• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Peer review" [W:46]

Sweden said:
If god is all powerful as the Christians claim why does he not put an end to this pointless argument by posting a few messages on this board and others? I would think that he must be tired by now of all the assorted wannabe theologians claiming to speak for him. (No, 'It's Just Me' it's others too. Sigh.)
Click to expand...

Actually, I just got a call from God and he said that he's too busy colliding a few galaxies together on the other side of the universe and turning some retarded monkey-fish-frogs into humans on Alpha Centauri to post right now, but that he's interested in discussing this topic with you in the future.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, I just got a call from God and he said that he's too busy colliding a few galaxies together on the other side of the universe and turning some retarded monkey-fish-frogs into humans on Alpha Centauri to post right now, but that he's interested in discussing this topic with you in the future.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tucker. Please tell God - upper case G to show I'm willing to play nicely - that he has a week to get to me. He created the entire bloody Universe in Seven Days so that should give him plenty of time.
 
it's just me said:
My mistake. However, I would have to say the same thing about Unitarianism as I do UU.

And I am using the term peer review for your convenience. If you don't think I should, give me the phrase you would use.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try defining what you mean by 'peer review' in the context that you are using it.
 
it's just me said:
Read the damn forums. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you lied!
Are logical claims subject to peer review?
Click to expand...

Logical claims can be demonstrated to be logical, if one is familiar w/it.
Tell me, what is your field of scientific study?
Click to expand...

I have a background in physics and cognitive linguistics. How is that relevant to the fact that 'creation science' isn't science?
I would suggest that you actually hear whatever claim I make before jumping to conclusion. Where did I say God could be addressed by science? Oh, the "peer review" thing threw you. Peer review: evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with what peer review is, thanks.
No, that's what it used to mean.
Click to expand...

That's what it still means. Why be so dishonest?
 
Last edited:
Science is nothing more than the discovery, observation, study, and experimentation upon everything God has created.
 
it's just me said:
My mistake. However, I would have to say the same thing about Unitarianism as I do UU.

And I am using the term peer review for your convenience. If you don't think I should, give me the phrase you would use.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just having trouble trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it without the term peer review? I might be able to reply more effectively then.
 
Schism said:
Science is nothing more than the discovery, observation, study, and experimentation upon everything God has created.
Click to expand...

Science does not deny that, but the story in Genesis is hardly adequate to pass a scientific peer review. A few pages of equations to describe his methods would have been nice. Some of us are a little more advanced than goat herders now, but Creationists do not seem to realize that. I remember a group of them tried to persuade the local school board here to include "Creation Science" in the school curriculum. They came prepared with a few talking points, but when asked even the most elementary questions about their "science," even the Christians in the audience laughed at them.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
Adherents to atheism are often seen and heard saying that writing or opinion that does not conform to mainstream scientific thought is not "peer reviewed", which is to say that it has not been vetted by other professionals in the same field.

Yet, these same people, when it comes to Christianity, apparently believe that any claim counter to Christianity is thought to be legitimate by virtue of the fact that it exists at all - no "peer review" necessary. Peer review is not only viewed as unnecessary but not even welcome.

Example: creation science is not "peer reviewed", therefor it is not legitimate. On the other hand, various cults make claims that are counter to mainstream Christianity and the very same people think that no "peer review" is necessary.

Why is that? Why the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Adherents to atheism? Who want or talk about scientific review of christianity but nothign else? You mean a group of people that you made up for your subject or that even if they do exist they are some small fringe group and they aren't representative of "atheists. Seems the hypocrisy is right in your op and it's judging a group based on a false narrative or by the actions of some just like some judge me as a christian.
 
JohnPaul said:
Science does not deny that, but the story in Genesis is hardly adequate to pass a scientific peer review. A few pages of equations to describe his methods would have been nice. Some of us are a little more advanced than goat herders now, but Creationists do not seem to realize that. I remember a group of them tried to persuade the local school board here to include "Creation Science" in the school curriculum. They came prepared with a few talking points, but when asked even the most elementary questions about their "science," even the Christians in the audience laughed at them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if God will ever provide His specific scientific methods to us, even as He continues to create new galaxy clusters. But, I'm sure it's pretty advanced stuff.
 
