-->
@Stronn
The church teaches us that you love everyone equally, and even the sinner deserves the same love and with confessions and such, are forgiven from sin
Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church
Posts
Total:
563
-->
@Snoopy
"homosexual orientation is not a mental disorder and is not in of itself sinful. Homosexuality is also probably not a unitary state. Like alcoholism we should be speaking of alcoholisms, which can be differentiated on the basis of biological as well as complex cultural and social factors (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition-Test Revision [DSM-IV-TR], 2000). We should probably speak of homosexuality as homosexualities."
-->
@Vader
None of the churches where I am from teach that "being gay" is a sin. There was a wave one year where some kids started saying "gay" and they were throttled. An adult would never say such a thing. The churches are still vibrant integral parts of the community, with stable membership for the time being.
-->
@Snoopy
Yet they are being abandoned by liberals who think that religion is causing this "hatred"
I've noticed that evangelical/protestant churches have been getting a lot gayer over the years. It seems pretty obvious that pride in sexual immorality has been driving youngins from those churches. Maybe that is why all these churches in my town fly rainbow flags. Got to get'em back in somehow!
While these churches all compromise their integrity, corrupting the Orthodox Church in such a manner would be impossible. Even the Roman Catholic Church has gay clubs in the seminaries for their priests I hear!
-->
@Vader
Yet they are being abandoned by liberals who think that religion is causing this "hatred"
I am speaking for myself and my localized perception of one community only. I don't know anyone who talks like that, and I know rather diverse lot of people with conservative political affiliation. Broadening beyond my community I've heard how you talk about "liberals" in cultural context from callers on AM radio before, but honestly couldn't relate. I don't speak this way towards others and they do not speak this way towards me.
-->
@Vader
These "sins" have been determined by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages. How anybody can be that gullible is mind boggling.
-->
@Mopac
Who determines what is sexual immorality?
-->
@disgusted
It seems pretty obvious that pride in sexual immorality has been driving youngins from those churches. Maybe that is why all these churches in my town fly rainbow flags. Got to get'em back in somehow!
I think that could be appropriate if you live in a place where people may have experienced abuse? I'm not sure what need there would be otherwise.
-->
@Mopac
^^^^
-->
@Snoopy
Why have you quoted me as saying something I would never consider saying, can't you tell enough of your own lies without lying about what I say?
-->
@disgusted
I haven't quoted you
-->
@Snoopy
What do you call this no nuts
--> @disgusted
It seems pretty obvious that pride in sexual immorality has been driving youngins from those churches. Maybe that is why all these churches in my town fly rainbow flags. Got to get'em back in somehow!
You are a LIAR.
-->
@disgusted
The @ symbol stands for "at". It sends a notification to you.
Another conclusion you could have come to is that I must have hit the "reply" button for the wrong user,
The quotation is of the user Mopac. The quotation is not ascribed to you.
I would appreciate an apology
-->
@Snoopy
If you quote me as saying, which you did, something someone else said you are being dishonest and your follow up here just proves you a liar. I don't expect a godist to apologise because they incapable of the truth. Anybody whose life is dictated by fairytales has no choice but to lie.
-->
@disgusted
I did not quote you at all. I did not lie. I was not dishonest either.
I did make an honest mistake in replying to your user account.
Now, you have no good reason to call me a liar, and I would like an apology.
-->
@Snoopy
Not appropriate.
-->
@Stronn
I already said what I mean by humans being capable of making objective judgments. I mean they can reach the same conclusion that would be reached by someone who was truly objective.
Your link is surprisingly short on specifics. It seems to rely heavily on "self-discipline" and "systematic method" but doesn't really explain either.
How do you quantify the gap between a sort-of-objective statement and a "truly objective" statement?I don't. I know of no way to quantify difference in meaning.
So what makes you think a person "can reach the same conclusion that would be reached by someone who was truly objective" if you have no way of verifying such a statement? Is this a purely faith-based opinion?
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are really curious about critical thinking, you can find sources that describe it. I would agree with most of them. If I tried to go into details, it would turn into a treatise. Let's just say that critical thinking is the conscious attempt to reason and evaluate information in an unbiased, logical manner. Many things go into it, including a balance between skepticism and open-mindedness, knowledge of the methods of reasoning (deduction, induction, abduction), use of logic, ability to recognize and avoid formal and informal fallacies, willingness to follow evidence wherever it may lead, and ability to communicate precisely.
So what makes you think a person "can reach the same conclusion that would be reached by someone who was truly objective" if you have no way of verifying such a statement? Is this a purely faith-based opinion?
