Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

mtooler said:
Yes they had this knowledge. Sin entered the world, people have free will would be the top answers. As I said consequence for Sodom and Gomorrah was getting wiped out. People have free will ultimately to do whatever they want. King David is an excellent example as to what the consequence of lust is.
Click to expand...

Let's take the biblical approach...
The prophets were sent to inform the people? Yes or no?
 
Kummerspeck said:
Not in a situation like having homosexual parents where a large body of evidence shows that outcomes for children in those households don't fare any worse than children from heterosexual family units.

Refer to any one of the links I posted a few pages back for mtooler.
Click to expand...

Mate I've read several of them and I know the criteria about school success and about social interaction, mental health etc. If you think that's a clear measure of welfare then you're mistaken. My children on face value too are a welfare success. One is fighting to be dux of his selective school, another is top tier selective school and third doing very well non selective school. They all have wonderful circles of friends. None suffer depression though one did. Using the crieteria in those studies would have you believe their welfare is perfectly fine when it's actually not. They've experienced horrible emotional abuse from a mother who weekly at times told one daughter in particular she is sorry she ever gave birth to her. Police at one stage we're called fortnightly to each of the kids not because they were horrible - perfectly fine with me but because of mother dysfunction to effect discipline she was unable to achieve. Each of them have emotional disturbance that is pervasive but doesnt shine on surface because of the tireless efforts I commit to keep them functional.....practically a full time job. They do however have attachment issues and likely personality disorders which would only show through pyschological evaluation. And these things will persist through their lives. Do you honestly believe these studies do anything other than a superficial evaluation? They don't and therefore the true position is never shown only what's on the surface.

There are other ways you can delve deeper and tbh I prefer those ways. Like knowledge of 'adopted child syndrome' and it's charactristic cluster of behaviours and prevalence of 'Cinderella syndrome'. the impact of higher promiscuity of parents and incidence of respective dissolution. These things have known effects and therefore can be determined in a sense from statistics of prevalence than a superficial questionnaire of child success.

When you analyse something the very first thing you do is determine what is best methodology to answer the question posed. How do you access what you want to access to make informed decision. I steer clear of those reports because they are superficial and achieve nothing. I know how emotional disturbance is shrouded and how and when it manifests and I look for statistical prevalence of causation factors. Easier. More accurate
 
mtooler said:
Nope, marriage predates society. In Genesis God created man, from man woman and before anyone else came on the scene the two became one flesh in marriage.
Click to expand...

I’ve basically given you a free pass this thread because you take a literal interpretation of the bible, and that’s fine, you admitted that those who don’t share your beliefs would see it as discriminatory. That’s fine.

But please don’t try to use Christian mythology to argue against a secular law. I’m not saying your particular church should be forced to practice same sex weddings, but don’t use a series of events the vast majority of people in Australia don’t believe happened in any literal sense. It’s just not conducive to a productive debate.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BarneyBent said:
I’ve basically given you a free pass this thread because you take a literal interpretation of the bible, and that’s fine, you admitted that those who don’t share your beliefs would see it as discriminatory. That’s fine.

But please don’t try to use Christian mythology to argue against a secular law. I’m not saying your particular church should be forced to practice same sex weddings, but don’t use a series of events the vast majority of people in Australia don’t believe happened in any literal sense. It’s just not conducive to a productive debate.
Click to expand...

If its all the same to you, I dont need your permission, nor will I be silenced because your intolerant of it, nor will I abandon my faith because you insist that I do in discussions. Sounds like the textbook definition of something... I cant quite put my finger on it, perhaps you've heard of it.
 
puke said:
Mate I've read several of them and I know the criteria about school success and about social interaction, mental health etc. If you think that's a clear measure of welfare then you're mistaken.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, which one?
puke said:
I steer clear of those reports because they are superficial and achieve nothing.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the hilarity of you criticising the research and claiming you, a person who claimed not to have read too much into this before yesterday , can look deeper into this topic than people who study it for a living...

