Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Well fancy that. Another convert to absolute morality....some one who is more moral than....eh?

Not absolute no.

Morality is not out there, it is a human construct.

Yes I am more moral than the god depicted in the bible.

For example, I do not condone slavery.

Do you, or do you like your god, think it fine?

[torridon]

You mean like this?

Transgender prisoner who was put in a female jail despite not having sex-change surgery ‘sexually assaulted four women inmates before being moved to a male prison’

What it is leading to is the death of common sense, where things that are obvious and should be inherently so are no longer the case!

Increasing respect for minorities does not necessarily equate to the death of common sense.  That's a non-sequitur.

[Dicky Underpants]

I find it odd that you find no trouble believing in this bad bit of the bible as history and yet have trouble with the Gospels in that respect. The bible predicts fallenness of human activity, the triumph of what Paul describes as the lower nature and what I describe as Darwinian imperitives.


.......
I am rather glad we have warts and all documentation. All scripture is for edification and education says Paul as a pronouncement on the role of scripture. Grown ups books do not hide horror.

I doubt very much whether NS, torridon or BeRational consider this bit of the Bible to be history, though, like me, they probably think it a fair reflection of what went on all over the place in ancient times (and still, alas, today)

It is unfortunate, though, that believers like Alan (and more usually, Protestant fundamentalists) feel the need to provide apologetics to exonerate such texts.
It is also unfortunate for you that this particular scripture begins "And God said : 'Avenge yourself against the Midianites'"
 - and the command was given for a very specific reason. The Children of Israel had, amongst other things, given in to the sexual allures of the Midianite (or Moabite, take your pick) women. Shock horror. When you see a text beginning with a divine command, you can't wonder that simple religious souls take it as a revelation of God's 'mysterious ways'. Nor that unbelievers are baffled when they see Christians attempting to justify the text, or like you, referring the events back to 'original sin', the account of whose origin is as literally unbelievable as Numbers 31. The ironic thing is, you think the total responsibility of the aboriginal calamity was down to humans (whereas the text suggests otherwise), but here - where the command came directly from God - you once again blame humans, prompted by the dark urges of their Adamic inheritance.
It is also unfortunate that you cite the text from Timothy, since the standard translations are probably wrong*, and the text ambiguous (and also unlikely to have been written by Paul).

*Some translators have the courage to render this: "All writing inspired by God is suitable for"... So then comes comes the question "What writing is inspired by God?" Answer: "The writing that's in the Bible..." Round and round the mulberry bush.

[Shaker]

You mean like this?

Transgender prisoner who was put in a female jail despite not having sex-change surgery ‘sexually assaulted four women inmates before being moved to a male prison’

What it is leading to is the death of common sense, where things that are obvious and should be inherently so are no longer the case!

No, I mean like this: https://tinyurl.com/y6vge2rb

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y8n257yt

And this: https://tinyurl.com/yacdgz8u

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y8f4njzk

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y7k7pkb9

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y7tazuzr

Perhaps your idea of common sense is neither common nor sensible. In fact, given your posting history, I'd put my house on it.

[Shaker]

God did not create evil.

I think we've been here before.

Why does your book say otherwise, Alan?

Remember when you claimed not to know this previously, and I provided you with the reference?

In case you missed it last time (which you must have, as I don't recall you making any reply to it), it is:

Isaiah 45:7.

Happy to hear your barrel-scraping ad hoc rationalisations thoughts, since when you assert that God does not create evil but the book you purport to adhere to says that God does create evil ... well, that stands in need of explanation, doesn't it?

[Dicky Underpants]

I think we've been here before.

Why does your book say otherwise, Alan?

Remember when you claimed not to know this previously, and I provided you with the reference?

In case you missed it last time (which you must have, as I don't recall you making any reply to it), it is:

Isaiah 45:7.

Happy to hear your barrel-scraping ad hoc rationalisations thoughts, since when you assert that God does not create evil but the book you purport to adhere to says that God does create evil ... well, that stands in need of explanation, doesn't it?

This text is of course in deutero-Isaiah, and I had suggested in a post above that Alan might prefer to concentrate on texts such as Isaiah 40 onwards instead of trying to justify Numbers 31 (after all, you get supposed prophecies about John the Baptist and Jesus therein). I had momentarily forgotten that Isaiah 45:7 raises certain problems of its own!

