Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
    You're famous here for ignoring at least 75% of people's debate posts to focus on a few little snippets
    I'm sorry, did you say something?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
      Even Adrift is calling you out for making gross sweeping generalizations and false statements about people you disagree with.
      Can you please show me where Adrift called me out for making false statements about people I disagree with?

      Thanks
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Can you please show me where Adrift called me out for making false statements about people I disagree with?

        Thanks
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Originally posted by Cow Poke
        you really can't have a calm reasonable discussion about race with a liberal without them finding some way of accusing you of being racist.
        I don't understand why people on this forum have to make these all encompassing statements about people they disagree with politically. Out of the millions of people who accept the label "liberal", I'm certain that there has to be hundreds of thousands of them who would, in fact, be able to have a calm and reasonable discussion about race. To suggest that you can't have a reasonable discussion about race with a liberal, seems quite unreasonable.

        As well as:

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        CP, sometimes you make some outlandish statements. You're my brother in Christ, and I love you, but just because that's true doesn't mean that I'm forced to take your side in every situation, or that I have to shut up when I see you say something I think is out there. I'd expect you to speak up too if I said something wonky, and I wouldn't conclude that I must have pissed in your Wheaties.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
          As well as:
          Yeah, I'm missing the part about "false statements" - perhaps you can help an old guy out and highlight that part.

          What I asked was....
          Can you please show me where Adrift called me out for making false statements about people I disagree with?

          Thanks
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
            Opinions can differ widely.
            Funny thing, that.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              It was common knowledge for many years that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but the American Psychiatric Association changed its tune in response to intense political pressure and not because of a rigorous scientific study.
              Wrong.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/he...cure.html?_r=0
              In 1970, one year after the landmark Stonewall protests to stop police raids at a New York bar, a team of gay rights protesters heckled a meeting of behavioral therapists in New York to discuss the topic. The meeting broke up, but not before a young Columbia University professor sat down with the protesters to hear their case.

              “I’ve always been drawn to controversy, and what I was hearing made sense,” said Dr. Spitzer, in an interview at his Princeton home last week. “And I began to think, well, if it is a mental disorder, then what makes it one?”

              He compared homosexuality with other conditions defined as disorders, like depression and alcohol dependence, and saw immediately that the latter caused marked distress or impairment, while homosexuality often did not.


              They scientifically observed, and have had that observation supported and reinforced throughout the decades, that there is a substantial difference between it and conditions that everyone agrees are disorders. They didn't just wake up one day and arbitrarily decide to declassify it. And that's why claims like:

              To claim that homosexuality is normal and healthy is the anti-scientific position.
              ...are false and anti-historical, as well as anti-scientific.

              You can give me all the anecdotal evidence you want claiming that gays, as a whole, are happy and content, but if it's all the same to you, I think I'll trust the preponderance of studies which demonstrate the exact opposite.
              I didn't say the gay population overall has a lower incidence of depression. I said there is no solid evidence that it's due to some inherent part of being gay, but there IS solid evidence indicating that it's due to societal factors. To recap:

              Evidence that the depression is due inherently to being gay
              --[404 error: evidence not found]
              --[still not found]
              --[see above]

              Evidence that the depression is due to societal factors:
              --It's been shown that societal discrimination/prejudice can cause people to feel depressed and anxious, etc.
              --Gay people specifically tell us that they started to feel depression/anxiety/self-loathing after they realized they were gay and that society wasn't accommodating to it
              --After societal factors are controlled for (such as having accepting friends/family), gay people report experiencing relief and joy


              Unfortunately most current studies start with the APA's unscientific premise and attempt blame mental health issues on "homophobia", but that, of course, begs the question.
              False, as shown in the part of the post that you ignored.

              You can't cure an illness without first acknowledging that a person is sick.
              You also can't cure an illness if the thing you're trying to cure isn't actually an illness. In fact, trying to "cure" a healthy person can actually perversely cause that healthy person to become unhealthy.

              "...gay people who raise children aren't likely to believe that homosexuality is sinful, so of course children who see that their parents are gay and don't show any signs of being particularly bad, damaged people are going to also believe that homosexuality isn't sinful."

              This is why it's such a fun statistic to bring up, because proponents of homosexuality don't even try and contest it.
              You're so blatantly begging the question. Children raised by Catholic parents are likely to believe that Catholicism is true, and IIRC you're not Catholic, so you believe Catholicism is false--but I don't see you insisting that Catholics shouldn't raise children, or that the children "have a malfunctioning compass."

              Basically everyone, regardless of religion, believes that things like murder, adultery, robbery and rape are immoral. These are so widely agreed upon because those acts exhibit obvious, tangible signs of harm. Monogamous gay couples who don't engage in physically harmful practices, however, do not exhibit any obvious, tangible signs of harm. Their children, then, are basing their evaluation of homosexuality on data and reason. Even if you still want to insist that homosexuality is sinful, the evidence that those children are presented with does not warrant that conclusion.

              Now if children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to be accepting of that particular form of deviant sexuality then it seems obvious that they will naturally support other forms of deviant sexuality or face some rather extreme cognitive dissonance.
              You just completely ignored the part explaining that there are clear, distinct differences between homosexuality and pedophilia and thus no cognitive dissonance is required, huh?

              As the American College of Pediatricians
              I currently don't have time to give that document a thorough read (Eastern Standard Time problems), but for the time being, it should be noted that that group has frequently been accused of misrepresenting scholars' works--by those very scholars themselves, mind you.

              Regarding your arguments against pedophilia, they're all based on the assumption that you're arguing from the moral high ground, but that's what opponents of homosexuality used to think, too, and now look where we are.
              That's an interesting way of saying "It's based on empirical facts."

              You claim that children are not mentally developed enough to give genuine consent, but do you think pedophiles have a moral problem with that any more than homosexuals have a moral problem with the fact that homosexuality deviates from the natural order?
              It's disturbing how casually you imply that pedophiles are lacking in morals--the word doesn't automatically mean someone's having sex with prepubescent children; it's just the term referring to people who experience an attraction to children. Plenty of people have that attraction but don't act on it precisely because they realize the immorality of having a physical relationship with them.

              Even more disturbing is how your argument that homosexuality's morally wrong appears to simply be that it "deviates from the natural order." That can't really be it. There are plenty of things that "deviate from the natural order," such as being conjoined twins or blind or deaf or autistic, but calling those and their related acts "immoral" is nonsensical.

              I say again, for the pedophile this is purely a legal matter, not a moral one, and who are you tell them they're wrong?
              So yeah, you're still conflating the mere condition with the behavior and implying that the entire group lacks concern for morals.

              For that matter, who's telling you that children are not mentally developed enough to give genuine consent? It wouldn't happen to be the same body of psychologists who used to agree that homosexuality was a mental disorder, would it?
              For one thing, most of those psychologists are now dead, so no. For another, the current crop of scientists are telling us this based on decades of research that have not yielded any revolutionary discoveries or insights that would change it, unlike Spitzer's realization when comparing homosexuality to genuine mental disorders.

              And finally, you also ignored how I noted that prepubescent children by definition don't even have sexual attractions yet.

              The same body that now says that being sexually attracted to children is not a mental disorder in and of itself but only if those attractions are unwanted or cause distress? It seems to me that it's only a very small step from there to the "discovery" that children are more able to give genuine consent than was previously thought. You don't think it'll happen? A lot of people never thought gay marriage would be legalized. And I have a feeling that the loudest voices in favor of pedophile rights will be from those raised by same-sex parents.
              Yep, you basically ignored everything in the post.
              Last edited by fm93; 06-29-2015, 11:09 PM.
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I don't know what's funniest, how stupid jpholding is, how wrong he is, or how much of a 4 year old he is.
                I see we can add narcissistic to Starlights other attributes since he loves looking at that mirror of his.

                Comment


                • Maybe one of the mods (wink, wink) could take care of moving the derail.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    Maybe one of the mods (wink, wink) could take care of moving the derail.
                    Derail's been moved.
                    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                    14 responses
                    75 views
                    1 like
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                    6 responses
                    61 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                    1 response
                    23 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                    0 responses
                    22 views
                    2 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                    7 responses
                    54 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post whag
                    by whag
                     
                    Working...
                    X