fundamentalist", which is name-calling.
The piece did not strike me as a "preaching-to-the-choir" sort of article. Most of his commenters are sympathetic.
Let us be honest here; the U.S. government only went after Fred Phelps... I did not have Fred Phelps in mind. I had in mind things like (these are from memory) the Canadian who was charged with a hate crime for putting an advertisement in a newspaper quoting biblical verses opposed to homosexuality, and the peaceful protester protesting against homosexuality (or some aspect of it) in England who was attacked, and when the police arrived arrested the protester rather than his attackers.
There are still laws upholding that; being drunk and disorderly is still a crime, I understand. Perhaps, but with limited enforcement and effectiveness.
It makes no mention of companionship. He is not claiming his description of marriage to be a complete definition, and there's no inconsistency between his description and the biblical account. He was, instead, mentioning the aspects of marriage relevant to the point he was making.
...a Biblical parallel to the principle might be found in Matthew 6:7 KJV. Perhaps your problem is in using a version with archaic language. How about the NIV instead?
How is Ms. Pryor not addressing her issue? By ad hominem attacks on opponents of "homosexual marriage" rather than addressing "homosexual marriage" itself and the arguments against it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
... terms like "inane," "irrational," "illogical," "smearing," etc. ... You're saying that if he's using those terms correctly, there's no need to use them??? Yes. There is an official policy at Wikipedia called "let the reader decide" (Wikipedia: WP:LTRD). Allow me to quote:
Let the facts speak for themselves
You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.
Is following the advice of WP:LTRD even outside Wikipedia -- such as here at ASK -- consistent with Bible teaching and ASK policy and guidelines? --DavidCary 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If we take that argument to extremes, we would end up claiming that there's no reason for those words to even exist. But there is reason for those words to exist, and that is precisely for the reason they were used here: to describe something; in this case the opinion piece. And keep in mind that we were talking about a blog, not an encyclopædia. The author was describing the opinion piece that he was commenting on. Assuming the adjectives were accurate, that is entirely legitimate.
Wikipedia's policy is typical of Wikipedia: it's good advice in the right place (see similar here), but potentially used to censor others, and trying for an impossible goal of neutrality. "[Don't] moralize" is code for "don't say whether something is right or wrong, because we don't believe in right and wrong". That is unbiblical.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

EZ edit button 2

You are an evolutionist, and evolution is rampant on the mass media, so that claim is hollow. Firstly I dont know what an "evolutionist" is. I believe in the best and most plausible explanation given which is NOT creationism as it does not stand up to scrutiny. Evolutionist to me is a made up weasel word. Secondly how is evolution "rampant in the mass media? Do you mean that nature shows tend towards evolution as an explanation? That is because it is the explanation. As I said, if you want to change people minds, write a book, make a movie, write music, whatever but its pointless to sit there complaining. If you think you have a case then find a medium and convince people of your case. If people dont take to it or science disproves it, its because you do not have a strong case. Ace McWicked 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I dont know what an "evolutionist" is. Someone who believes evolution to be correct.
I believe in the best and most plausible explanation given which is NOT creationism as it does not stand up to scrutiny. In your opinion. Many people disagree, including some former evolutionists who have become creationists because it made a strong case. Simply stating your opinion as if it's accepted truth is not a valid argument.
Evolutionist to me is a made up weasel word. I'm sure someone at some time made it up, but how is it a weasel word? And from memory, Darwin used the term.
Secondly how is evolution "rampant in the mass media? Do you mean that nature shows tend towards evolution as an explanation? That, and news reports, such as your ABC link on my talk page, and other programming, including sitcoms, movies, and all sorts of things.
That is because it is the explanation. Do you mean that it's the (as in only) explanation? If so, that claim is clearly incorrect. Do you mean that it's the correct explanation? If so, you are again proffering your opinion as though it is accepted truth, which it's not, so is an invalid argument.
As I said, if you want to change people minds, write a book, make a movie, write music, whatever but its pointless to sit there complaining. Nobody's "sitting here" complaining, in the sense that that's the only thing they are doing. We are debating (right now), holding meetings, making films, building web-sites, writing books, publishing magazines and peer-reviewed journals, and more. But that doesn't mean that we've no right complain when we are deliberately and unfairly suppressed.
If people dont take to it or science disproves it, its because you do not have a strong case. That assumes that there's no other factors at work, such as suppression, an unwillingness to believe because it threatens worldviews (religions), or etc. That assumption is, I claim, not correct.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone who believes evolution to be correct. It is still meaningless term. It implies a specificity not just someone that believes in the natural world.
Simply stating your opinion as if it's accepted truth is not a valid argument It is not merely my opinion but the opinion of leaders in the scientific field and the science itself.
And from memory, Darwin used the term Why is it that creationists always assume that Darwin = Evolution. He proposed an idea, he didn't write a gospel.
That, and news reports, such as your ABC link on my talk page, and other programming, including sitcoms, movies, and all sorts of things The news has a duty to report on the facts as they present themselves at the time. Creationism does not fit the facts. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a sitcom about Creationism but sitcoms are usually representative of the culture in which they are created and says nothing about a "suppression". Also, you contradict yourself by mentioning movies.
Nobody's "sitting here" complaining, in the sense that that's the only thing they are doing. We are debating (right now), holding meetings, making films, building web-sites, writing books, publishing magazines and peer-reviewed journals, and more. But that doesn't mean that we've no right complain when we are deliberately and unfairly suppressed. Contradiction here in your above mention of movies. I am still yet to see any deliberate suppresion in the mass media. Unfortunately when you say suppression others see creationist ideas as something incorrect and has no place being taught or aired. Ace McWicked 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It is still meaningless term. It implies a specificity not just someone that believes in the natural world. Huh? Please elaborate, because that makes no sense to me.
It is not merely my opinion but the opinion of leaders in the scientific field and the science itself. Granted that it's not exclusively yours—it's widespread—but it's an opinion masquerading as accepted fact. What do you mean by "the opinion of ... the science itself"? People, including scientists, have opinions; science doesn't.
Why is it that creationists always assume that Darwin = Evolution. He proposed an idea, he didn't write a gospel. What does that have to do with whether or not "evolutionist" is a "made up weasel word"?
The news has a duty to report on the facts as they present themselves at the time. Which begs the question of whether they are "facts", or opinions.
Creationism does not fit the facts. There's your POV speaking again. I utterly disagree.
...sitcoms are usually representative of the culture in which they are created and says nothing about a "suppression". Among the many comments I have made in this discussion, I made the following two distinct comments:
  • "it's unfair to promote anti-Christian viewpoints and simultaneously suppress Christian viewpoints"
  • "evolution is rampant on the mass media"
When I mentioned sitcoms and movies, I was justifying the second comment, not the first.
I am still yet to see any deliberate suppresion in the mass media. Yet I've pointed you to evidence of two: one being the ABC mention in the CP article, and the other being in the blog entry that started(?) this whole discussion.
Unfortunately when you say suppression others see creationist ideas as something incorrect and has no place being taught or aired. As I'm sure I've said before, that sounds like a justification for suppression rather than a denial of it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

I have been busy and did not see the lively interchange. I thought the blog article was quite good, thought it could have provided more examples of left wing bias, which overall is well evidenced [2], as would be expected, seeing as the vast majority of the MSM is made up of the Left.[3]

I left a response to the blog:

Well, you see, it all began in Genesis. There God created the women for the man, as his uniquely compatible and complementary "helpmeet," after showing that other creations just would not do. (Gn. 2:18-24; cf. 1Cor. 11:8) And this union of opposite genders is the only one God sanctified by marriage, while only condemning homosexual relations wherever it is explicitly dealt with. And none of the inordinate attempts by pro homosexual polemicists to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosex, or to force homosex into passages it does not belong in, can withstand sound examination. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html

But what also happened in Genesis was the manifestation of liberal rebellion and its victim mentality, with its revisionist theology, as the devil sought to be portray Eve as the victim as a malevolent moral authority, and to indulge in what was forbidden. (Gn. 3)

The MSM is largely of the same spirit, and as Pilate and Herod became friends due to making Christ their common enemy, the MSM will promote most anything that will serve their desire to cast the living and true God out, and and exchange Him for one more to their liking, whether it be deity or man, so that they may further the 60's sensual revolution, which most of them are graduates of.

This relates to the original objection, which was that homosexual activists censor those who oppose them, mainly by means of psychological techniques, which correspond to the marketing plan set forth in After the Ball.

What Pascal was responding to was a CP page i had edited, in which i made the observation that blacks were able to overall peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"[1], as the former yields no certain moral distinction, while in contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and to overall characteristically engage in certain coercive and deceptive means to do so (while also engaging in gross exhibitionism, which i will not even link to). This is evidenced to include attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations,[4] as well as the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

The closest thing to such on the Christian side would be Fred Phelps, but whom finds virtually no Christian support.

None of this is unexpected, but it serves to expose deception, and to promote truth, and the truth is in Jesus. Daniel1212 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. Are you declaring support for Fred Phelps? I think more people consider him demon-possessed than consider him a Christian.
  2. Why you are so obsessed with this particular topic? Plenty of other "sins" happen every week, and such acts are declared good by the State. ? ListenerXTalkerX 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
LX, I read Daniel1212's post to be saying that the methods of Phelps are a rare example of a Christian engaging in "certain corcive and deceptive means" and that such is not supported by the general Christian community.
It is not merely declared good by the State. In my own country it has gone from denunciation, to covert tolerance, to overt tolerance, to open endorsement. I recall an old old joke of my father's: "I'm not worried about it being legal. I'm concerned that it will be compulsory!" Dissenting opinions are not allowed (and are in the process of being outlawed here right now). What you label an "obsession" is in fact a reaction to the obsession that proponents seem to have that nobody be allowed to call it "wrong".
Regardless, what other sins are declared good by States, about which Christians are silent? (I am much more familiar with the complaint that we won't be silent even though the State has declared it to be A Good Thing). BradleyF (LowKey) 06:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was addressing Daniel1212, who is quite clearly obsessed with the topic; most people here obviously are not.
Two examples of other sins endorsed by the State are divorce and war (or at least some of the more recent wars). I also would not place the attitude that "nobody be allowed to call it 'wrong'" with the gay-rights movement in general, but with the movement of people who think that any of a handful of groups with an anti-establishment "identity" should be protected from criticism. We have people here such as Andrew Sullivan and Wendy McElroy who support gay rights but oppose that sort of identity politics. If people in your country are to lose their freedom of speech on this issue, that is not something I support in the least. ? ListenerXTalkerX 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
LX (how old are you, really?) Yes, I interjected. That's wiki-life. Actually I wanted to make clear that what you seemed to think Daniel1212 was saying was not apparent to others. It was no big deal, but I have seen that kind of misunderstanding escalate dramatically on WP.
While divorce and war can be sins they are not always necessarily so, but to discuss those that are, yes the state endorses them but Christians are not silent on the issue. As to freedom of speech, a couple of years back a Christian pastor was arrested and charged with "vilification" for reading out (in church) Qu'ranic statements regarding the status/treatment of women. In the US, new laws could see Christians arrested for reading aloud (in church, and without additional comment) Biblical condemnation of homosexual practices (charged with crimes of "bias motivated violence"). BradleyF (LowKey) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
...Christians are not silent on the issue. No, they are not; unfortunately, half of the time they are found advocating the wars in question. The U.S.'s war in Iraq is an example; a great number of Christians opposed the war, but these were mostly the liberal ones, the ones who are also "evolutionists." With the exception of John Lofton, blogging at The American View, the right-wing ones were shouting the praises of God and Country throughout the entire procedure.
In the US, new laws... When professional scaremongers claim that the First Amendment is on the ropes, it sells papers, but does not bear a close resemblance to reality. Our courts have never done anything but expand free speech protections here, and the standard for restricting speech has consistently been what we call "imminent lawless action," which is a very narrow and ideologically neutral standard. ? ListenerXTalkerX 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Christians sometime advocate war. As Bradley said, it's not always a sin. In fact, it can be the right thing to do. So you've missed the point.
I'm not sure about the U.S., but most(?) countries don't have freedom of speech as a constitutional right, and a number of countries are moving to suppress free speech with so-called hate laws, which basically make a point of view illegal. That is, such countries generally already have laws against causing harm and even inciting violence, so the only point of these so-called hate laws is to suppress selected points of view. This is, of course, a denial of freedom of speech.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