[SusanDoris]

well said, Shaker and DU.  SotS will probably disappear again until he thinks everyone will have  forgotten about his post hereabouts!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I think we've been here before.

Why does your book say otherwise, Alan?

Remember when you claimed not to know this previously, and I provided you with the reference?

In case you missed it last time (which you must have, as I don't recall you making any reply to it), it is:

Isaiah 45:7.

Happy to hear your barrel-scraping ad hoc rationalisations thoughts, since when you assert that God does not create evil but the book you purport to adhere to says that God does create evil ... well, that stands in need of explanation, doesn't it?

Are you aware Shaker that the Bible also says that God did not send His Son into the world? So why do people such as Alan Burns continue to believe in Him then?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, I mean like this: https://tinyurl.com/y6vge2rb

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Think about it!

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y8n257yt

Also known as ante-natal infanticide

And this: https://tinyurl.com/yacdgz8u

Says it all that one can legally enter sexual relations with no moral guidance at an age lower than one can have a driving licence. Incidentally, try doing non-directive driving lessons and see how that would work out on the roads!

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y8f4njzk

Equal pay for equal work (i.e. similar job roles) is fair, if applied correctly.

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y7k7pkb9

Equality, lol. But some are more equal than others. For example: Where is the Minister for Men in Parliament? The drive towards equality may be well-intentioned, but it is increasingly being manifested as that which works in favour of the group claiming it

And this: https://tinyurl.com/y7tazuzr

You heard it here first. Women are going to be the big losers in this. The link I posted earlier is the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps your idea of common sense is neither common nor sensible. In fact, given your posting history, I'd put my house on it.

I'd be careful with that house. The way things are being redefined at the moment, calling a house a house may soon be unlawful because it discriminates against other kinds of buildings.

[Shaker]

Are you aware Shaker that the Bible also says that God did not send His Son into the world?

Well ... so what? Who cares?

So why do people such as Alan Burns continue to believe in Him then?

To quote Michael Shermer, why do people believe weird things? In his case, based on his own postings, childhood indoctrination from which he's never recovered, it looks like.

[Shaker]

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Think about it!

I have thought about it and it's no oxymoron. (I suspect you don't know what the word actually means. I'm happy to help you out in your confusion - just ask).

Also known as ante-natal infanticide

Only amongst a minority of religious dingbats and people who don't understand the concept of an infant. But I repeat myself.

Says it all that one can legally enter sexual relations with no moral guidance at an age lower than one can have a driving licence.

Moral guidance according to whom? Having a different age of consent for two groups was - rightly - deemed to be discriminatory and based upon outdated attitudes. The situation was rectified - this being Britain, late in the day and only when all other options had been tried - but we got it right eventually.

Equality, lol. But some are more equal than others. For example: Where is the Minister for Men in Parliament?

These things arise out of need and to serve those discriminated against - those at the bottom of the power heap; those who feel the sharp edge of inequality. This is why, as some half-head inevitably asks, questions such as: "Why isn't there a straight pride march then?" are so mindlessly idiotic. There's no need for one when straight people aren't discriminated against - or attacked, or murdered - on the basis of their heterosexuality. Equality/anti-discrimination laws for those wielding power are like tits on a bull or your posts - useless.

The drive towards equality may be well-intentioned, but it is increasingly being manifested as that which works in favour of the group claiming it

Examples?

[Sebastian Toe]

Equality, lol. But some are more equal than others. For example: Where is the Minister for Men in Parliament?

Probably in the same place as the Minister for the non-disabled.

[Maeght]

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Think about it!

No its not.

[ippy]

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Think about it!
Also known as ante-natal infanticide
Says it all that one can legally enter sexual relations with no moral guidance at an age lower than one can have a driving licence. Incidentally, try doing non-directive driving lessons and see how that would work out on the roads!
Equal pay for equal work (i.e. similar job roles) is fair, if applied correctly.
Equality, lol. But some are more equal than others. For example: Where is the Minister for Men in Parliament? The drive towards equality may be well-intentioned, but it is increasingly being manifested as that which works in favour of the group claiming it
You heard it here first. Women are going to be the big losers in this. The link I posted earlier is the tip of the iceberg.
I'd be careful with that house. The way things are being redefined at the moment, calling a house a house may soon be unlawful because it discriminates against other kinds of buildings.

