Gay Exorcism Video Sparks Controversy

tek,

Thank you for that last post. I respect your integrity and apologise if I hurt your feelings in pointing that out. We have a different take on some things and that is fine. However naturally we’ll probably discuss it further to see if we can move each other a little. I think that is human nature.

I agree with your basic proposition that it does get annoying when people use the
Bible to justify their positions to people who don’t believe in it. I do not understand why some Christians think that people will consider books they don’t believe to be true to be authoritative. In a discussion about what a Church does however I would give more leeway.

The balance of what you say I take more issue with. Not that what you say has no truth but because IMHO it doesn’t do justice to the nuances involved.

Unless the majority believe in the Bible it should not be used to legislate. However if it has majority support that is democracy in action and all people should be free to express their views irrespective of how they are founded.

As regards the holding up of scientific process there are obvious examples where it retards progress. However merely pointing to that as a type of cliché fails to account for Christianity’s contribution to science over the years both in terms of scientific method and human resources. I believe that it needs to be recognized that science as we know it is compellingly argued to originally be an artifact of the Christian religion and some credit needs to be given for that. Many societies had some or all components but it was Christendom which put it all together. Islamic society gathered and preserved much knowledge and innovation quite well, Greeks had all components of scientific method but didn’t put things together, Chinese had amazing technology for their time, and even very ancient people made observations of natural phenomena eg. stars. An example of the failing to put components together is the frequently noted fact that if the ancient Greek philosopher (Aristotle?) who theorized that larger bodies fall more quickly than smaller objects had taken the time to drop some stones off a local hill and had someone at the bottom observe the result all elements of modern scientific method would have come together back then. It has been compellingly theorized that the Christian perspective enabled such close approximations of modern scientific method to go over the threshold. More particularly, the Christian belief in a God who is rational/predictable and works with rules. Other religions didn’t share that perspective on God and creation so assuming the world would be based on discoverable rules wasn’t so much in the radar. Christians assumed that God made an orderly world and set out to test theories in order to discover the rules. Now everyone does it. The other factor is that modern science has progressed for centuries often with the assistance of Christian scientists.

The handful of examples of hinderance of scientific progress over a number of centuries however extreme or in the face need to be considered in that context. I just believe there should be more balance to the old “Christians hold up scientific progress” cliché.

“I don't just blurt out things because they sound good…”

Thank you you have clearly established the reasonable basis for your belief.

I’m not sure whether to leave it at that or proceed further due to your possible innuendo. Just as “You would think if there were serious claims that they can "cure" homosexuality that it would be very illustrious in the literature by now.” you would also think that the APA would provide accurate information considering they are the peak body of psychologists in the US of A. Naturally if research, reporting and representation for social sciences is not balanced then it would undermine the credibility and you would think they would avoid this. Indeed you would think that the peak body of a group charged with studying human thinking would have understood normative thinking sufficiently to take a more effectual approach when giving testimony before Congress in relation to the publication of a paper indicating that paedophilia isn't harmful so as to avoid the organisation having the dubious distinction of being the only American professional organisation to be censored by Congress.

If I were to suggest that the APA were not accurate in relation to the present issue in 10 words or less I would look silly. To not appear silly I would need to establish my opinion by as a bare minimum discussing the relevant history of the American Psychiatric Association and the historical circumstances of and relating to Nicholas Cummings' introduction of relevant resolutions to the American Psychological Association, discussing research on psychologists and their political leanings, publication policies of APA journals (which have included a paper that challenged the idea that childhood molestation experiences were harmful but, these days, would no more publish something establishing 'gay conversion' no matter how methologically sound than they would a study showing a particular race had a lower IQ), why they make the claim that treatment outcome has been followed and reported over time, and what research has actually shown. This I can pretty much do off the top of my head. However it would take a lot of words so I am vacillating as to whether or not to proceed.

What I really need to clarify in order to make the decision is: Do you consider that I am just saying something because it sounds good?