None of the links I posted were reports.
 
Kapanis said:
Cannot see where he said anything like that all
Click to expand...

No. It was a play on a recent meme which came from an extraordinary tv interview with a bloke called Jordan Peterson. When I wrote that post I intended to be sticking around but it backfired when I had to take off. The conversation’s moved on so just ignore it.
 
mtooler said:
If its all the same to you, I dont need your permission, nor will I be silenced because your intolerant of it, nor will I abandon my faith because you insist that I do in discussions. Sounds like the textbook definition of something... I cant quite put my finger on it, perhaps you've heard of it.
Click to expand...

Post was clearly unclear, apologies. I haven’t requested you abandon your faith, quite the opposite. I’ve just said it’s not something that can really be debated logically, it’s very much a faith, so there’s not much point bringing it up in a forum like this. Quoting Genesis in a literal sense won’t change the mind of people who don’t believe the events of Genesis actually happened, and those who do will already share your position. So what’s the point?
 
BarneyBent said:
I haven’t requested you abandon your faith, quite the opposite. I’ve just said it’s not something that can really be debated logically, it’s very much a faith, so there’s not much point bringing it up in a forum like this. Quoting Genesis in a literal sense won’t change the mind of people who don’t believe the events of Genesis actually happened, and those who do will already share your position. So what’s the point?
Click to expand...

The point is self evidencing, there is more than one worldview, we have different ones is all. Mine doesn't preclude yours from being used, however yours precludes mine from being used. I believe Genesis to be as real literally every bit as much as you believe it to be unreal. I wont be asking you to argue everything from the worldview perspective that the bible is absolute truth, that would be intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself aka bigotry.
 
Number37 said:
No.



We'll have to end the discussion here if you are going to be completely obtuse.
Click to expand...
So I think we have different ideas of discussions. Reducing someones ability to unfurl the teaching of the richness of scriptures with simply a yes or a no to a series of questions is commical.

Sometimes prophets were mostly for kings, sometimes for people, one time to be the Christ. Hence if you don't know that, I think you might be overstating your knowledge of the bible a little bit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fairytale vs scientific fact. It's evolution baby.
 
Kapanis said:
Fairytale vs scientific fact. It's evolution baby.
Click to expand...
From where I sit, the fairytale isn't the bible. Its believing that in the beginning that there was no creater just nothing and that this nothing created something from nothing in a total void which was devoid of any matter to do it with. I wouldnt be quite as confident in evolution baby if that was my start point for my faith in creation.
 
mtooler said:
From where I sit, the fairytale isn't the bible. Its believing that in the beginning that there was no creater just nothing and that this nothing created something from nothing in a total void which was devoid of any matter to do it with. I wouldnt be quite as confident in evolution baby if that was my start point for my faith in creation.
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve, yeh got it. QED
 
Last edited:
Kummerspeck said:
Oh yeah, which one?

Leaving aside the hilarity of you criticising the research and claiming you, a person who claimed not to have read too much into this before yesterday , can look deeper into this topic than people who study it for a living...

None of the links I posted were reports.
Click to expand...

You mean a bit like the fact that I've always known that homosexuality has at least an element of genetics and stated so because it was self evident (incidentally now confirmed in new scientist magazine reference of 17/12/2017 citing existence of two genes connected to same sex orientation) yet pyschologists being the supposed experts have consistently postulated until relatively recently it to be an exclusively learned behaviour deriving from environment. How could I do that? lol Perhaps I have a brain and knowledge that can assist me to? And I most definately refuse to accept something just because it's printed unless I can somehow authenticate it's validity.

Incidentally another factor influencing this same sex couples producing same sex oriented children debate I've just uncovered is the fact that same sex attraction has a high degree of heritability. That therefore means that it's entirely possible that at least some of the prevalence would be accounted for by that heritability than environment. Interesting and changes things up again. To what extent we can't know of course but it definately clouds the issue to the point of being unable to make definitive conclusions as I had originally thought.