Schism said:
I'm not sure if God will ever provide His specific scientific methods to us, even as He continues to create new galaxy clusters. But, I'm sure it's pretty advanced stuff.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. The Serpent in the Garden promised us we would become as gods, so we will learn to create our own universes.
 
Sherman123 said:
I guess I'm just having trouble trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it without the term peer review? I might be able to reply more effectively then.
Click to expand...

Simply this: atheists and other non-believers are fond of saying that non-"peer reviewed" studies have no credibility. Yet they will then turn around and say that the Church at large (we call it the Holy catholic and apostolic Church) has no right to vet cults that call themselves
"Christian".

Don't stumble over the word "catholic", it's not the denomination "Catholic".

Personally, I think it's either extreme ignorance to say so, or, it allows them to define what Christianity is and isn't.
 
JohnPaul said:
It doesn't matter. The Serpent in the Garden promised us we would become as gods, so we will learn to create our own universes.
Click to expand...

That serpent is quite the liar.
 
it's just me said:
Simply this: atheists and other non-believers are fond of saying that non-"peer reviewed" studies have no credibility. Yet they will then turn around and say that the Church at large (we call it the Holy catholic and apostolic Church) has no right to vet cults that call themselves
"Christian".
Click to expand...

You have every right to vet anyone who wants access and membership to your religious society club. Whether that person is a Christian or not is between them and God. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with membership rolls at a particular church building with the proper signage out front.

Don't stumble over the word "catholic", it's not the denomination "Catholic".

Personally, I think it's either extreme ignorance to say so, or, it allows them to define what Christianity is and isn't.
Click to expand...

Then there should be no problem in substituting a different word - universal, for example - unless of course the word 'catholic' has a deeper meaning and other connotations which have been interpreted and distilled to be understood as a background to other doctrines.

In other words, you can substitute the word catholic, since it's just a synonym for universal as claimed in another thread.
 
Schism said:
You have every right to vet anyone who wants access and membership to your religious society club. Whether that person is a Christian or not is between them and God. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with membership rolls at a particular church building with the proper signage out front.



Then there should be no problem in substituting a different word - universal, for example - unless of course the word 'catholic' has a deeper meaning and other connotations which have been interpreted and distilled to be understood as a background to other doctrines.

In other words, you can substitute the word catholic, since it's just a synonym for universal as claimed in another thread.
Click to expand...

You never answered Nota's question: do you belong to a local congregation? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no". If you did, you would probably know that the "Church" is the body of Christ. It goes without saying that Christians know who Christ is, false Christs won't do it.
We know the Shepherds voice, and we know a stranger when we see one. This is all Biblical, I shouldn't have to tell you this. But here I am, telling you this.
 
it's just me said:
You never answered Nota's question: do you belong to a local congregation? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no". If you did, you would probably know that the "Church" is the body of Christ.
Click to expand...

You're likely conflating the word church with The Church. I'm a member of The Church. Sometimes I fellowship with other members of The Church at a building often referred to as church. However, I've seen many church buildings filled with people; as to whether or not members of The Church were present, I simply don't know.
 
Schism said:
That serpent is quite the liar.
Click to expand...

That is Christian propaganda. The Gnostics believed the Serpent was an emanation of the True God, sent to rescue the trapped human souls from the false impostor god in the Garden. When the early Christians achieved political power, they condemned the Gnostics as heretics, but traces of the belief have always survived and is growing now.
 
JohnPaul said:
That is Christian propaganda. The Gnostics believed the Serpent was an emanation of the True God, sent to rescue the trapped human souls from the false impostor god in the Garden. When the early Christians achieved political power, they condemned the Gnostics as heretics, but traces of the belief have always survived and is growing now.
Click to expand...

That is serpent propaganda. He's quite the liar.
 
Schism said:
You have every right to vet anyone who wants access and membership to your religious society club. Whether that person is a Christian or not is between them and God. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with membership rolls at a particular church building with the proper signage out front.
Click to expand...

A distinction without too much of a difference. The visible and the invisible Churches may be different, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And no, we can recognize a Christian when we see one, and we can recognize a non-Christian when we see one - the non-Christian will be the one spouting non-Christian or even anti-Christian doctrines. In other words, "false Gospels".