EZ edit button 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

Guess what oppressed minority also has members who partake in violent activism and historical revisionism? Pascal 05:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what it is called when you drag your line along behind a boat.BradleyF (LowKey) 06:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You think my comparison is inappropriate? Pascal 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal does have a point; much black activism during the civil-rights movement was violent (e.g., the Watts riots in 1965). Stonewall was fairly mild compared to that. ? ListenerXTalkerX 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem I had is that any point that the post makes is ambiguous. Is Pascal saying that violence and revisionism are okay? Or that they are okay if the cause is just? Or not okay, regardless of the cause or the people employing the methods? As it does not really make a clear point, but invokes a violent and controversial group for comparison, the post looks to be seeking a reaction rather than a reasoned response. If Pascal is comparing Phelps et al with the Black Panthers, I would say the comparison is somewhat appropriate. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where Daniel said "i made the observation that blacks were able to overall peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", as the former yields no certain moral distinction, while in contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and to overall characteristically engage in certain coercive and deceptive means to do so"? Because the point I'm making at is pretty obvious: Daniel using violent and revisionist activists to represent homosexuals is about as fair and accurate as doing the same with African-Americans. How you can read anything else from it, I really don't know. Pascal 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't miss it, but I did see "overall" used twice, which you didn't address at all. You chose an extremist group within a movement, and assumed that it obvious that you were accusing Daniel of doing the same. You made no attempt to show that coercive and deceptive methods are not representative. Also, you are interpreting "coercive and deceptive" to mean "violent and revisionist", without justifying that interpretation. You are switching from Daniel1212's words (which are certainly true in my country) to your own words with a different meaning, and then attacking that meaning. As you gave no indication that your "violent and revisionist" was in some fashion equivalent to Daniel's "coercive and deceptive" your post was a little vague as to the point it was making. So behind your actual post there was equivocation, strawman argument, association fallacy and non-sequitur. Maybe that's why I had trouble seeing exactly what point you were making. You seem to want others to read your post so thoroughly that they are reading arguments that you didn't write.BradleyF (LowKey) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I know you didn't read what Daniel wrote. It's okay to admit, that, though. None of us blame you. Pascal 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4 or 5 times now, tah muchly. You are merely dismissing me with a baseless assertion rather addressing any of what I wrote. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

- Hi Listenerx,

Are you declaring support for Fred Phelps?

No, and i hope the context indicates that, and he actually serves to help the pro homosexual cause by providing a convenient caricature for the MSM to use, for Christians who conscientiously oppose homosexuality, etc.

Why you are so obsessed with this particular topic?

1. Because it is a serious apologetical issue. If homosexuality was treated like drug abuse, or was promoted without the Bible being invoked for support, with its universal prohibitions suffering denial, i would have had said far less. But in reality it is increasing promoted, in which the Bible is consistently misconstrued to say contrary to the text, both denying prohibitions and asserting approval of homosex. And which is manifestly due to ideological goals, not consistent hermeneutics, the end result being that the Divine authority of the Bible is denied. "Hath God said" ends up being "God hath not said." This is also rather uniquely so, as you do not find thousands of web sites and 300+ page popular books promoting drug use by the Bible, or even unBiblical divorce, as you do regarding pro homosexual polemical propaganda. And when you defy something as they do, and much foisted upon a country, you should not marvel when you tend to attract attention, though i find the Christian intellectual response to this phenomenon to be lacking.

2. Homosexuality is a supreme manifestation of idolatry, which is the mother of all sins. Though we (and me) are often guilty of idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance, affection or trust, is you god, at that time at least) and must repent from such, homosexuality is defended and promoted as being God-approved, though the opposite is what is manifest. As in idolatry the true and living Creator-God is exchanged for one which is more to man's liking, so the God ordained sexual partner is exchanged for that which is contrary to His design and decrees. (Rm. 1:19-27)

3. Though i came far short of Christ myself, and repent much, i want others to know and follow Him, which one cannot do if they justify something which they must want victory over. I do not have any personal animosity toward homosexuals, and want to easily and civilly converse with them if they can do so. My former next used to be an active lesbian, but has been saved for a numbers years and serving Jesus, praise be to God, and i hope many follow. Daniel1212 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. You are incorrect on the divorce question. A great number of churches permit divorce of all sorts in their canon law. And if the ruckus currently being raised over homosexuality were being raised over divorce, certainly a great many more people would be writing popular books and slapping up websites for the pro-divorce side of the question.
  2. Your association of homosexuality with idolatry seems also to apply to any instance in which some sin is said to be endorsed by God; by no means exclusive to homosexuality. (It also appears to exclude any instance when homosexuality is practiced without any claim of endorsement by God.)
  3. There are a large number of churches that accept gays as members, ordain them, etc. How do you fancy yourself more qualified on the question of what the Bible says than the theologians in those churches? ? ListenerXTalkerX 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect on the divorce/homosexuality comparison. The doctrinal ruckus being raised over homosexuality is an effect, with the cause (in addition to its nature) being the abundance of popular books and websites designed to provide sanction for homosex. This stands in contrast to the issue of divorce, and the churches that tend to be liberal on that are tend to be liberal on homosexuality. In addition, while faithful Christians should oppose such things as no fault divorce laws more, seeking to silence them against homosexuality by the charge of hypocrisy will not change the sinfulness of either.
True. We are obeying something/someone other than the true God when we sin, though in ignorance of His will we may have the right motive. The difference with homosexuality is the pervasive proactive promotion of its acceptance, and its foundational position of importance, being in contrast to the union of opposite genders which God originally and continually uniquely and manifestly sanctioned, and which Jesus also confirmed was the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined." (Mt. 19:4) Breaking that union for reasons other than infidelity or possibly abandonment is contrary to the permanence reestablished by the Lord, as is seeking to joined together what God has sexually placed asunder.
How do you fancy yourself more qualified... You must assume that the Lord's original apostles were graduates of the likes of Harvard, and that apologetics is reserved for such, or that latter day pro homosexual revisionist scholars, from like universities, must be correct, while conservative scholars, with equal or more letters after their names, are not. But what it really presumes is that the Bible is not a book that allows even a Christian lay researcher who is learned in the Word, and who can "search out a matter," to manifest truth from error, in such a way that it is evident to an objective seeker of truth.
I should love to go into detail here, but would direct you to the page i mentioned before, http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html and begin at the beginning.Daniel1212 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To Pascal: I was not disallowing that violent and revisionist black activism occurred, by that in contrast to such, which was not successful, the valid and effective polemic of men like MLK was that character was the basis for esteem, and thus discrimination. Even one's religion can be a basis for loss of rights in the U.S., such as child sacrifice. MLK himself is less esteemed by many due to allegations of adultery, and had he sought acceptance of consensual fornication you would have a valid comparison, as homosexuals are not seeking equal rights based upon an amoral characteristic such as skin color, or national origin, but for the right to engage in an immoral practice. Meanwhile, the argument that a predisposition to something justifies it is clearly unbiblical, and untenable logic, as we are all born with a inner proclivity to sin. Gn. 4:7.Daniel1212 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

you sicken me. there is no other way to put it. you are the second coming of Conservative/RuyLopez in overwhelming others with disingenuous comparisons and frivolous links. I don't even care if this gets deleted or what others think of it. Reading your tortured rhetoric literally sickens and tires me. I pray to God, the God you believe you are doing the work of, that I somehow find the strength to meet and engage with your deceptions on the level that they warrant. Until then, I retire, and hope that you keep your intellectual dishonesty on Conservapedia where it belongs. Pascal 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The doctrinal ruckus being raised over homosexuality is an effect... The acceptance of divorce was also due to political pressure, specifically, a response to the alteration of civil divorce laws.
...seeking to silence them against homosexuality by the charge of hypocrisy... Hypocrisy is, some would say, a far more serious charge than homosexuality; unlike with homosexuality, Jesus spent an entire Bible chapter laying it on hypocrisy.
...graduates of the likes of Harvard... The difference I was thinking of is not Harvard degrees or ideological litmus tests, but Apostolic Succession.
The author of the page you linked to seems rather ignorant of all that constitutes "homosex," as he calls it, which is made clear as (unlike most of those arguing for the other side of the question) he apparently finds it necessary to describe it graphically in order to make extrascriptural statements about that particular act. ? ListenerXTalkerX 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pascal, your ad ad hominem attack is what is often observed when attempting to intellectually correspond with defenders of homosexuality who have no viable response, and in so doing you have become more like those at issue.Daniel1212 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ListenerX, but could you please offer more specifics? The term "homosex" (used by Gagnon and others) is basically short for homosexual relations, or homoeroticism, with all 3 coming short of graphic descriptions. The context is the Biblical condemnation of such, and while what is usually specifically referred to is homosexual intercourse, yet, as with prohibited sex with another man's wife or other illicit partners, i do not think, nor did the Jews, that it is tenable to restrict "lie with a man as with a women" (Lv. 18:22) or "the bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17) to simply intercourse or eroticism on a bed, anymore than things like smiting with the fist (Is. 58:9) or confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9) restricts the type of expression at issue to those means. Jesus condemned all "fornications" (plural) and the N.T. more broadly disallows all sexual uncleanness. (Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:24; 2Cor. 12:21; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:7; 2Pet. 2:10) While some seek to make a positive motive a means of sanctifying the forbidden sexual relations, motive is never a factor in prohibiting sex with illicit partners, though it can factor in the degree of wickedness.Daniel1212 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence beginning with, "To suppose that the Designer created man..." is an appeal to disgust, not a biblical argument; not to mention that the article completely passes over the Apostolic Decree from the Council of Jerusalem, and makes extensive ad hominems insisting that those who do not agree with the interpretation therein presented are not Christians. ? ListenerXTalkerX 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"To suppose that the Designer created man to be sexually joined with one of his own, and with the life giving seed being deposited into the orifice of man designed only for waste to come out is itself a supreme insult to God and His power, and His precepts."
I suppose you might be commended for focusing on the closest thing to a graphic description of an actual homosexual practice in a 34,000+ word apologetic. But in context the appeal is more to logic and God's manifest wisdom than disgust. While the unique compatibility and complementary union of the male and female goes beyond simply anatomical aspects, the wisdom of God in physically joining the opposite genders is a manifest aspect of it. If one wanted to go into more detail, they could describe reasons why rectal diseases are far more common among homosexuals, but i would much rather not, and overall the article deals extensively with doctrinal reasons why the homosexual attempts are spurious.
In so doing, the polemic behind your invocation of the Apostolic Decree from the Council of Jerusalem is dealt with, as that in no way abrogates moral laws, and certainly does not restrict the laws which the Gentiles are to observe to "pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and from blood." (Act 15:20; cf. 21:25). Their is a reason behind the statement in the next verse, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Proper exegesis requires examining scripture, including this statement, in the light of all scripture, with covenant distinctions, etc., taken into account. In so doing we see that the O.T. forbiddance of fornication is perhaps the most reiterated one in the new. (1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.). And in such we see that the pagans were often used as an example of behavior to avoid, but that the forbidden behavior was not restricted to a pagan context. (Eph. 5; 1Pet. 4:3,4) In addition, the type of laws which were abrogated are revealed to pertain to diet, liturgical days, and temple ordinances and sacrifices. (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10ff; Gal. 4:10; Rm. 14)
As for your charge of "extensive use of ad hominems, insisting that those who do not agree with the interpretation therein presented are not Christians", besides that page not being an in an encyclopedic format, rather than resorting to name calling due to the lack of an argument, or summarily dismissing some one without substantiated warrant, or charging someone morally when the persons character is the issue, (in which such can have a legitimate use), that pro homsexuals cannot be Biblicallly called Christians is a well substantiated charge. The term Christian is first found in the Bible, (Act 11:26) and denotes a certain class of people. Among other things, in obedience to their Lord and apostolic doctrine, they would have considered all Scripture as wholly inspired by God, (2Tim. 3:16) and actual historical narratives as being just that, (Mt. 12:48; 2Pt. 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14) and not the work of homophobic editors, which charge is the recourse for the the vast majority of pro homosexual polemicist on this issue. And who then read pagan immorality, as approved, into historical narratives, which they largely consider embellished or fictional accounts anyway. Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced, by historical and textual context, etc., that they would not have understood the injunctions against fornication as allowing a homosexual exception, or abrogation of ceremonial laws as allowing the institution of a radical new union. This would have been all their enemies needed to put them away, and the apostles were not hiding the "whole counsel of God". (Act 20:27) In regards to such, the imaginative and contradictory attempts by pro homosexual writers to negate the condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 are a sad testimony to ideologically driven extremes such must go to. Nor is this statement a recourse to ad hominem attack, but a substantiated conclusion. http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Romans_1Daniel1212 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those "in the faith" (2Cor. 13:5

pro homsexuals cannot be Biblicallly called Christians Daniel1212, you seem to be applying an expanded, cultural definition of Christian. Romans 10:9-10 (ESV) specifies the necessities of salvation—belief and confession, basically. These are not the minimun requirements; they are the requirements. The others are truths, but not necessary for salvation (i.e. aSK's position is mainstream Evangelical rather than official Fundamentalist). If you begin adding conditions, what conditions may others add? Christening? Change of name? No shaving? Homosexuality is immoral according to scripture, but you weaken your position when you insist that recognising this is essential to Christianity. If one had to be 100% right 100% of the time to be a Christian, then to be a Christian one would need to not need to be a Christian. (There are no typos in that sentence). BradleyF (LowKey) 02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LowKey here; if one propounds incorrect doctrine, they are generally regarded as heretics, but still Christians. I read the Bible as treating homosexuality as a vice equal to a large number of others, which also appears to be the position taken by most of the Bible scholars and preachers who speak out against it (with the exception of Fred Phelps). But there are also many scholars who know the Bible far better than I, interpreting it as having no prohibition against homosexuality applying to people today. ? ListenerXTalkerX 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome BradleyF. I am doing quite the opposite of applying an expanded, cultural definition of Christianity, in which some consider Hitler Christian, yet i am not making things like musical instruments or changing one's name a salvific issue, but far more serious things, which i shall detail.
As regards the requirements, it is true that the promise of Rm. 10:9,10 is true, praise God, though that itself is not set in isolation, which would easily allow a perfunctory profession. But together with other verses on the matter it presupposes such things as that it is the Jesus of the Bible being called upon, (Mt. 24:24) and that His word is truth (Eph. 1:13) and that, being drawn and convicted by God, (Jn. 6:42; 16:8; Acts 2:37) one recognizes his dire need for salvation, (Acts 2:37; 8:36) and calls upon Christ with the kind of humble and contrite heart God promises to save (Ps. 34:8; 16:30; Ja. 4:6), with a faith that will follow Jesus. (Jn. 10:27; Acts 26:20; Heb. 6:9; Ja. 2) Abraham himself saw his utter inability to gain the promise of God, and humbly trusted God, that He was both willing and able to save, (Rm. 4:19-22) and he later manifested that faith in clear and costly obedience. (Gn. 17) Though no merit of works justified him, the manner of God-given faith that he expressed is what is salvific. Thanks be to God. And in the context of impenitence, Paul exhorts examination of self as to whether we stand in the faith, (2Cor. 13:5)
And i am not suggesting people cannot be saved and be off in some non-essential (to salvation) doctrine, or those who, in repentance, daily seek to overcome their old carnal nature, (Rm. 7) in heart or deed, are lost, which would certainly leave me out, but the persons at subject are typically those who formally deny that the Bible is the inspired word of God, or (esp.) at least the substantial texts they disagree with,. (B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg; (Victor Paul Furnish, Gary David Comstock, etc.) And the Bible also speaks of things which accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9) versus those who "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him," (Titus 1:16), "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousnes" (Jude 1:4), promoting homosexual fornication, while no fornicator will gain eternal life, (Eph. 5) whether we claim to be Christian or not. Spiritually such fit the description of idolaters in Rm. 1, who make Jesus into an image acceptable to them, rendering Jesus to be gay), and usually are liberal when it comes to Jn. 14:6,. Acts 4:12 etc.
As is stated in my page , Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988) John Boswell died of AIDS, and Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics. (Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121) Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes (Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?").
In a radical shift, Walter Wink concedes, that "Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute." Instead, he disallows that the Bible as offers a coherent sexual morality for today, especially as regards homoeroticism, and joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, essentially proposing that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality")
Though relative little is said as to the salvific condition of such in that page, yet that is not allowed, (while all who oppose them are typically uncritically relegated to be suffering from homophobia), but no, i do not see what such espouse as corresponding to Biblical faith, and the holy Spirit of Christ, rather Rm. 16:16 and Titus 3:10 are more fitting, which persons are to be rejected.Daniel1212 12:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Lowkey, I respectfully think your above post was true but very incomplete. When you look at verses like 1 Cor 6:9-11 you see that a person having certain lifestyles is a salvation killer as can be seen here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%206:9-11;&version=49; This is not surprising because although Christians are saved by faith, faith without works is dead (of course, this implies that an evil lifestyle can be a salvation killer). I also do rightly believe that true believers do have the Holy Spirit which guides men into truth. I don't believe that a true believer could say that homosexuality is perfectly fine without the Holy Spirit discernably "tapping him on the shoulder" which of course he can choose to pay attention to or obstinately resist/defy. Ruylopez 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


(OD)Daniel1212, well you confused me right off the bat. To what are you welcoming me? Ah well, moving on…

You deny using an expanded definition, but in the same sentence justify your expansion because what you have added is more important than what others may (and let’s face it, do) add. Also, just because your definition of Christianity does not consider Hitler a Christian, it does not follow that yours is unexpanded (to argue so is to indulge in an amalgam of logical fallacies).

I don’t really disagree with anything in your second paragraph, as you are essentially laying out the scriptural explanation of just what is meant by “Jesus is Lord” and what it means to confess Him so. 2 Corinthians 13:1-10 does indeed exhort Christians to examine themselves (and their work), to test that they are motivated by (and acting in) faith. Note that he is addressing Christians (“brothers”, he calls them) so he is telling Christians to examine themselves. He is not telling people to test whether they are Christian, but telling Christians to test themselves (with the aim of confirmation or correction).

It is in your third paragraph that we part doctrinal company (so to speak). You are claiming (I believe) that those who deny that the Bible (or part of it) is the inspired word of God are not saved, but in a post with many scripture references this claim (which is the one I was disagreeing with in the first place) stands by itself as an assertion with no specific scriptural basis given. As to the Scripture which you do invoke; while the whole of Scripture is the full context for each portion of Scripture, to concatenate three separate verses from three separate pastoral letters written by at least two separate human authors and present them as a single statement condemning those who do not condemn homosexuality is a misconstruction of each of the separate texts (and disturbingly, is a practice more in keeping with proof-texting than with Scriptural exegesis). The passage in Hebrews 6 is speaking of apostasy, and the fact that the foundational gospel message is wasted on apostates. The specific statement about “things that belong to salvation” is a reassurance to the Hebrews of the author’s confidence that the Hebrew Christians have not fallen into apostasy- that their “fruit” is in keeping with their relationship with Christ. The Titus passage is certainly about sound doctrine and those that contradict it. But notice that those who contradict sound doctrine are described as “detestable” and “unfit for any good work” but the need to rebuke them sharply is “that they may be sound in the faith”. In the faith: despite unsound doctrine, they are Christians. The Jude passage is not speaking of Christians, but again it is not speaking of those who promote as moral that which scripture condemns. These people are specifically invoking grace to justify licentiousness. Paul also addressed this teaching of “we are under grace, so our morality doesn’t matter” attitude, although he was addressing Christians who had this attitude. The crux is that those who promote this are not saying that the “licentious” practices are moral (or that scripture does not condemn them), but rather they say it doesn’t matter because God in His grace will forgive us. Jude tells us the key indicator that that these people are not Christian; they deny Christ and his Lordship (i.e. they fail the requirements given in Romans 10:9-10). It is this which condemns them, not “promoting homosexual fornication” which you claim but the Scriptural text does not even mention.

I won’t address your other paragraphs, as I was responding to what was posted here, not elsewhere. Also, this post is already too long.

Where I think we agree: Scripture condemns all extra-marital sexual relation, including homosexual relations. One cannot preach the Gospel, including the necessary repentance of sins, if one will not address what is sinful. Thus how can one preach a Gospel of salvation to a practicing homosexual, if we reassure them that their lifestyle is “out of scope” regarding repentance? I am reminded of John 8:10-11 (NIV) where Jesus demonstrated loving forbearance, but not tolerance (he withheld condemnation of the woman, but acknowledged her sin and that it was unacceptable).

The Christian in this position will have a “troubled” relationship with Christ, and will not likely be fruitful. They will likely be those saved “as one rescued from flames”.

I don't think we are going to agree on this, so I would like rather to concentrate on the common ground, and some practicalities. Rather than focus on the condemnation of those promoting wrong doctrine, I would suggest focus (and address) their wrong doctrine itself. The Gospel is "good news". "You are condemned" is not good news, "You don't have to be condemned" is good news.

