Crazy Christian Lady on Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

The definition decides the definition.

If anti-bigot is a type of bigot, then anti-Christ is a type of Christ, and anti-freeze is a freezing agent. Merriam Webster offers bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Taking the second part first, bigot is not a recognized group by anyone because an Israeli who hates Palestinians and a Palestinian who hates Israelis do not identify with the other, and without identity, it is not a group, so rounding up people like me (anti-bigots) would be bigoted, but rounding up bigots would not. As for the first, more important part, my opinions and prejudices are kept to a minimum and changed based on evidence; for example, I have over the years reversed position on illegal immigration, abortion, teen driving, etcetera. An otherwise open-minded person does not become close-minded for not being open-minded about being close-minded.

EDIT: While I'm at it...


The second one explains the RCC, all right, but the first statement is self-evidently false, as negative spiritual forces do not exist, and heresy is believing in a religion rather than knowing the truth (via philosophy and science). If all one knows of God and spirituality are the words, one knows nothing of either.

Charity work? Really? What percentage?

And what percentage goes to maintaining the church leaders in a quality of life than would be the envy of most middle-class families?

What percentage goes to purchasing and maintaining the millions of acres of tax-free property owned by religious institution?

What percentage goes to covering the medical costs of patients in hospitals run by religious orders, and what percentage goes towards legal fees in prosecuting those people who are unable to pay?

Just like the majority of secular charitable institutions, the majority of religious charitable institutions consume somewhere between 79% and 87% of all their donations in "Administrative Fees" and "Other Overhead Expenses."


Then those parishes should withold more of the money that they would otherwise pass along to their diocese's, orders, legal defense funds, and the Pope's child-support payments. Then they could either return the money to those poor communities, or refuse to collect more than is absolutely needed to maintain the church building and pay the staff.

But that would break too many religious rules.

Last edited by Fnord on 30 Jul 2008, 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

what you said is self evidently false.
negative spirutal forces do exist i have repeatly encountered them
heresy is definatly not brought about by following science, there are spirutal truths some of wich has been confirmend by quantum physics

and the last one you agreed with me.

Evidence, Please?


Evidence, Please?


Evidence, Please?

not very much
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArti ... world&col=
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... ecord.html
and those arces of tax exampt property are generally there for enviromental protection

the first one is an apriori truth
the second is simple a catiergorical issue

And the third look up Dr Emotos water experiments
where buddhism monks prayed over water and the prays change the molecular composition
of the water.

i win

Not if you're Catholic (or any variant of Christian) because the Buddhists weren't praying to your God.

you missed the point prayer of any time is observable.

"A Priori" is a Latin term that literally means "From Before." It is used as an adjective to mean that the idea is either (1) known previously, (2) based on an hypothesis, rather than an actual experiment; or (3) based in intuition alone.

In other words, an assumption. You have assumed that "negative spiritual forces exist." Assuming that something is true does not make it the truth. To believe otherwise is wrong. And if your statement is previously known as "truth," then please cite your sources ... and hope that they are not as fallible as the Bible.


Believing in the science-based Theory of Evolution is heresy to fundamentalist Christianity. This is not a categorical issue. To believe otherwise is wrong.


First, Masaru Emoto claims his research paper has been submitted to 150 peer-reviewed journals. There is not one published submission to an accredited US peer-reviewed scientific journal. The only published work of his is in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (Volume 10, Number 1, 2004 pp. 19-21, "Healing With Water by Masaru Emoto, M.D."). Although this is a peer-reviewed journal, it is not an accredited and scientific peer-reviewed journal. Also, his particular entry was not actually reviewed as it was not submitted as a scientific article, but only as a photo essay - comparable in quality to a high school science project.

Second, every water molecule is composed of one Oxygen atom and two Hydrogen atoms. Change this composition and it is no longer water.

Third, Emoto graduated from Yokohama Municipal University with courses in International Relations, and in 1992 he received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India, an unaccredited institute with minimal academic requirements.

Fourth, Emoto uses insufficient experimental controls, does not share enough details of his approach with the scientific community to warrant further study, and does not design his experiments in ways to eliminate human error

Fifth, the creativity of the photographers, rather than the rigor of the experiment, is an explicit policy of Emoto's protocols.