I did not say there was never way to verify such a statement. There are many cases where observation verifies a conclusion. We conclude that a certain man committed a murder based on circumstantial evidence. Later, this is verified when a video surfaces of them committing the murder. We conclude that a person missing in the Antarctic for a month is dead. Later, it is verified when we find the body.
This from a guy who quoted others and said I said it to make me look pro life. LOL. Poor baby.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Who are you replying to?
-->
@Castin
Faith is a prerequisite to scientific inquiry
-->
@ronjs
How so?
-->
@ludofl3x
It is a stretch to refer to someone as a scientist who is not faithful to scientific methodology.
-->
@Stronn
If you are really curious about critical thinking, you can find sources that describe it. I would agree with most of them. If I tried to go into details, it would turn into a treatise. Let's just say that critical thinking is the conscious attempt to reason and evaluate information in an unbiased, logical manner. Many things go into it, including a balance between skepticism and open-mindedness, knowledge of the methods of reasoning (deduction, induction, abduction), use of logic, ability to recognize and avoid formal and informal fallacies, willingness to follow evidence wherever it may lead, and ability to communicate precisely.
I generally agree with this outline, except for the use of the word "unbiased" which I believe is highly misleading.
So what makes you think a person "can reach the same conclusion that would be reached by someone who was truly objective" if you have no way of verifying such a statement? Is this a purely faith-based opinion?I did not say there was never way to verify such a statement.
Right, you said "I know of no way to quantify difference in meaning."
There are many cases where observation verifies a conclusion. We conclude that a certain man committed a murder based on circumstantial evidence. Later, this is verified when a video surfaces of them committing the murder. We conclude that a person missing in the Antarctic for a month is dead. Later, it is verified when we find the body.
The percentage of rational conclusions that can be indisputably verified deductively is vanishingly small.
The primary function of "critical thinking" is to "solve for x" in situations where we can't just look.
And I'd like to point out that your murderous examples are not necessarily air-tight.
Video evidence can be misleading, and even if it very clearly shows one person inflicting severe physical trauma on another, that in and of itself is not necessarily murder. Murder is defined as an unjustified killing. It would be extremely unlikely that a video could determine indisputable motive.
Lots of people die in extreme climates. Frozen bodies are not always easily identifiable. It may be difficult to determine if the missing person is in fact the same person as the discovered corpse. Especially if they are from a culture that doesn't keep comprehensive dental or DNA records.
If anyone is going to pretend that "objectivity" is attainable by humans, please at least distinguish clearly between Quanta and Qualia.
-->
@Mopac
That's a different definition of faith, though. "Faithfully" adhering to a process means simply following the steps very carefully. This is a common tactic among believers, saying that everyone operates on faith. If you're using it to mean "reasonable confidence," like when you get in your car, you have faith that when you put the key in, it will start, that's one kind of faith, which is different from "faithful' application, and different still from the kind of faith religious people like to tout ("faith as evidence of things unseen" I believe the saying goes< I think it's from Hebrews).
-->
@ludofl3x
I think that scripture you are referencing makes a lot more sense when you realize that we are talking about The Ultimate Reality. We don't see God directly, but in creation.
It should be obvious that some level of faith is required to believe that anything can be gained through scientific process.
And for the record, The Orthodox Church has always understood faith as faithfulness. Sure enough, believing what you read doesn't make you a scientist. Faithfulness to the scientific method is at minimum required to even be called a scientist.
We can spot 2 lies from this post. First, there is no mention whatsoever of "The Ultimate Reality" in Scriptures and secondly, you lie about following Scriptures as an Orthodox Christian if you call God, 'The Ultimate Reality'.I think that scripture you are referencing makes a lot more sense when you realize that we are talking about The Ultimate Reality
You really have no concept of honesty. Typical Christian.
-->
@Mopac
I'm using that scripture exactly to make my point that there's a lot of different uses of the word faith. THe version of faith in that verse is not applicable to the phrase 'faithfully following the scientific method." In that sense 'faithfully' is a synonym for 'dutifully' or 'diligently.' The version of faith in the verse is 'blind faith.'
It should be obvious that some level of faith is required to believe that anything can be gained through scientific process.
And this is the kind of faith that would also be like "I have faith my car will start when I turn the key." This sort of faith is CONFIDENCE, based on prior events or reasonable prediction. Car started the last 200 days, so you can be confident, or have faith, it will start tomorrow. You don't believe it will start tomorrow "because that's what I believe." Different faith.
Also I've yet to see you add your patented Ultimate REality to anything and have that thing make MORE sense.