Ruylopez, I am not speaking of practicing homosexuals, but of Christians who will not speak up and acknowledge the immorality and scriptural condemnation of homosexual practices. See Daniel1212’s second paragraph above and my response to it. As to our response to the Holy Spirit’s leading, it is as any part of our lives, and fortunately God is gracious with us.BradleyF (LowKey) 02:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC) -

To what are you welcoming me? To this discussion. But there are some misunderstandings in your response.
You deny using an expanded definition Please note my words and context. I stated i was in opposition to an expanded, "cultural definition of Christianity" which you originally charged me with, though i am not sure how you supposed my definition fit that typical broadness.
You are claiming (I believe) that those who deny that the Bible (or part of it) is the inspired word of God are not saved, but in a post with many scripture references this claim (which is the one I was disagreeing with in the first place) stands by itself as an assertion with no specific scriptural basis given. I am sorry if you see my description of Bible Christians as being insufficient to preclude those who hold (whenever necessary) that the Bible is the work of homophobic editors, and that God's grace sanctions homosexual relationships. Or that the Bible contains "no sexual ethic" as concerns such. I should have elaborated more on how the Christians evidently did not subscribe to such, but evidenced that they considered both the precanonical preaching of the apostles (2Thes. 2:13) and the Scriptures (including Paul's letters: 2Pt. 3:16) they had to be the very word of God. (Acts 17:11)
But as regards to what constitutes saving faith, i find your reliance upon Rm. 10:9 for the totality of saving faith to be what lacked further scriptural substantiation. Multitudes who for years confessed Rm. 10:9 as part of church ritual have later come to be truly born again, by a contrite faith which is of the heart. The confession of which will usually be done by more than the mouth. (The historical context here helps, as confessing Jesus as Lord, and risen and reigning, denied Caesar as Lord, which radically reduced your physical life expectancy, but this cultural aspect was conducive to requiring real faith, nor merely a perfunctory one.)
three separate verses from three separate pastoral letters written by at least two separate human authors and present them as a single statement condemning those who do not condemn homosexuality I understand how such can be abused, but referencing various places and authors is valid when they serve to verify a common aspect. That overall aspect is that valid faith, like love, in manifested by its expressions, and my references served to evidence that.
He [2Cor. 13] is not telling people to test whether they are Christian, but telling Christians to test themselves (with the aim of confirmation or correction) I assumed that "in the faith" would be recognized as being the opposite of out of the faith, that of denying Christ as one's Lord and Savior by willful adherence to sin or adherence to a false gospel. Timothy was not Paul's physical son, but "my own son in the faith" (1Tim. 1:2) and he became that way upon his conversion. And true faith is affirmed as such by effectually profession in obedience, but which is denied by the opposite. 1 Jn. provides the criteria by which we may know we believe and have eternal life ("these things" 1Jn. 5:13), yet we may profess to know Christ but deny Him by the overall opposite, including by faith in a false gospel.
Here, while you are right that the Corinthians are addressed as brethren, you are wrong that the test in not about whether they are Christians, as in fact they are to examine themselves whether "Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" Are we to suppose that "Christian reprobates?" are saved?
Hebrews 6 is speaking of apostasy, Yes, but that context in no way invalidates the truth that there are "things that accompany salvation," and conversely, things which testify otherwise.
those who contradict sound doctrine are described as “detestable” and “unfit for any good work” but the need to rebuke them sharply is “that they may be sound in the faith”. In the faith: despite unsound doctrine... Context. This is clear error. What you are saying is saving faith may be held by those who "abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." "Sound" here is not speaking about peripheral doctrinal issues or contrite believers falling short, but about being in the faith versus out of it. These souls may be trusting Christ as Savior, but they are overall denying Him as Lord by continued willful sin. In Gal. 5:1-4, we see a warning to those that believed on Christ that they were in danger to making Him of none effect, and of falling from grace, by submitting to a false gospel.
The Jude passage is not speaking of Christians, but again it is not speaking of those who promote as moral that which scripture condemns....The crux is that those who promote this are not saying that the “licentious” practices are moral (or that scripture does not condemn them) (i.e. they fail the requirements given in Romans 10:9-10). Antinomianism is most likely the case, but denial of faith is not restricted to those who hold to it, any more than it only applies doctrinally to proponents of universal salvation, rather it also applies to those who deny the Bible by holding that basic “licentious” practices are moral, as well as those who teach that salvation can be had under another means and name than that grace thru faith in the Lord Jesus.
It is this which condemns them, not “promoting homosexual fornication” which you claim but the Scriptural text does not even mention. You are making a difference without an effective distinction as concerns the application to those at issue, as well as restricting the manner of sin the defilers of flesh in Jude engaged in. Whether you hold that grace allows sin, or that grace sanctifies what is explicitly condemned as serious sin, then you denying true faith. Or will "Christian fornicators" etc., inherit the kingdom of God? (Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5) or modern day Jezebels, which teach and to seduce Jesus' servants to commit fornication? (Rev. 2:20) The overall negative theme of Jude is rebellious apostates, and those dreamers which "defile the flesh" but mingled with Christians as if they were beleivers, were one example of such.
Getting back to the original examples of such, when dealing with Romans 1, pro homosexual polemicists typically do in fact teach that God's grace, under the New Covenant, sanctifies homosex, or they restrict the condemnation of this to pederasty (men with boys, not "men with men"), or suppose that positive motive sanctifies otherwise sinful sex with illicit partners. Or they hold that the Bible does not offer a coherent sexual morality for today, and essentially propose that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. And overall you will find that the interpretive foundation such work out of easily allows the negation of all basic O.T. moral laws, and (as Horner, etc.) the reading into stories with close heterosexual love the X rated content these dreamers charge homophobic editors left out. The refutation of such is what the http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html page and links mainly concerns, not the spiritual condition of the proponents of such. Nonetheless, while i believe that Christians can be confused on some issues, that of homosexual relations is of such a fundamental nature, and the arguments employed in seeking to negate the consistent clear condemnation of such also effectively oppose all laws against illicit sex partners, and usually the veracity of the Bible itself and sound exegesis of it, that, esp. taken together, i cannot hold such pro homosexual authors as possessing salvific Christian faith.And i thin the feeling is mutual. Helminiak, who states that it appears Jesus "had no clear and simple idea of who He was or what his role was to be", or "precisely where he life was leading and what the exact outcome would be", but "took His est shot, hoped for the best, and trusted", also misrepresents Christian Fundamentalism, and holds that, mainly due to its rejection of the liberal use of the historical-critical method (they do look at historical context, but they reject the modern documentary hypothesis (http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm) and revisionist form criticism that turns historical accounts into didactic fables) and its holding that moral laws are immutable, is not Christian. (Sex and the sacred By Daniel A. Helminiak, pp. 116,120,121, 170-72) Daniel1212 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CP: Homosexual Historical Revisionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge#Gay_orientation_and_affiliations This is not revisionism. I understand you did not put him on the list, but as this article falls under your purview, please remove him from the list...or at least correct his name. Pascal 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No i would not have listed him. I changed the name and the link to one that somewhat expresses there are disputes about it, though i would rather delete it. --Unsigned comment by Daniel1212 (talk)

Great work

I just wanted to commend you for the massive efforts you've put into Unification Church, and before that, to evangelism. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To God be the glory, and the research required was enlightening for me. And thank God for your contending for the faith. How do you feel about an article on Scientology?Daniel1212 13:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Go for it, if you like. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Membership nomination

Daniel1212 has been nominated for membership.

  • If you support this nomination, please add your vote below, on a new line (before the '}}' characters) in the form * '''Support''' ~~~~. If you would like to make further brief comment, you can add that on the same line. In addition, increase the votes parameter of this macro by one.
  • If you oppose this nomination, please indicate that in the same format, except use the word Oppose instead. In this case, do not alter the votes parameter.

Note: Before voting, familiarise yourself with the membership requirements. You must be a Member (or Senior member) in order to vote.

  • Support Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Working for the good of A Storehouse of Knowledge. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --OscarJ 11:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The EmperorRise, my apprentice 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --CPalmer 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not on the basis of this user's privately held beliefs and views but his public misconduct in promoting discrimination against women and homosexuals on this site. If it was a matter of "views" and "beliefs" alone Daniel had no obligation to publicly advocate his perverted hatred of women and homoesexuals. Nonetheless, Daniel is in my view an evil and amoral person who has demonstrated through his conduct here that he should never have any authority over a woman or homosexual under any circumstances. Since there are both women and homosexuals on this site I find the proposition of his being an authority here deeply troubling. If Philip wishes to purge the site of those he finds doctrinally impure, including women and homosexuals, then Daniel would indeed be a fine thug to bring on staff to hasten this site's further decline. Teh Terrible Asp 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's helping improve A Storehouse of Knowledge. --EvanW 03:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --TimS 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose withdrawn at direction of site owner - Hamster 17:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Nobody here was "directed" to withdraw their opposition. That is a gross misrepresentation. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Its an interpretation of saying "If no reason is given the opposing vite will be rejected out of hand. If you want him in , then have him. No reason = vote rejected , reason given, = reson not sufficient do what you like , you will anyway. Hamster 01:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said "If no reason is given the opposing vite will be rejected out of hand", so you are now making this up.
...reason given, = reson not sufficient do what you like , you will anyway. Another case of making things up in order to criticise.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit break to discuss bad-faith voting

Given that Sterile has volunteered reasons for that user's "Oppose" vote, I recommend that Sterile be required to give valid reason or withdraw the vote. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you and Philip gave reasons, Mr. Double-standard. Sterile 04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You didn't have to give reasons. Given that you gave them anyway, and that the first one has no relevance, and the second if the opposite of your own previously stated opinion, it is reasonable to question your motives. I am saying that I do question them. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The voting rules do not require Sterile to justify his reasons. However, without wishing to pre-empt anything, I will point out the following:
  • Any reason given that is itself uncivil is not protected from sanctions for uncivil behaviour (I'm not saying that necessarily applies in this case).
  • The voting rules were set up in such a way that ten supportive votes cannot be overridden by one opposing vote; it would take at least two. As the required ten votes has "temporarily" been lowered to seven votes, that doesn't quite work, but in line with that temporary alteration, the opposing votes may be adjusted accordingly.
  • Getting more than ten percent opposing votes does not completely block a person from gaining membership; the Membership Review Committee (me at the moment) can decide to promote the person if they get the required supportive votes anyway. In this case, the reasons for opposing would be taken into account (e.g. disregarded if they were frivolous).
  • Voting is designed, on the principle of there being wisdom in numbers, to only promote people we consider to not be vandals. It is not on the basis of views (else I would have voted against many people that I have in fact voted for). Sterile, do you consider this nominee to be a vandalism risk?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't give a reason. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Sterile, see Doctrinal section below.Daniel1212 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposing votes

We are now (mid-December 2010) at the stage where Daniel1212 has received the required seven supportive votes. However, there are four opposing votes. One of these is explicitly on the grounds of the user's views. This, as has been pointed out, is not a valid reason for opposing. Further, the user concerned has used my comment to this effect in arguing that opposition to Ace McWicked's membership vote was improper, yet his improper opposition here remains, even though the opposition to Ace's membership was withdrawn. I would like to see the user here also withdraw his opposition.