Then there should be no problem in substituting a different word - universal, for example - unless of course the word 'catholic' has a deeper meaning and other connotations which have been interpreted and distilled to be understood as a background to other doctrines.

In other words, you can substitute the word catholic, since it's just a synonym for universal as claimed in another thread.
Click to expand...

Then by the same token, you shouldn't have a problem with the word "Catholic", unless your bias won't allow it.
 
it's just me said:
Simply this: atheists and other non-believers are fond of saying that non-"peer reviewed" studies have no credibility. Yet they will then turn around and say that the Church at large (we call it the Holy catholic and apostolic Church) has no right to vet cults that call themselves
"Christian".

Don't stumble over the word "catholic", it's not the denomination "Catholic".

Personally, I think it's either extreme ignorance to say so, or, it allows them to define what Christianity is and isn't.
Click to expand...

The Church can certainly advance it's own arguments, and there are journals of theology where these points can, in point of fact, be made and peer-reviewed. However, that isn't a basis for concluding objectively what the truth is.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is what it teaches.. yes.. i will agree, that is not a debatable point. However, when it comes to objective evidence, there is no evidence that is true.. and the phrase 'son of God' can be taken in several directions. That is where metaphysics comes in.
Click to expand...

There's nothing metaphysical about Jesus being God's "only begotten" Son, Ramoss.

"The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

https://gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html
 
Sherman123 said:
The Church can certainly advance it's own arguments, and there are journals of theology where these points can, in point of fact, be made and peer-reviewed. However, that isn't a basis for concluding objectively what the truth is.
Click to expand...

It's not about "truth" as outsiders define it, it's about what Christianity is and isn't. The argument I usually get is that if someone calls themselves Christian, then they are, regardless of their beliefs, and tge Church has nothing to say about it.

This is most likely the fault of "private interpretation" of scripture, which claims that there is no central clearing house for Christian theology, and it's all up to the individual. As a result, you end up with weird cults, who, through a bad interprtation of scripture, will not allow it's members to recieve blood transfusions or any medical treatment.
 
Logicman said:
There's nothing metaphysical about Jesus being God's "only begotten" Son, Ramoss.

"The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

https://gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html
Click to expand...

This, of course, ignores that the Greek word MONOGENES is used differently in other parts of the bible. For example, that word is used in relationship to Jacob, and it just so happens that Jacob had brothers. Are you going to tell me that jacob's brothers were not begotten? This is an example of how religious dogma alters translation.
 
RAMOSS said:
This, of course, ignores that the Greek word MONOGENES is used differently in other parts of the bible. For example, that word is used in relationship to Jacob, and it just so happens that Jacob had brothers. Are you going to tell me that jacob's brothers were not begotten? This is an example of how religious dogma alters translation.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

If that (John 3:16) was the only place in the New Testament or Bible that showed the uniqueness of Jesus as a Son of God, then you might have a case. But it's not and your case is easily demolished. The deity of Jesus is clear and redundant in the NT.

From my prior link / article:

'The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.'

The deity of Jesus Christ

Scholarly author Kevin J. Conner lists 27 initial scriptural evidences demonstrating the deity of Christ:

1. Jesus existed in the beginning (John 1:1; Philip 2:6; Rev. 19:13; Micah 5:2).
2. He was with God (John 1:1).
3. He is God, the Son (John 1:1; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8, 10; I John 5:20).
4. He is God manifest in the flesh (John 20:28; I Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9; Acts 20:28; Heb. 1:8).
5. He is God foretold (Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 45:6).
6. He is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23).
7. He is the true God (I John 5:20 with Titus 2:13; Romans 9:5).
8. He is the great God (Titus 2:13).
9. He is God our Savior (II Peter 1:1).
10. He existed in the form of God before His incarnation and was equal with God the Father (Philippians 2:5-7)

17 more in the link: https://righterreport.com/2013/03/21/the-deity-of-jesus-christ-in-scripture/

Divine Names and Titles of Jesus

https://jesus.christ.org/biblical-definitions/divine-names-and-titles-of-jesus-christ

And there's dozens of other evidences for the divinity of Christ, which supports the argument that he is not just one of billions of 'sons of God'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom