Minnesota United Methodist approve gay rights resolution

[Dr Grump]

Although I don't agree with your view, and find it quite alarming,

I do respect your right to it.

And I yours.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Originally Posted by Eightball
Although I don't agree with your view, and find it quite alarming,

I do respect your right to it.

And I yours.

Where's the fun in that?

J/K

 

[dmp]

Where's the fun in that?

J/K

yeah - get a f'ing ROOM you two!

 

[dmp]

This scripture speaks to what is going on in 'the church' today:

2 Timothy, Chapter 4:

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


Sad - but foretold and expected.

 

[Eightball]

This scripture speaks to what is going on in 'the church' today:

2 Timothy, Chapter 4:

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


Sad - but foretold and expected.

Yes, indeed.........

 

[Bullypulpit]

United Methodists approve gay rights



Obviously the issue didnt come down to "What does the Bible say?"

Why are Christians being so swayed by the culture as to allow them to pretend the Bible is not against all unlawful sexual activity? Exactly how effective is a homosexual man living in his sins going to be in preaching repentence? If a straight preacher fell from the straight and narrow and was living in his sins he wouldnt be an effective preacher. Why is a gay preacher living in his sins any different?

So, what's your point? This debate keeps cropping up, and you and the other homophobes keep making the same failed arguments. That homosexuality is a violation of God's laws, of the natural order, of the will of the majority, etc. , never producing ANY objective, documented evidence of demonstrable harm to the community at large or the individauls involved in a commited and loving homosexual relationship.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, what's your point? This debate keeps cropping up, and you and the other homophobes keep making the same failed arguments. That homosexuality is a violation of God's laws, of the natural order, of the will of the majority, etc. , never producing ANY objective, documented evidence of demonstrable harm to the community at large or the individauls involved in a commited and loving homosexual relationship.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Depsite the fact that we have provided evidence of its harmful nature. Simply because you dont like the evidence does not mean it doesnt exist. You guys dont bother successfully refuting it, you just pretend it doesnt exist. which is ludicris.

The fact of the matter is when it comes to Christianity, homosexuality is wrong. Period. Any Christian compromising clear doctrine is wrong.

The fact you can't tell the difference between a discussion about Christians violating Christian doctrine and a political discussion on the harms of homosexuality demonstrates serious deficiencies in your ability to comprehend what is going on. A debate about Christian doctrine among Christians is going to be discussed differently then when its a political debate. This is religious. Hence why its in the religion forum.

Oh, and anyone who is afraid of a gay person is a pansy. Your attempts to label everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is unproductive. its an emotional attack to try to discredit people who disagree with you as bigots. its a typical liberal practice, try to claim your opponent is a bigot then you dont have to bother having an actual argument to support yourself.

You guys want to change fundamental institutions of society, then make intellectual arguments and take it to the people. Stop trying to malign anyone who disagrees with you and pretending as though they dont have valid reasons. Because quite honestly, the only bigot i ever see here is you. You have made it clear that you are completely intolerant to anyone who disagrees with you. And its quite sad. Stop with the emotion arguments and start discussing substance or shut up.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Depsite the fact that we have provided evidence of its harmful nature. Simply because you dont like the evidence does not mean it doesnt exist. You guys dont bother successfully refuting it, you just pretend it doesnt exist. which is ludicris.

The fact of the matter is when it comes to Christianity, homosexuality is wrong. Period. Any Christian compromising clear doctrine is wrong.

The fact you can't tell the difference between a discussion about Christians violating Christian doctrine and a political discussion on the harms of homosexuality demonstrates serious deficiencies in your ability to comprehend what is going on. A debate about Christian doctrine among Christians is going to be discussed differently then when its a political debate. This is religious. Hence why its in the religion forum.

Oh, and anyone who is afraid of a gay person is a pansy. Your attempts to label everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is unproductive. its an emotional attack to try to discredit people who disagree with you as bigots. its a typical liberal practice, try to claim your opponent is a bigot then you dont have to bother having an actual argument to support yourself.

You guys want to change fundamental institutions of society, then make intellectual arguments and take it to the people. Stop trying to malign anyone who disagrees with you and pretending as though they dont have valid reasons. Because quite honestly, the only bigot i ever see here is you. You have made it clear that you are completely intolerant to anyone who disagrees with you. And its quite sad. Stop with the emotion arguments and start discussing substance or shut up.

Evidence as in objectively verifiable, indpendently reproduceable evidence...Not the opinion of a water-head like James Dobson. Provide evidence form the former category, not the latter...then I'll take you seriously.

 

[Eightball]

That Water-Head, Dr. James Dobson, is a very respected pediatrician.

His radio talk show is carried on many secular, as well as many more Christian-based radio stations.

These secular radio stations are in major markets, many being major News-Talk stations affilitated with the major networks. Somehow Dr. Dobson's religious afffiliation and resulting ethics hasn't resulted low popularity.

Add to his media experience, he is a widely known writer, and respected speaker too.

He has refuted much of the Dr. Spock'ian influence of the 50's-60's that helped to create a "spoiled-brat" generation of Americans(flower children, LSD, unbridled sexual promiscuity,etc.), that lack strength of commitment beyond personal/selfish needs.