Given the supportive votes, including from senior members, I would like to hear the reasons for opposing the membership nomination. If the persons concerned do not wish to make them publicly, they can e-mail me with their concerns. If the concerns are not relevant, or if no explanations are provided (they are not obliged to explain, but not explaining will mean their opposition will not carry much weight), then I will probably grant the membership anyway.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the criteria for membership is constructive edits. Ace was an advocate for Guth's work being properly represented in a couple of articles: quite a useful editor. Daniel has no real proven track record. No reason to vote at this time. Sterile 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Happened to see this, and Teh Terrible Asp's opinion, and while i am not really contending for membership, and have not been active much here lately ( i have been elsewhere, but hope to do more here in any case), the idea that i do not have a proven track record is rather contrary to the evidence, upon which i was imaginatively charged all sorts of things for upholding the very traditional and abundantly substantiated Biblical teaching which this site upholds, but doing so is misconstrued by ad hominem apologetics, paradoxically, as being "evil and amoral."
As for the charge of bringing the site down by upholding such views and the motive attributed to it, as Phillip notes, every site reflects a basic worldview, and this one holds one which some here find intolerable, resulting in Phillips page, sometimes becoming like a blog. But which attests to the great degree of tolerance which has been shown opposers, yet if Phillip were up for membership i think some would vote against him! And while i do uphold the Biblical worldview of this site, i do seek to write well written, accurate and well substantiated articles. May God be glorified. Daniel1212 00:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sterile, first, thanks for withdrawing your opposition. You are under no obligation to vote either way, but you are wrong to claim that one of the criteria for membership is constructive edits. Membership is based solely on a decision (group vote or otherwise) that the person is not a vandal. I also strongly disagree that Daniel has no real proven track record., and suggest that it is your opposition to his views that is colouring your comments. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but it was actually the response by Teh Terrible Asp in two sectiona above that i was more responding to. Daniel1212 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
And I was responding to Sterile! Perhaps my indenting suggested otherwise? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No it did not; but i think that "your opposition to his views that is colouring your comments" aspect might applly to the other as well! How is the weather in Australia (that is where your are?) by the way? Daniel1212 03:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Top temperature here in Melbourne today (Christmas Day) is 26°C299.15 K
78.8 °F
538.47 °R
. In Perth it's forecast to reach 38°C311.15 K
100.4 °F
560.07 °R
. What about where you are? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Jet Stream [5] that brought abnormally cold temps in many other places resulted in a below average first half of December here, but which has happened before, but now it is warmer. Of course, when it get warmer in in the Fall thru Spring around NE then that usually means precipitation. See here [6] Joe Bastardi of Accuweather seems to have a good handle on the why of it, earthly speaking: [7] Daniel1212 23:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Asp's comments

In opposing Daniel1212's nomination, Teh Terrible Asp made some comments which deserve a response.

  • Oppose Not on the basis of this user's privately held beliefs and views but his public... This highlights a difference between Christian and atheistic views of beliefs. Christianity's view is that beliefs are not private matters, but must influence what we do in public. So in trying to make a distinction between his private views and public actions, Asp is actually disagreeing with Daniel1212's views, and that is not grounds to oppose someone.
  • ...his public misconduct in promoting discrimination against women and homosexuals on this site. Discrimination, per se, is not wrong. We discriminate all the time, often in trivial ways, sometimes in more important ways. For example, we choose to eat a banana rather than an orange. In doing so, we have discriminated. More seriously, a movie producer will discriminate against men in trying to cast someone to a role that calls for a woman. This is not a trivial example; someone's just missed out on a job because they were the "wrong" gender. Similarly, employers discriminate against job applicants who do not have the required training or skills for a job. But we accept all these cases of discrimination because we believe that the grounds for discrimination in each case are valid. The issue with "discrimination" is where someone is discriminated against on grounds that we believe are not valid grounds for discrimination. Such grounds include the shade of a person's skin or their gender when these things don't matter (the shade of their skin might matter to the movie producer if they were casting for a role of playing a particular historical person, for example). Asp has accused Daniel1212 of promoting discrimination against women and homosexuals, but has not explained how such discrimination might be improper discrimination.
  • ...Daniel had no obligation to publicly advocate his perverted hatred of women and homoesexuals. Please, Asp, substantiate the accusation of "hatred" by Daniel1212.*
  • If Philip wishes to purge the site of those he finds doctrinally impure, including women and homosexuals... Homosexuality is a sin, so "doctrinally impure" might be an appropriate description. Being a woman is not, and I categorically reject the accusation.*

*I hereby warn that any repeat of these accusations (unless substantiated) will be dealt with under the aSK:civility breach provisions. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

edit break for separate discussion

  • OPPOSE He's a homophobic bigot. (I know I'm not qualified to vote but, Hey!) User 11speak to me 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the blessing:) "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Mat 5:11)

Actually, my reproofs of pro homosexual attempts to "wrest" (2Pt. 3:16) the Scriptures are not motivated by either a fear of homosexuals, or of being one, but is motivated by a love for truth as ordained by God, as is my work on cults, and I try to help people, straight or gay, etc. If you were my neighbor I think we might have some good talks. Analytically, I do find the use of the term homophobic to be a psychological tactic, the resortion to which itself indicates a fear.[8] Good day. Daniel1212 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was not an invitation for discussion, more a statement of fact. If you were my neighbor[sic] I think we might have some good talks. - doubt it, Anyone who can't think for themselves but has to use a 2000 year old (plus) "book" as a source of morality has nothing worthwhile to say to me.
Of course it's a psychological tactic - indicating disgust. User 11speak to me 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) PS: resortion?

I do understand that it denotes disgust, Theresa, but its use as a psychological tactic is what I was referring to, in broadly applying it to anyone that opposes homosexuality, or even fails to support it, in order to intimidate them into silence. That such wanton use of the terms is the norm is easily seen, yet if indeed this was use sincerely, then it would indicate either

A. a neurosis on the part of homosexuals, in which they actually believe all opposition is irrational fearful of them, or are closet homosexuals, and perhaps homosexuals themselves are driven by an irrational fear of them (homophobic-phobic)

B. a refusal to acknowledge that, while certain persons may be motivated to oppose homosexuality due to some personal issue (which still would not justify what they oppose), others may be motivated to oppose homosexuality by justified moral and medical reasons.

C. pro homosexual activists believe no rational reason exists for B, while laboring to present vain arguments to negate Biblical injunctions against homosex, and the unique physiological compatibility of the male and female, while ignoring or rejecting the negative consequences of the proliferation of homosex.

Instead, what is evidenced is that the use of the term homophobic is part of a psychological strategy which is implemented to gain ground in recognition of their polemical impotence to win the masses. The lack of emphasis upon a precise definition of homophobic is conducive to its broad use.

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable...”

“Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’" Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[9][10]

“[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.” "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not" [After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)]

Ultimately, unable to truly get the Bible to sanction joining male with male in marriage, or negate its injunctions against it, the authority of the Bible is rejected, and those who oppose homosexual on Biblical grounds or otherwise are simply rejected as homophobic. Or of being a bigots, - "a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc." - a term which is evidenced to easily apply to homosexual activists.

But as for resortion, no, I not think you will find that in a dictionary as denoting "having to resort to", at least not yet, but unlike the moral realm, I knew of no law which would prohibit it from becoming as a valid word, although I could be wrong. However, homophobic is said to be an etymologically incorrect term, while "gay" is often a misappropriation.

Gregory M. Herek, a psychology professor at the University of California at Davis, and a recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, credits psychologist George Weinberg with inventing the word homophobia in the late 1960s. However, the word "has a number of problems with it," said Herek, particularly because there is no basis for the "phobia" suffix in a clinical sense. Daniel1212 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it at bigotry then (with a slice of 2000 year old prejudice)? User 11speak to me 01:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC) PS "homosex"? The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. (Merriam Webster). You do like reinventing the English language, don't you?

Theresa, it is not I who is blindly intolerant (and I hardly reinvented the English language, which gets expanded as we go one), but it is those who by join together what God has (sexually) placed asunder, by design and decrees, in principle and by precept, that pervert morality, regardless of why they should not, to their own hurt. But God can give you a new spirit if you will turn to Christ in repentance and faith. some of the first Christians were evidently former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:11) and i am a heterosexual sinner saved by grace, praise be to God in Christ! Good night.Daniel1212 03:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm sure you're weeping for all the homosexuals who live perfectly happy lives yet are doomed to burn in Hell for who they feel attracted to and feel emotions of affection for. Pascal 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
God is a figment, of what I'm not sure. Using God or his "son" as an alibi for bigotry is doubly bigotrous (see, I can invent words too!). Dodging responsibility for your own actions by blaming them on a figment is cowardice at best and despicable cowardice at worst. User 11speak to me 10:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Your argument presupposes that disagreement with homosexuality is done out of bigotry rather than good reason, something that you've yet to demonstrate with more than rhetoric and assertion. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen no "good reason" to refute. User 11speak to me 13:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you refuting someone else's claim. I was talking about substantiating your own presupposition on which you base accusations. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what presupposition? Methinks your imagination is working overtime. If there's no reason, good or otherwise, then it's pure bigotry. User 11speak to me 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"No reason" requires rejecting what is reasonable, and instead asserting that the body was designed for same sex relations, and that such are shown to be consistently healthy to individuals, and that this new social experiment in which that lifestyle is affirmed and becomes prevalent has and will be beneficial to a society. In addition to being contrary to the morality of the Bible, as revealed in its fullness, which is proven to shown to be of long term benefit, the medical evidence alone abundantly testifies to the deleterious effects of homosex. [11] [12]

Pascal, we are not talking about feelings so much as actions. Feelings you have no control over will not prevent you from coming to Christ for salvation, and He can change perverse feelings of various sort. And being born with a sinful nature, we all have attraction to sin, (Gn. 4:7) but which does not justify acting it out, and Gods' grace is given to achieve deliverance from, or victory over, such as we grow in grace. (Rm. 6-8) But yes, my heart is burdened for those who choose darkness over light, and are headed to their just punishment Hell. The Christian's motivation is twofold: to turn souls to righteousness, (Dan. 12:3) which a faithful Christian hungers for more of, to the honor of God, and compassion toward the lost.