I didn't read your links. I do my own research. Yes I've read reports and they're nonsense. Superficial. Indeed some I think are fabricated to support either of the for or against arguments and you can tell when they are.....a political document than a serious study. Believe me believe me not.
 
Kapanis said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Biblically because the bible says God created man and woman and animals at seperate times in a nutshell.

Outside of the bible im no scientific expert, I studied mostly in the humanities areas. My very loose understanding of natural selection and irreducible complexity has some interest to me but not enough for me to articulate it well enough for any scientifically minded people.
 
puke said:
You mean a bit like the fact that I've always known that homosexuality has at least an element of genetics and stated so because it was self evident (incidentally now confirmed in new scientist magazine reference of 17/12/2017 citing existence of two genes connected to same sex orientation) yet pyschologists being the supposed experts have consistently postulated until relatively recently it to be an exclusively learned behaviour deriving from environment.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, Jesus Christ are you kidding? You think you're ahead of the game thinking there's genetic influence in homosexuality and that it hasn't been widely discussed for ages? Am I falling victim to Poe's Law?
 
Last edited:
mtooler said:
The point is self evidencing, there is more than one worldview, we have different ones is all. Mine doesn't preclude yours from being used, however yours precludes mine from being used. I believe Genesis to be as real literally every bit as much as you believe it to be unreal. I wont be asking you to argue everything from the worldview perspective that the bible is absolute truth, that would be intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself aka bigotry.
Click to expand...

I’m not asking you to argue from my perspective.

I’m saying that invoking the Bible in a literal sense in a discussion with people who don’t broadly speaking don’t believe it in a literal sense is not going to achieve anything.

You’ll note I very early on agreed to disagree with you, because I know there’s no point arguing faith here, and I respect that. I would have thought you’d do the same for those who don’t share your faith. It’s not something you can logically debate, at least not productively. It’s like me saying, “My holy book says the first marriage was between two women, therefore same sex marriage is meant to be”. How would you argue against that?

Again, to be clear, I’m not saying you’re not entitled to your beliefs. I’m just saying it’s pointless invoking a faith based argument of ANY kind against people who don’t share the faith. This is why I’ve only debated puke and Bruce, neither of whom raised faith as an argument.
 
puke said:
You mean a bit like the fact that I've always known that homosexuality has at least an element of genetics and stated so because it was self evident (incidentally now confirmed in new scientist magazine reference of 17/12/2017 citing existence of two genes connected to same sex orientation) yet pyschologists being the supposed experts have consistently postulated until relatively recently it to be an exclusively learned behaviour deriving from environment. How could I do that? lol Perhaps I have a brain and knowledge that can assist me to? And I most definately refuse to accept something just because it's printed unless I can somehow authenticate it's validity.

Incidentally another factor influencing this same sex couples producing same sex oriented children debate I've just uncovered is the fact that same sex attraction has a high degree of heritability. That therefore means that it's entirely possible that at least some of the prevalence would be accounted for by that heritability than environment. Interesting and changes things up again. To what extent we can't know of course but it definately clouds the issue to the point of being unable to make definitive conclusions as I had originally thought.

I didn't read your links. I do my own research. Yes I've read reports and they're nonsense. Superficial. Indeed some I think are fabricated to support either of the for or against arguments and you can tell when they are.....a political document than a serious study. Believe me believe me not.
Click to expand...

You cannot criticise research for being superficial while citing a Cameron study that draws its data from reading a bunch of non-academic books about same sex parents and their children. Like I struggle to think of a worse sampling methodology and less useful set of data, and yet you’ve brandished it as proof of your research skills and deductive abilities.

The fact you’ve only recently “just uncovered... the fact that same sex attraction has a high degree of heritability” and think this is some extraordinary discovery (when I’ve been saying from the start that would explain a huge proportion of the stats you were reporting as evidence same sex couples twist their children into being gay like them) is just too much.

You think you’re years ahead, but you’re decades behind. You are so bad at this you don’t even realise how bad you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top