Dobson's information in his books on Homosexuality, and child rearing comes from his own clinical experience working with children and Adolescents.

I think your problem with Dobson isn't his credentials, it's his Christian/biblical stance.

The minute a reputable person is identified as a biblical Christian, they're reputation points plummet with some.

 

[dmp]

I think your problem with Dobson isn't his credentials, it's his Christian/biblical stance.

The minute a reputable person is identified as a biblical Christian, they're reputation points plummet with some.

Brother, you NAILED it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That Water-Head, Dr. James Dobson, is a very respected pediatrician.

His radio talk show is carried on many secular, as well as many more Christian-based radio stations.

These secular radio stations are in major markets, many being major News-Talk stations affilitated with the major networks. Somehow Dr. Dobson's religious afffiliation and resulting ethics hasn't resulted low popularity.

Add to his media experience, he is a widely known writer, and respected speaker too.

He has refuted much of the Dr. Spock'ian influence of the 50's-60's that helped to create a "spoiled-brat" generation of Americans(flower children, LSD, unbridled sexual promiscuity,etc.), that lack strength of commitment beyond personal/selfish needs.

Dobson's information in his books on Homosexuality, and child rearing comes from his own clinical experience working with children and Adolescents.

I think your problem with Dobson isn't his credentials, it's his Christian/biblical stance.

The minute a reputable person is identified as a biblical Christian, they're reputation points plummet with some.

James Dobson is simply using Christianity as a sheepskin to advance his own political agenda. And it is simplistic to blame the "spoiled brat" generation on the writings of Benjamin Spock.

As for his writings on homosexuality, they are nothing but populist generalization without peer review. They present little more than his opinion, unsupported by clinical study or evidence beyond anecdotal.

I truly don't care what religion someone adheres to, especially if they walk the walk. Dobson doesn't.

 

[Eightball]

Would you be so kind as to document or present some of Dobson's views, either from his books, radio, public speaking, or television, that reflect "populist generalization without peer review. ", and please support this with referencing of dates, and critical reviews by other peers.

 

[jillian]

Would you be so kind as to document or present some of Dobson's views, either from his books, radio, public speaking, or television, that reflect "populist generalization without peer review. ", and please support this with referencing of dates, and critical reviews by other peers.

If you think that there is any scientific basis for what this nutter says, then I'd suggest you might want to proffer it, rather than demanding proof of a negative.

 

[dmp]

If you think that there is any scientific basis for what this nutter says, then I'd suggest you might want to proffer it, rather than demanding proof of a negative.

That's not what Eightball was asking; that's an off-topic question mostly.

 

[Eightball]

If you think that there is any scientific basis for what this nutter says, then I'd suggest you might want to proffer it, rather than demanding proof of a negative.

I'll try to answer your question. I think it was a question, or maybe a statement......

Anyway........."Nutter": were you referring to Bully or Dr. Dobson with the "Nutter" reference?

Excuse my not understanding, but "proffer it". What did you mean by that?(proffer it?)

In addition, please help me to find in the vernacular of my response, where I "demanded" something. I was "asking" for some references only.

"Demanding" is pretty strong stuff. I only felt that it would be appropriate to ask for support for Bully's statement about Dr. Dobson being a "Water-head" with and some support for Bully's, "populist generalization without peer review. " description of Dobson's validity or credentials?

Since Bully embraces a strong evidenciary, factual approach(As I do also.) to supporting statements, I felt that I was only following a similar vain when asking for some evidence for his descriptions/observations/etc. of Dr. Dobson.

Seems, like I can't make this any clearer.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you think that there is any scientific basis for what this nutter says, then I'd suggest you might want to proffer it, rather than demanding proof of a negative.

Fair call....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Would you be so kind as to document or present some of Dobson's views, either from his books, radio, public speaking, or television, that reflect "populist generalization without peer review. ", and please support this with referencing of dates, and critical reviews by other peers.

Given your ardent support of Mr. Dobson, perhaps you could provide evidence as to the existence of peer reviewed articles supporting the scientific validity of his views.

 

[dmp]

Look at this thread:

"Dobson has shown (sources sited)"

"Noway! PROVE every data Point Dobson says! It's not valid unless you PROVE what Dobson proves with his data!"

"No - you prove Dobson is wrong; dobson gives sources for studies, etc.."

"No way! Because Dobby is a Xtian we'll assume the research he's shown is invalid!"

Are you Homophiles THAT closed-minded?


On an unrelated note, I really miss Sci-Fi Fridays - 8pm Stargate SG1, 9pm Stargate Atlantis, 10pm Battlestar Gallactica.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That's not what Eightball was asking; that's an off-topic question mostly.

In essence, that's what 8ball was asking, and within the topic at hand.

 

[dmp]

In essence, that's what 8ball was asking, and within the topic at hand.

Not even close. Eightball asked YOU to "...document or present some of Dobson's views, either from his books, radio, public speaking, or television, that reflect "populist generalization without peer review."

She said "You prove what Dobby says is scientific!"

The question was for you to back up your statements that dobby says stuff which reflect populist generalization without peer review.

Easy, eh?