Daniel1212 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, your presuppositions are "God is a figment, of what I'm not sure." and similar thoughts. We say that there are good reasons, and one of those reasons is that we were designed by God to be heterosexual. You reject that as good reason based on your presupposition that God doesn't exist. The logic is valid (as far as it goes), but the presupposition is unsupported (and incorrect). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We're back to "Evidence for God's existence" then. I've yet to see anything that should convince anyone with a mental age over 10 (in fact I was agnostic → atheist by that age and feel genuine regret for the world's otherwise intelligent people who aren't - such a waste). User 11speak to me 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Theresa, your argument is based on your disbelief in God and an apparent belief that the onus is somehow on us to prove God. When we make claims, we have an onus to substantiate them. But when you make claims, you have an onus to substantiate them also. That is, the onus in on whoever is making the claim, whether that be Christian (claiming God) or atheist (claiming no god). We have provided substantiation, by offering evidence for God's existence. Now this is evidence, not scientific proof, but it is evidence nevertheless. I understand that you don't want to believe in God, and therefore you find the evidence unconvincing. But at least we have provided some substantiation.
You, in return, have by and large offered your opinion and insult, not evidence. And your opinion is demonstrably wrong (except, perhaps, for a technicality). That is, contrary to your comment that the evidence would not convince anyone with a mental age over 10, there are people who are very intelligent who have been convinced by the evidence. Some of them were atheists who set out to disprove God, and ended up believing. Now of course that doesn't scientifically prove that God exists (i.e. that the conclusions they came to were correct), but it does disprove your claim that the evidence wouldn't convince anyone with a mental age over 10. (The technicality is that we may be talking about evidence which you haven't seen. But more likely it's a case of you only looking at the evidence very superficially, whereas they investigated more deeply.)
I'd agree that the evidence which has been offered on this site is not of great depth yet, and if you are basing your opinions solely on this evidence, then perhaps your opinion is, to some extent, understandable. But that merely provides reason for you to be unconvinced. It is not justification for you making your own opposing claims without substantiating them. So you're not convinced that the Bible is God's Word? Fair enough. But you not being convinced of that doesn't mean that it's merely mythology either. That is a specific claim that you are making and which you are not substantiating. Rather, you're throwing it out there as if it's something that is self-evident or universally accepted, which it is not, and basing other views (such as on homosexuality) on that claim.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, Philip, you are equating two different things: You say there is a God. It is up to you to show that there is. I say that the existence of God is illogical until demonstrated. It is not up to me to prove the nonexistence of a figment. It is up to you to demonstrate that it isn't a figment. Quite frankly, if I found myself believing in some deity, I'd consider seeking psychiatric help. User 11speak to me 03:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What two different things am I equating? We are both making specific claims. Me for God, you against. You have as much onus to support your claim as I have of mine.
It seems like you are saying that you are not claiming no god, merely claiming a lack evidence for God. But you are not merely claiming a lack of evidence. You are claiming that God is illogical, and that God is a figment. They are claims just as much as my claim for God, and the onus is not on me to support my claim any more than it is on you to support yours.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So; if I say that the Great Green Invisible Arkleseizure is sitting on my left shoulder telling me what to think then it's up to you to show it's not? Tripe! The GGIA is as ludicrous and just as likely as your God. Don't try to put me on the back foot, Philip, you know full well that it's you who have to demonstrate the existence: not I the non-existence. User 11speak to me 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually no one 'has' to demonstrate anything. It is very good of Philip to respond to you at all, considering the scorn and mockery you routinely (try to) heap upon him, so expecting him to conform to your silly debating society-style rules as well is wholly unreasonable. Please try to calm down and exercise some of the following:
  • manners
  • logic
  • tolerance
  • humility
  • open-mindedness
  • wit
  • an informed opinion.
--CPalmer 12:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha! the Parodist returns!
Manners: If you knew how much I'd restrained myself!
Logic: Where's the logic in an undetectable "being" controlling the Universe?
Tolerance: Of what? Folly?
Humility: Crap! The humble are trodden on.
Open Mindedness: Open to what? Idiocy?
Wit: ?
An informed opinion: As in brainwashed opinion?
User 11speak to me 12:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, CPalmer.
So; if I say that the Great Green Invisible Arkleseizure is sitting on my left shoulder telling me what to think then it's up to you to show it's not? No, if you claim it, it's up to you to support the claim. (Which I've already said; how well did you read what I wrote?) But if I make a counter-claim that it's not there (rather than simply ask you to support your claim), then it's up to me to support my counter-claim. Just like it's up to you to support your claim of no god.
Of course your analogy is weak, because your hypothetical claim is one that you alone have made (assuming that you really were claiming it), unlike the claim for God's existence which has been made by millions of people including the founders of science and many other intelligent people. (Of course that doesn't make it true; but it does make your analogy a very weak one.) Further, many of those people have offered evidence in support of their claim, unlike your claim of an invisible creature. Your analogy is not only weak, but barely valid at all.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What <expletive deleted> evidence? There's as much solid evidence for the GGIA as there is for God. Appeals to popularity and the opinions of people who were ignorant of modern science DON'T COUNT! User 11speak to me 12:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Manners: If you knew how much I'd restrained myself! "I did X, but at least I didn't do Y" is rarely an effective defence. If you find yourself becoming agitated, the sensible thing to do is take a break. After all, even those benighted unfortunates of 2000+ years ago knew enough to say "Do you see a [person] who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for [that person]."--CPalmer 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That's your only point? Ha! User 11speak to me 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What ... evidence? There's as much solid evidence for the GGIA as there is for God. There is? Then why don't you offer even a tiny fraction of it?
Appeals to popularity and the opinions of people who were ignorant of modern science DON'T COUNT! Pointing out that many people have claimed God's existence is not an appeal to popularity, because I'm not using popularity to prove God's existence. Further, some of those people I referred to are quite familiar with modern science.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
See User:Theresa Wilson/Evidence for the Great Green Invisible Arkleseziure's existence. User 11speak to me 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Theresa, you know that the GGIA is something made up, I know that it's something made up, and you know that I know that. Despite knowing that, I make my point by inviting to you offer some evidence. But rather than admit to being offering fiction as fact, you copy some of the evidence for God and pretend to claim it as evidence for the GGIA. Anti-theists accuse Christians of using evidence for God that is not specific to the God of the Bible, ignoring that (a) it is still evidence against their naturalistic views, and (b) some of the evidence is specific to the God of the Bible. Yet here you are, so smug in your beliefs that you fail to substantiate, offering evidence of a creator as evidence of the GGIA, despite it providing no support for your fictitious being being green nor being invisible nor being an Arkleseziure! In other words, your "evidence" is objectively inferior to evidence for God which you reject, and yet somehow this is supposed to show that the evidence for God is lacking.
I maintain that your "God" is just as made up. Just because it was initially made up 6000 (!) years ago doesn't make it any more reasonable. Apart from the "arguments" copied into the article I referred to above, all the arguments are pure hearsay & deluded personal testimonials. One can be smug when one is right against idiocy. (Oh and Dan is still a Homophobic Bigot, which was the start of this thread) User 11speak to me 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, in all honestly, if the substance and manner of your replies reveals anything, it is that of "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices," while homophobic is a baseless expression of the aforementioned stated propagandist policy. While you must relegate my substantiated opposition to bigotry and fear, it is based upon an authority that has far more positive evidence of providing beneficial morality, if not abused, than the ethos of the homosexual movement, and or atheism. Your defense of the latter is indicated to be an ideologically driven conclusion, and akin to whistling in the dark. While you call us deluded, those who truly have been born again known what it is to in the dark, without Christ, and then to know His untenable reality. Which i do sincerely pray you may someday know! Grace and peace thru Jesus. Daniel1212 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Theresa, you maintain that God is made up, but you do so despite all the evidence offered to the contrary, and it is simply false to say that "all the arguments are pure hearsay & deluded personal testimonials.". Your argument is merely by false assertion and dismissal; it is not an evidence-based or logic-based argument. As for "One can be smug when one is right against idiocy.", do you hear yourself? "I can be smug because I'm right" is not an argument; it's arrogance. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Philip has forgotten about you. Perhaps some day you can be a member. :( Sterile 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Philip has forgotten, but i have not been very active here, and i not sure how this all works anyway. But your post did get a me another negative vote! Seems like politics designed to make aSK more liberal, but i am not really pursuing a status change.Daniel1212 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I think he's forgotten about you. People have made far fewer edits and been made member. Oh, well. Don't give up hope! Sterile 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I am really quite ignorant of the politics, but thank you for your consistent encouragement, and affirmation the tolerance of aSK! Daniel1212 03:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

my two cents

Since Daniel's membership nomination has come up for discussion again recently (even though Daniel himself has not been around for a while), I thought I would share my point of view. (Since I'm not a member now, I can't vote, but this explains how I would vote if I could.) I think my own beliefs on GLBT issues are opposite to Daniel's. Yet, I don't see that as a good reason to vote against him.

To start with, I think the criteria for membership should be based on whether one contributes constructively, rather than what one believes. I also think that, one has to remember that the official worldview of this wiki is what many will call conservative Christianity; so, even if Daniel's views are outside what some would personally consider acceptable, one has to remember the site's framework in judging them. I think it is good that the site welcomes those who don't share its worldview (such as myself), but one has to keep its worldview in mind. Also, I think one needs to keep in mind the adage "something is better than nothing". If one supports gay rights, and is faced with someone with strong moral objections to homosexuality, then I doubt you will have much success in switching them to your own position. That said, maybe you will succeed in pulling them a bit closer to your own position.

For example, rather than focusing on convincing them that homosexuality is moral, a more likely to succeed method might be to ask "what should the government's role be here? should the government be trying to enforce morality across the board, or only in some cases?" That is an argument that might actually have some prospect of shifting their position a little, but that little might mean a lot in practice. Yet by condemning those with strongly opposing views, or focusing on the impossible (trying to effect a 180 degree change in their worldview), one is foregoing the much more feasible prospect of nudging them a little bit in the direction you wish. Maratrean 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Save your breath. Unless he comes back, this debate should cease.--Colonel Sanders 02:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Maratrean for your considerate response. I have not have not made edits for a while, as i have been active elsewhere, but do check for changes once and a while. I hope to contribute more in the future though.Daniel1212 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctrinal issues

Theresa, faith in Jesus is not "dodging responsibility" for one's own own actions or blaming them on someone, else, but just the opposite. I am not sure where you obtained your doctrine of soteriology, but the Bible requires us to take responsibility for our actions, and on judgment day the lost will be judged "according to their works", (Rev. 20:12) with their degree of culpability weighed in the light of grace given them as regards their sentencing. (Lk. 12:48; Mt. 11:21; 23:14)

As no one is worthy of eternal life, but are worthy of just the opposite, then man is in need of a Savior. Before Christ God provided an atonement, with a scapegoat and a sacrifice for sin, (Lev. 16) and He yet foretold before His birth (Is. 53; Mic. 5:2) of One who would become both the scapegoat and perfect sacrifice, even Jesus, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins", (Col 1:14) and eternal life. (1Jn. 2:25) To obtain that salvation one must repent, (Mk. 1:15; Acts 20:21; 26:20) taking responsibly for their sins and want forgiveness and a new life in Christ, and believe on Him who promised that. (Lk. 24:47; Jn. 5:24; 6:47) While those who believe on Christ do not cease from being sinners (and this is for Sterile), never failing to love God with all their being or their neighbor as themselves, the defining characteristic of their life will be that of practicing righteousness.

As for the existence of the God of the Bible, Philip has patiently posted much on that, and I will not add much here, suffice to say that in addition to other arguments, the existence of Christ is well attested to by empirical evidence, with believers realizing promised effects which correspond to the claims of the Object of their faith, and are usually contingent upon faith and obedience to Him. Here are some you can go pick from: [13] [14] [15] [16]

A worthy project would be to interview consistent members of evangelical churches, and examine what their lives were like prior to their conversion and afterwards, and verify them from those who knew/know them, and overall it will reasonably testify to the resurrected Christ being their cause, over proven naturalistic causes, and will surpass in scope and depth those of mere religious changes due to will or outside influence. I would add that I think the thousands of classic Christian hymns which were written by persons of their own free will, from many different evangelical denominations, expressing a personal relationship with Christ and that which it results in, and which millions have loved, is overall unique, all things considered, and testify to a supernatural experience, unless all these souls are relegated to being the subjects of delusion. Instead, i see the rejection (including yours) of the existence of the God of the Bible as being ideological driven. But bigotrous sound like a valid new word to me. Daniel1212 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sterile. If being a sinner disqualified one from being a member, no one would qualify, as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rm. 3:23) Clearly justifying and or willfully practicing sin is solemnly warned against, while a Christian's attitude and altitude regarding sin is to be different. See here [17] for a good description. Praise be to God. --Unsigned comment by Daniel1212 (talk)
EC
You're at it again: quoting from a 2000 year old book of mythology and an Israeli equivalent of Che Guevara (2000 years ago!).
A worthy project would be to interview consistent members of evangelical churches Testimonial evidence is worth nothing in this context: the mere belonging to a group of like feeling lunatics can bring a sense of comfort - see $cientology for an example. I'm sure that all other religions and belief systems and many things such as Alcoholics Anonymous, a drama club, the local trainspotters club or any group where some mutual interest was shown would have a similar effect.
...all these souls[sic] are relegated to being the subjects of delusion. Yup! that's about the size of it.
Anyhow I'm off to my Sunday afternoon siesta with my other half where we will undoubtedly indulge in perversions. User 11speak to me 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rejection of the Bible is understandable, considering your choices, and here are some resources regarding that, [18][19][20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] but re similar effect, we are not speaking about the pathos of community, but about the manifestation of a personal relationship with Christ which does not begin with community, nor indoctrination (as in Watchtower disciples), but with a call to Christ for salvation from a poor and contrite heart. While many who come to Christ were raised in churches who called for that decision, there is no real difference in their experience from those who no different than those an encounter Christ having been raised differently, from atheists[26] [27] to non-Christian religions [28] [29] but who find life in Jesus.

