UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

More directed towards homophobes actually. Some of them seem to think that allowing gay marriage would have devastating consequences.

So you as an Atheist don't want any acknowledgement of Christmas or other christian practices by the State because it offends you. Yet you judge others who don't want to see the State support same sex marriage because it offends them. Does that make you a religiousphobe?

[peakoil]

No doubt he can provide a much more creative and apologetic take, but I don't see any other way to read the very few, brief, and equally terse treatments of "homosexuality" in the Bible: They are highly polemical.

However, two things of note here: First, the "biblical" position is a normative position in its own cultural and historical context. Second, "homosexuality" in the ancient world was NOTHING like modern day same sex coupling.

First, the Bible has its roots in the Ancient Mesopotamian world in which ritual purity, creational order, and family solidarity were the primary concerns of virtually every people group. I personally think these last two are fundamental to understanding what we perceive to be "anti-homosexual" invectives in biblical literature. The general concept of the world and the cosmos for these people held that the universe consisted of a vast system of careful balance that was constructed by the gods, and which held the powerful and destructive forces of chaos at bay. Virtually everything had a place and a purpose, and things were carefully ordered as a way to explain the nature of "creation". According to this worldview, women and men are opposite and complimentary halfs of a divinely mandated sexual union: To break the created order was to celebrate chaos. It threatened to upset the delicate balance of the cosmos, and to ultimately result in its utter destruction and ruin. Furthermore, sex in the ANE had little or nothing to do with love and romance. It was about power and procreation. It was for the function of producing children, expanding one's family and clan, and ensuring their preservation and success. An utterly non-productive sexual union is both incomprehensible and offensive in a world in which basic survival is so dependent upon the health and well being of the family.

Second, "homosexuality" was not common, and it was not primarily the product (as near as we can tell from the surviving literature) of "sexual orientation". Who even knows if there was such a thing in the ancient world? Not to suggest that there is any biological difference in the modern Western world, but the social constructs that we use to govern and explain sexuality are entirely different. When ancient peoples experienced "same sex attraction", I am fairly convinced that they did not perceive it nor express it in terms of romantic companionship as we do in this day and age. The most developed forms of homosexual practice in the region came from ancient Greek society, and it functioned a strange part of the relationship between a much older teacher and his very young pupil. It was not "love" or "affection" or even any sort of "attraction". It was a convention that was engrained into Hellenistic pedagogy as part of the normal upbringing and education for Greek boys. It much more closely resembled pediastry than modern homosexual companionship. Is it any wonder that the Eastern Semitic cultures were so repulsed by it? The Romans were especially critical of what they viewed as a base and vulgar form of barbarism.

So then, when reading the Bible about "homosexuality"—as with anything—it is always important to try to understand it within its own context. Not to excuse its polemical treatment of minorities and foreigners which is clearly evil by our modern standards, but to attempt to see WHY and HOW these attitudes prevailed.

Textcritic, Dr. Robert Gagnon wrote a book regarding the Bible and homosexual practices. Why don't you read that?

[peakoil]

Textcritic you're an <removed>.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Those people are not "creationists". I believe much the same, and would never want to be associated with "creationism". That's like saying anyone who is not a Republican is different shades of Marxist.

Why not? I believe God did it all and used the Big Bang and evolution so why am I not a creationist? I am.

[photon]

Creationist often is short for young earth creationist, which you aren't, so it could definitely lead to confusion to identify yourself as a creationist in these kinds of discussions.. Old earth creationist would be better.

[peakoil]

Moneyguy, there's no evidence for the Big Bang or evolution, so i wouldn't worry about it...everywhere we look in the universe is the exact same distance away from us, so there's nothing expanding. And check out Dr.Jonathan Sarfati's books to see what a scam evolution is.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by peakoil

Moneyguy, there's no evidence for the Big Bang or evolution, so i wouldn't worry about it...everywhere we look in the universe is the exact same distance away from us, so there's nothing expanding. And check out Dr.Jonathan Sarfati's books to see what a scam evolution is.

WOW, really? I can't even comment on this. You need to educate your self. It would be a complete waste of time for me to even start with that comment.

You make me sad.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peakoil

Moneyguy, there's no evidence for the Big Bang or evolution, so i wouldn't worry about it...everywhere we look in the universe is the exact same distance away from us, so there's nothing expanding. And check out Dr.Jonathan Sarfati's books to see what a scam evolution is.

The amount of ignorance in this post is astounding.

Do a google search for "cosmological redshift" before embarrassing yourself further.

[RogerWilco]

Don't even spend time on these people. They are beyond education.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peakoil

Moneyguy, there's no evidence for the Big Bang or evolution, so i wouldn't worry about it...everywhere we look in the universe is the exact same distance away from us, so there's nothing expanding. And check out Dr.Jonathan Sarfati's books to see what a scam evolution is.

lolwut?

First you insult one of the finest posters this forum has to offer, then you come out with this gem of a post?

[peakoil]

Totally really, take a look at what Edwin Hubble found out and how he became an Oiler fan:

Hubble was one of the 20th century’’s most famous and celebrated astronomers. The Hubble Space Telescope is named after him, for his accomplishments were astounding. To his utter consternation, however, in the 1930s and 40s, Hubble discovered an inordinate amount of evidence through his work with the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California, that Earth was in the center of the universe. As he examined the light coming from stars, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, indicated Earth’’s centrality quite clearly. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:
……Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.……This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable……. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position……must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

For evolution, check out Conservapedia's page on it http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

[peakoil]

evman150, nothing in textcritic's rhetorical diatribe did not at anytime approach anything resembling a scholarly consideration regarding homosexual practices and the Bible. Compared to a real scholar like Dr.Gagnon, "textcritic"'s view holds little or no merit.

[Sliver]

Don't feed him guys.

[mikey_the_redneck]

.......

[peakoil]

Marchhare, were you the editor of Nature, like Davies?

P. C. W. Davies, ““Cosmic Heresy?”” Nature, 273:336, 1978. In the same article Davies admits: ““……as we see only redshifts whichever direction we look in the sky, the only way in which this could be consistent with a gravitational explanation is if the Earth is situated at the center of an inhomogeneous Universe.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peakoil

Totally really, take a look at what Edwin Hubble found out and how he became an Oiler fan:

Hubble was one of the 20th century’’s most famous and celebrated astronomers. The Hubble Space Telescope is named after him, for his accomplishments were astounding. To his utter consternation, however, in the 1930s and 40s, Hubble discovered an inordinate amount of evidence through his work with the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California, that Earth was in the center of the universe. As he examined the light coming from stars, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, indicated Earth’’s centrality quite clearly. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:
……Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.……This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable……. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position……must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

For evolution, check out Conservapedia's page on it http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

LOL

You have just become the first entry on my ignore list. Not even Calgaryborn or HOZ have achieved that dubious "honour".

[peakoil]

You'd best ignore, lest you attempt a response.

Astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. In 1975 he catalogued 384 quasars between redshift of 0.2 and 3.53 and, amazingly, found that they were formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the Earth. He made the following startling conclusion:

.the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological interpretation of the redshift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe.290
Varshni first based his calculations on the spectra of the quasars and then did a second test on their actual redshifts. Both tests produced the same results. Varshni concludes that if his analysis is correct for quasars, then……
The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

[MacGr3gor]

Originally Posted by peakoil

For evolution, check out Conservapedia's page on it http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Originally Posted by peakoil

Conservapedia

Originally Posted by peakoil

Conservapedia

[Dion]

Originally Posted by peakoil

evman150, nothing in textcritic's rhetorical diatribe did not at anytime approach anything resembling a scholarly consideration regarding homosexual practices and the Bible. Compared to a real scholar like Dr.Gagnon, "textcritic"'s view holds little or no merit.

[peakoil]

MagGr3gor, why then don't you prove evolution once and for all, and succeed where so many others have failed?

Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."