Sixth, Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.

Finally, Kristopher Setchfield, (BA, Health Science) from Castleton State College (Natural Science Department) in Vermont has made a paper called "Review and Analysis of Dr. Masaru Emoto’s Published Work on the Effects of External Stimuli on the Structural Formation of Ice Crystals," wherein he states: "It is this crucial lack of scientific foundation that prevents Dr. Emoto’s work from attracting interest by widely accepted and respected scientists at long-standing research institutions. This is unfortunate for the world if there is, after all, truth to his claims--as reproduction of his results by any scientist would lend much credence to his work. A little change in Emoto’s experimental design would do great things for the credibility of his claims. I recommend the following to ground his work in sound scientific principle:

· Eliminate the possibility of the scientist’s bias affecting the experiment’s results by implementing double blind procedures.
· Publish the entire collection of photos for all water sample tests that he has performed, not just the ones that support his claim.
· Minimize the sources of possible error in his procedures, such as variation in temperature and humidity between sample.
· Pay more attention to the time-tested methods of the scientific community rather than disregarding them. Emoto’s research could go much farther if he could interest scientists around the world in testing his hypothesis.

After the lengthy review of Emoto’s research methods and results, I have come to believe that Dr. Emoto is offering pseudoscience to the masses in the guise of defensible research. Only time and review by others will tell if there is any truth at the heart of Mr. Emoto’s claims, as Emoto himself thoroughly believes in his findings but does not value the scientific method or community. What is truly fearsome is the great numbers of people that accept his words as proven facts without looking deeper to find out if his claims are truly justified. While I respect Dr. Emoto’s desire to save the Earth’s water from contamination and pollution, unless he can produce a scientific paper and get it published in a scientific journal, I believe that he will continue to be ignored by the scientific community, and his claims will never be soundly proved or disproved."

Dr. Emoto is practicing Pseudo-Science. Pseudo-Science is false science. Only those who are too lazy to look deeper into pseudo-scientific claims, or who are ignorant of the true nature of science will believe such claims. This makes their beliefs wrong.


No.

I win - Game, Set, and Match.

Last edited by Fnord on 30 Jul 2008, 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

so what's the control for that test?

And fundamentalist Christianity is stupid enough that it can be rejected out of hand. Believing in evolution or other scientific ideas is not heresy to mainstream Christian denominations such as Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or mainline Protestantism. It is a categorical issue unless you are a brain-dead fundie.

Somebody prayed, and something happened.

Other than that, nada.

Okay, how is it a categorical issue? I see it as merely an issue of arbitrary semantics, but I could also be "too smart for my own good," so please enlighten me.

Fnord: Science and religion do not overlap in purpose. They do not address the same questions, thus, they do not make conflicting claims. There is no contradiction in believing in both science and in God.

Yet, they both address the same question: "What is the origin of life, the universe, and everything?"

Creationism vs. Evolution - Either you believe that God created Man out of clay, or you believe that Man evolved from slime.

Big Bang vs. Genesis - Either you believe that the universe originated from a quantum fluctuation, or that God spoke it into existance.

Trans-substantiation vs. Con-substantiation - Either you believe that the Wafer and the Wine become the incorruptible Body and Blood of Christ, or you believe the evidence of a sigmoidoscopy.

Thank you for your explanation, however.

OK, wait a minute, we're not talking about hooligans yelling "Dirty fa***t" from their noisy cars as they speed by a gay club, or even being denied a job or advancement in your company for being gay. We're talking about your own parents rejecting you and making you feel absolutely worthless and disgusting once they found out about your homosexuality. We're also talking about your local priest, who you see every Sunday and who positioned himself as the moral arbiter of your world, the spiritual pillar of your community, telling you you're no longer welcome in the society that was once your whole world. So yeah, I think I had a right to be pissed off at them once I got back on my feet and got a real perspective on things.

As for saying I should be grateful to live in a country where they don't hang me, sorry, that doesn't cut it. That's like saying to a black person in the 60's :"Oh, sorry, you can't marry a white person, but look at it on the bright side, at least no one is lynching you or using you as their slave " (marriage between two races was only made legal in the States in 1968)

We won't solve this issue until homosexuality becomes a non-issue in all aspects of life.