I myself was raised Catholic, by devout parents, but what I saw was basically institutionalized ritualism. As a teen I stopped "saying my prayers," and later until i was about 25 my life was basically work hard and party, though i could stop when i wanted to. I had good health, job, some friends, etc., but at about age 25 i began to sense something was missing, and while no one talked to me about it, or preached to me, i knew it was God. And on my own, I honestly repented and asked God to forgive me, and came to trust Christ to save me. As a result even nature seemed new to this rural kid, and i realized dramatic changes in my heart that i did not look for, or expect, or know about, and which preceded church teaching. Though i was now going to the church i was raised in (knowing no other), yet the people were not like that. I would try to tell them but they were not interested, except for a couple or so. But I did meet "born agains" occasionally with whom we had an instant kinship that transcended church affiliations, bcz Jesus had touched out hearts. While evangelical teachers which I began listening to helped me to understand the theology behind my salvation, it was an encounter with the living Christ that made the real change, and brought me to want to share the gospel of so great salvation. And having worked in Christian ministry for over 20 years (without salary or practicing solicitation) in a faith tract ministry, I have had to see God work (and I also know the cause and effect reality negatively in response to disobedience), and His reality is indisputable to me. The idea of atheism while understandable, is only an academic discussion.

The New Testament and history shows that it is not structure, or community, or just knowledge of the Bible that the Biblical church essentially exists by or grows, but by a supernatural relationship directly with Jesus, which is the result of true faith in Him, in which He, not man, is the object of supreme affection and allegiance. Churches which do not preach the gospel which results in that salvific encounter, but just teach or indoctrinate, are characterized either by cultic type command and control, and an exclusivist ecclesiology, or spiritual lethargy. Rather than being one particular organization, the church exists as multitudes of evangelical bodies, which can spring up anywhere at any time, with a defining characteristic being that of common faith in the evangelical Gospel and the changes it results in. And they and the world is better for it, while declension into institutionalization or moral declension and conformity to society, and which we see more of, works the opposite. [30]

--Unsigned comment by Daniel1212 (talk)

Sorry, Dan, but your insistence on bringing that book into everything makes me convinced that you are somewhat lacking in the self department. THINK FOR YOURSELF! Consider existence without this silly old book, for Drake's sake. It's all a myth! There was nothing missing in your life except your sense of self worth, you don't need the crutch of your God to live a happy and successful life. We are animals no more, no less. (BTW there's plenty of homosexual religious types: R.C., protestant & evangelical. So your book and homosexuality don't seem to be mutually exclusive.) User 11speak to me 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that you are devoted to an opinion that one cannot objectively believe in Jesus, looking at the totality of the evidence, but again, that is understandable. But i do believe one can have a relatively happy and "successful" life, and i had lots of "fun", clean as well as sinful, even before i was a Christian, but i am talking about being spiritually alive versus dead, and what that means. And having been in both conditions, i do not ever want to go back to the latter, no matter how good it could be! As for practicing homosexuality and Christianity, that is a contradiction, as it cannot be justified, any more than heterosexual fornication can be. And God's laws are to our benefit when obeyed.Daniel1212 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not just "Jesus": it's the whole God thing. It's so unnecessary why not just admit that there's as much reason to believe in the God of the Israelites as there is in the pantheon of Hinduism. Both are equally ridiculous. User 11speak to me 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
See the comments I've just posted above at the end of the previous section. I won't "admit that there's as much reason to believe in the God of the Israelites as there is in the pantheon of Hinduism" because (in my opinion) it's not true. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Theresa, above you say God is a crutch that is not needed for a happy and successful life. I guess it depends on one's definition of "successful". Take a little mathematic side-track. Any finite number compared to any trans-finite number is equivalent to zero. For life's achievements, anything that lasts a finite time is nothing compared to anything that last forever. Thus the only achievements that really are a measure our life's success are eternal achievements. Without God one acheives only eternal death, while with God one achieves eternal life. We Christians are taking the longer (and more signifant) view of success. I expect this sounds trite to you, but that makes it no less true. BradleyF (LowKey) 03:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Show me any evidence (I don't say proof) of life of infinite nature. We're ANIMALS for Drake's sake: "Have a good time while you're living, for you're a long time dead." unfortunately. User 11speak to me 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of evidences

The evidence for infinite existence is related to that for an infinite being, versus a self created energy/matter/universe. As for direct evidence of a sort, at least that there is something after death, you could consider NDE's as in which even a secular some studies see as casting doubt on the chemical explanation. Some opinions here: [31] [32] As for man vs animals, one different is that worship is evidenced as an activity that is peculiar to man, unless you imagine bird are purposely singing hymns.Daniel1212 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NDE's are? Sorry I don't open youtube links. Could be that man is the one animal capable of suffering mental disorders. :-) User 11speak to me 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
NDEs = near death experiences, I think. I consider them to be the same class of encounter as "alien abductions" (and having the same purpose), personally. BradleyF (LowKey) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, Tricksy. (although I can't imagine a "purpose") User 11speak to me 13:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bradley. I myself, believe it or not, approach such things skeptically, from snoping out emailed story to 911 theories etc., but do not even bother with alien abductions. But the issue of NDE's has and is a subject of some serious, if somewhat reluctant, clinical study in the secular medical world,[33] and i think the largest is currently underway, involving 25 UK and US hospitals doctors in the U.K. [34]
That NDE's occur is not in dispute, but the cause of such is. While some may be explained biologically, others provide evidence which is not explainable so far by known natural causes. (Also challenging - and potentially disturbing - is this, [35] though possibly naturally explainable). WP has a overview of this, [36]
The most zealous advocates of NDE's are usually in the occult, while many Christians deny such, as having no Biblical support. However, I would allow some disagreement, (2Cor. 12:2-4), and my reference to NDE's is not for direct support for the existence of the God of the Bible, but for the supernatural and the spiritual aspect of man. Even the occult offers a parallel to what born again Christians experience insofar as having a supernatural encounter, as the devil seeks to operate in the same sphere as God does. However, that is where the comparison stops, due to the complete difference in the object of the respective sources.
As for the issue of evidences, the atheist must realize what he is asking us to believe, in dismissing the existence of God. We are asked to believe that energy created itself, and then attribute powers of Deity to it, in creating and exceedingly complex and systematic universe, all of which we are called to accept in the name of "logic," rather than seeing such design as testifying to a Designer. Not that some atheists do not see this a problem, as even Dawkins allows an alien designed start to be an "intriguing possibility". A great mind before him, Einstein, while not being Christian and being contrary to the idea of a personal Deity (and being quite close to atheism in many views, though he was against it), saw the universe as evidencing a "God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists," as he expressed later in life (and who was also "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene" whose existence he did not doubt[37]). But "logically", we are not even allowed to go that far. In addition to that, Christians who have taken a step of faith by coming to Christ realize, and can testify to powerful cause and effect evidence - and which is demonstrable to a degree - but which we are called to deny in favor of various theories.
Finally, Theresa would have us see a world in which humility is denied, and in which no transcendent objective moral standard exists, as logically better. Instead, as said before, what i see is that this atheism is necessary for a lifestyle which is contrary to Biblical morality, esp. in key areas, and ultimately deleterious.Daniel1212 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is more likely: that something happened and the Universe occurred or that some "being" decided to create a universe. Where did that being exist? It must have occurred at some "time" by whatever method. So all you are doing is moving "Creation" one step further away. Ah! I forgot "God is outside time": so could whatever was the precursor to the Universe be.
The only need for humility is amazement at the immensity of existence and the realisation of our small - miniscule - sub microscopic part in it. Atheism is contrary to Biblical morality thanks very much - I've no desire to learn Torah (Deut 6:7) or to honor those who teach and know Torah (Lev 19:32) nor will I shun men who shave the hair off the sides of their head (Lev 19:27) or not shave their beards with a razor (Lev 19:27) etc. etc. ad nauseam. I've got an inbuilt human fellow feeling which to a large extent governs my morality. The one "Commandment" that I believe in is Do Unto Others ... because it's pragmatic: it works.
If the only reason you have for behaving morally is an old book then it's you who are morally corrupt IMHO.
(Oh & NDEs are rubbish: have you heard of autoerotic asphyxiation? Same effect, I'm told.) User 11speak to me 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are two distinct phenomena being labelled “near death experiences”. One is the occurrence of subjective sensations (like euphoria), which can have a physiological explanation (e.g. euphoria can be associated with hypoxia). The other is the presence of “another party”. That these occur is established. Even if most were to be physiologically explicable, there remains a significant number beyond naturalistic explanation. It is likewise with “alien abductions”. In fact NDE encounters and “alien” encounters share several elements. I have become convinced that both are demonic visitations (and such we would have called them only a few generations ago), and that a major part of their purpose is to lead people away from true worship of our Creator and into false religion. I may have given the impression that by classing NDEs with "Alien Encounters" that I was declaring both bogus (as in not real). Both are real, but bogus, in that they really occur but are not what they purport to be. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Theresa, your replies rely more on insults than actual valid substance. In response to your first dismissal, i do find it far more unreasonable to scorn the idea of a creator in the light of such a Universe, than to see that as requiring a master intelligence behind it, and thus so many alternative hypotheses abound, albeit with one ideologically driven common denominator, that a god to whom we are ultimately accountable to is rejected.
Your remarks on the Torah are both insufficient in dealing with Biblical morality, and show some lack of knowledge on the subject. Both Jews and Christians generally recognize a distinction between laws dealing with inherently evil practices, versus those which are only guilty by association. It is wrong for soldiers in the U.S. army to commit rape as well as to wear the enemies uniform, but the basis for each is different. And the Biblical morality i referred to is that which is derived from the Bible in its fulness, in which there is a clear distinction made btwn ceremonial laws, and moral laws, (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10; Gal. 4:10) with the latter being abundantly reaffirmed, (esp. as regards fornications)[38]. And it should be obvious that the more Christ-like the world became in love and morals, then the better it would would be, while the present spiritual and moral course of this even country will be to its ruin if it continues. Thus we do not simply believe and obey the Bible because it says to, but because it is reasonable in the light of its benefits. Jesus asked many questions in His teaching, which required the use of logic and reasoning, and did things which provided warrant for steps of faith, which resulted in reality. And all evil is a result of idolatry, and all failures in the Christian life are due to lack of faith, which works obedience. Which i need more of in heart and deed.
As for the "inbuilt human fellow feeling which to a large extent governs you morality", that man has such is actually affirmed in the Bible, (Rm. 2) as is the fact that it can be easily corrupted. The rejection or ignorance of the Bible and reliance upon the atheistic basis for morality allowed notable atheists such as Mao and Pol Pot and Communist governments to justify their great atrocities and overall injustices, as such seemed "reasonable" to them. While atheists can be relatively good persons - and environment plays a good part - there is nothing by which "good" may be determined in any comprehensive way, as it all depends on ones reasoning of what is good. Some atheists have advocated removing children from the homes of Christians, and that would only be the beginning, as one can easily surmise the benefit they would see to removing that opposes atheism. No doubt your response would be to invoked the Crusades and Inquisitions as examples of what Christianity does, but that required and fostered ignorance of the Bible (the N.T. church is not to use the sword of men for its battles, nor seek to rule over those without), and faith in an autocratic authority. And as man will ultimately worship something, worship of man is what atheism fosters. Thus it is the co-called "golden compass" of man which easily points south, while the Bible is immutable, and has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried.
Re autoerotic asphyxiation, no, NDE's are seldom in regard to such attempts, and the links i posted are educational.Daniel1212 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, where's the "insult"? A bit ad-hom yourself there, no? The rest of your first paragraph is unintelligible - not an insult - a comment.
The future of the US (this country?) is certain if the religious right ever get in charge: stagnation and anarchy or even a reversion to the 17th century.
I wouldn't bring up the Crusades & Inquisition: they were in a totally different environment. But didn't George W claim that he was doing God's work in Iraq (cheap shot, I know but you started it).
It seems to me that you are saying that without a belief in God and "His" book, you would happily go out and rape, steal and murder. I don't.
I don't think we've any common ground to discuss further, you're so hooked on God. I do think you're all deluded because you're scared of not being, see here for my concise opinion. User 11speak to me 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you seem to be unable or unwilling to engage in objective assessment, from homophobia to NDE's, and show misapprehension of arguments, and no real interest in reasoned dialog, over repeating that all who oppose you are deluded, and as it was in that spirit that you began this exchange, perhaps it is time to cease for now. Sorry. Daniel1212 02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. I can't hold a discussion with the mentally disturbed which is what I truly believe you to be; especially now Bradley's come in with demonic visitation !!. User 11speak to me 02:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It took you a while to realise that that is what we were talking about! I find it ironic that accuse us of willful ignorance, but refuse to even consider entertaining the idea of discussing such possbilities because of your absolute a priori conviction that it couldn't happen. Learn the facts, and then see what conclusions they support. It strikes me once again that YECs are often the genuine sceptics. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Bradley, you need professional help. It'd be cruel to indulge your delusions. I'm off to bed. User 11speak to me 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark., which is available in most libraries, esp. the chapters "Aliens", "The Demon-Haunted World", " and "On the Distinction between True and False Visions". You can even find parts of it online. Then we'll talk about skepticism. Sterile 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS As for atheism, most who would call themselves skeptics (and reasonable non-emotional skeptics, at that) would say that the supernatural is out of our experience and observation, and hence that one cannot say for sure whether God (or gods) exist or not. Most atheists find the concept of God to but not useful for anything, or at best, a god so subtle such that one can't tell the difference between existence or not. Sterile 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I still have that book somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up. I wasn't very impressed at the time. Although Sagan exhorted scepticism and the scientific method (if in fact there was even a distinction to be made), what he described was in fact a faith based holdfast. I am going from memory, though, so I will refresh that - and ask in turn that you read at least some of C S Lewis's "Miracles". Also, I would recommend reading Gary Bates' "Alien Intrusion" for an overview of a conclusion reached by scholarly and sceptical inquiry.
There is a semantic switch in what you wrote there. "As for atheism, most who would call themselves skeptics...". I would expect most non-believing sceptics would call themselves agnostic. What you describe is a form of scepticism, and is agnostic rather than atheist in nature (I am aware, though, of the emergent concept of "soft atheism" which is essentially agnostic in nature anyway). Also, what you describe is far from what has been exhibited in this discussion alone, let alone from RWians in general. The supernatural may be beyond some naturalistic testing, but it is not out of our experience or observation. I think that also was Sagan's major misunderstanding of the supernatural.
Anyway, I am off to read, I suggest picking this up elsewhere (as it is waaaay off topic and we are on someone else's talk page). I would also like to say that I typed "atheism" or derivatives several times there without geting the e and i backwards and am feeling unjustifiably proud.
--Unsigned comment by LowKey (talk) ...and spoiled it by forgetting to sign BradleyF (LowKey) 12:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
My birth and naming are out of my experience and observation, so I guess I can't say for sure that I was born nor that my name is Philip. In fact, pretty well everything that happened before I was old enough to know what was going on is in the same quandary. And that would include molecules-to-man evolution (if it's true), so we can't say that it exists or not. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Steady on there, Philip. That reads rather like Last Thursdayism to me. Which is as reasonable as any creation myth. User 11speak to me 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It does? Why are you telling me? I was merely giving an example of Sterile's views. So you're saying that Sterile's origins myth (evolution) sounds like Last Thursdayism? I guess it has about as much basis in reason! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
CS Lewis I will look at. Gary Bates, not so much. The "UFO-evolution" connection? Are you serious? Can't you guys talk about any other topic without trying to trash evolution in the meantime? At least CS Lewis isn't associated with CMI. How refreshing for this wiki. (Note added later: This Gary Bates? Featured on Coast to Coast AM? You can't be serious.)
There is an inherent relationship between science and skepticism. (The scientific method encourages skepticism, hence the testing of hypothesis to verify one idea or falsify another.) There is also an inherent relationship between agnostics and atheists and skeptics. I do not believe that anyone who thinks that there is evidence that universe and life were created 6000 years ago in one week could be called a skeptic in the case of origins, as that person is not asking questions. (Bates may be a skeptic about UFOs, however, but using his skepticism to trash evolution is utterly distasteful to me. Bates thinks that UFOs exist, but are satanic in nature: how is this a skeptic? And why is CMI so interested in UFOs?)
RationalWiki is more properly an anti-pseudoscience and anti-anti-science site, as it says at the top of the main page. Religion is certainly a topic of discussion in the way it interacts with that mission, and creationism, being a major affront to science and scientific literacy, is certainly within that mission. Atheism is certainly within the ethos of the site, but it is not site policy to push religious folks off the site. We have had a number of religious folks at RW discuss their beliefs. However, there are also times when social issues trump the mission of the site--some religious folks have left--but being offended by the ideas of individual wiki editors occurs here as well. (You did leave Wikipedia and Conservapedia, Philip.) As in any community of a reasonable size, there will be a distribution of personalities and beliefs; there will be people who are "into it" and people who are not, there will be people who stay for a long time, and people who stay for limited time. There is no one "RationalWiki," but instead a group of individual editors, who may or may not agree.
I also need an explanation of how a supernatural being which I presume is "outside of space and time" can be in your experience and observation. (Note to you guys: Bradley's post implies God is in our experience and observation. Philip's implies that there is nothing wrong with saying the God is outside our experience and observation. Discuss among yourselves. Perhaps that's one of those awkward definitional problems you have.) Sterile 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to give me a bit. I am trying to work out how to communicate meaningfully in the face of such dogma, and such a fundamental misunderstanding of scepticism. I'll get back to you.BradleyF (LowKey) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an inherent relationship between science and skepticism. .... There is also an inherent relationship between agnostics and atheists and skeptics. Given that there is an inherent relationship between science and Christianity, something seems to be amiss with your arguments. Perhaps it's that bit about an inherent relationship between agnostics and atheists and sceptics. You're right; there is a relationship with Skeptics (note the capital S), but not so much with sceptics, given that atheists and agnostics tend to be quite unsceptical of their own beliefs.
The "UFO-evolution" connection? Are you serious? Can't you guys talk about any other topic without trying to trash evolution in the meantime? ... This Gary Bates? Featured on Coast to Coast AM? You can't be serious.) Can't you people talk about these things without trying to trash creationists all the time? So just what is actually "non-serious" about this, given that you haven't read his book? Jumping to unwarranted conclusions? (And yes, it is that Gary Bates.) As for the "UFO-evolution" connection, the connection is not one that Bates or CMI made, but one that the "aliens" made, as you'll see if/when you read the book.
As for RationalWiki, in one sense I accept everything you say. However, despite anti-religion not being site policy, it clearly is the "policy" of many of the outspoken individuals there, to the point that it is very pervasive. And there's another aspect, which comes up in numerous places. And that's the attitude of atheists who push the view that there's nothing wrong with religion as long as it doesn't make truth claims. To put it another way, there's nothing wrong with religion as long as said religion fits the atheist view of what religion should be (which is something akin to a social club and/or a fairy story). So atheists can therefore say with a straight face that they are not anti-religion, whilst at the same time trashing it left, right, and centre. Because the "religion" they are not anti is one of their own imagination.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One area of agreement

I agree with Daniel in one small regard. A Christ-like world would be very desirable. However, it is the possibility of a Christian world that scares me. -- Edgerunner76 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

copyright, Mahatma Mohandas Ghandi. ħuman Number 19 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's odd, as I thought that Jesus preceded and greatly inspired Ghandi. While both present an ideal of love and non-violence, there is more to their respective world views than that, and critical doctrinal differences, and which also affect the manner in which the ideals are achieved.Daniel1212 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
READ IT: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.". It's all in the "doctrinal differences". User 11speak to me 17:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually the quote continues: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." User 11speak to me 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Sadly overall too true. How much more those who oppose Him.Daniel1212 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anyone who would oppose the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene, apart from the obvious "God" stuff, of course - but he was an ignorant Iron age guy who couldn't be expected to know better. User 11speak to me 18:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think that you do know some who would oppose the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene, even if we simply stick to the purely moral ones. That is, unless you seek to not only divorce Jesus from His teaching on whom He was, but also from the foundational morality which He expanded upon. Jesus affirmed Old Testament moral laws and only intensified them, though due to the nature of His kingdom the penalties for violation of such exclude corporeal punishment by the church. Regardless, I do doubt that you agree with Jesus condemnation of fornications, (Ml. 7:21-23) etc, as defined by the law, nor do i think atheism would tend to affirm all of the Sermon on the Mount.

As for "iron age" knowledge, as human nature has not changed, nor does morality, and the Bible reveals both its depravity and remedy, which transcends time. If anything, the present day society affirms the former, and the need to give heed to the latter. Daniel1212 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Depravity" varies with time: much of what we accept without blinking an eye would have been regarded as depraved less than 50 years ago not to mention 2000 years ago and things that were commonplace 2000 years ago we would doubtless regard as depraved (no I don't have any examples!).
The basic laws of human interaction are constant even if not complied with. Basically: "Do unto others ..." covers most of it. User 11speak to me 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
..he was an ignorant Iron age guy who couldn't be expected to know better. He was ignorant of what He Himself had done (Colossians 1:16-17)? Of course your comments are based on your beliefs, not on objective facts. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Doublespeak. Big brother would be proud of you. The Bible is a collection of primitive myths interspersed with a bit, a little bit of fact. Accept it! User 11speak to me 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The point was that you do disagree with at least some of Jesus teachings (and Ghandi's as well). What Philip was contrasting was an objective material existing authority, versus own own subjective "golden compass." Your blithe dismissals of the authority of the Bible does not negate that comparison, nor the Bible's beneficial morality versus the ever morphing morality we see today but which destructive lifestyles are promoted.
As regards what constitutes moral depravity being changeable, the key word is "we." Nothing the Bible reveals as moral law - versus ceremonial taboos - has changed, which stands in beneficial contrast to the often diverse ideas about what constitutes morality which come and go, usually due to perverse reasonings. Even the Bible can be abused, but it provides a standard by which such are judged.
As for, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", )Lk. 6:31) - and which is most always stated in the negative sense by others - this law of reciprocity cannot stand by itself. A person who loves a diet of junk food (or worse) would be justified in feeding another the same. Other people can perpetuate some worse preferences. In the Bible, "love thy neighbor as thyself", (Lv. 19:18) comes after commands to obey God supremely, (Ex. 20:1-11) and laws detailing what love for each other requires. (Lv. 18, etc.) Daniel1212 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Doublespeak. How so?
The Bible is a collection of primitive myths interspersed with a bit, a little bit of fact. Accept it! Why should I "accept it" when you fail to produce any evidence-based or logic-based argument to support your claims?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
visitor navigation