Prawn.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

 

Prawn.

Regards ippy

I'm sure I'll agree with you, but could you please explain that reply?!

I admire the restraint shown by those responding to SotS. The bigoted arrogance that I hear in those posts is so unpleasantand horrible, but I suppose it is better to know that this attitude is as strong as it is amongst some of the religious than not to know.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#31009

Are you aware Shaker that the Bible also says that God did not send His Son into the world?

Well ... so what? Who cares?

You should, otherwise why are you so bothered about what is said in Isaiah 45:7?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#31010

I have thought about it and it's no oxymoron.

Ok. What type of a marriage between a man and a woman is same sex marriage?

When was the definition/nature of marriage changed? Was there a referendum? And don't say that it was when it was made government policy! You could not cite discrimination against same-sex couples unless the definition had *already* been changed, so who changed it, and when?

Only amongst a minority of religious dingbats and people who don't understand the concept of an infant.

Or perhaps those who want to commit murder but need a way to absolve their consciences. Odd that so many go on about 'human rights', but where are the human rights for the unborn?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The bigoted arrogance that I hear in those posts is so unpleasantand horrible, but I suppose it is better to know that this attitude is as strong as it is amongst some of the religious than not to know.

And one day you will realise that when you talk like this, you condemn yourself. Your bigoted arrogance against religious believers (Alan Burns, Gabriella, Spud, Vlad) on this forum is legendary. The only time I ever see you posting in this section is to condemn someone. Is your life really that sad?

[ippy]

:-[I'm sure I'll agree with you, but could you please explain that reply?!

I admire the restraint shown by those responding to SotS. The bigoted arrogance that I hear in those posts is so unpleasantand horrible, but I suppose it is better to know that this attitude is as strong as it is amongst some of the religious than not to know.

Sorry Susan, I was just having a quick look at the posts on the forum while I was waiting for some glue to get to the right stage before putting the pieces together and I wasn't that switched into the general tone of exchanges going on, however knowing Sword's usual depth of insight I couldn't help noticing his continued references to ToE & creationism, I can't remember when or what but I do remember that he has some sort of science degree.

When you know someone has a science degree of any kind what are they doing referring to creationism other than in passing and then going on to something serious and worth spending time on, I read his usual religiobabble then that combined with him indicating a belief of his in creationism, being busy myself and not wanting to spare the time on his post I wrote the first thing that came into my head 'Prawn', and having read through his post again I see no good reason to withdraw my first thoughts about that post of his, thinking of it that thought of mine could stand for him and his usual standard of post.

I wasn't thinking of anything deeper than the above Susan, not that there was anything that deep about his post in the first place.

Someone with a science degree and they're still a creationist?

Reminds me of those old science fiction films where a robot has been given conflicting orders, it suddenly freezes and then you see smoke fuming up from it's cranial area, that sort of thing comes to my mind for a millisecond every time I come across people like Sword.

Regards Susan, ippy.
 

   

[Robbie]

I don't get how same sex marriage is an oxymoron - & I do know what the word means, a contradiction in terms. The Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman and most of the time it is but no reason why marriage can't mean man+man and woman+woman just becos Bible doesn't mention it. Doubt they thought of it in those days, we didn't until a few years ago.

Don't get the antenatal infanticide. Abortions generally take place well before a foetus (or embryo) can survive without mother, think or feel, it's virtually part of a mother. I understand misgivings about late abortions but not the usual 12 weeks and under.

Sixteen is right for age of consent imo even tho some venture into sex earlier than that. Most don't, 16-17 is usual.  in fairness 2 you, you didn't actually say otherwise. Not everyone of 16 or so who enters into a sexual relationship lacks moral guidance, many 16 year olds are responsible young people who fall in love! Might not last but neither do a lot of 25+years relationships.

I didn't realise you were quite so extreme in your views Sword.

[Maeght]

#31010
Ok. What type of a marriage between a man and a woman is same sex marriage?

When was the definition/nature of marriage changed? Was there a referendum? And don't say that it was when it was made government policy! You could not cite discrimination against same-sex couples unless the definition had *already* been changed, so who changed it, and when?

Where is the definition which says it has to be between a man and a women?

[ippy]

And one day you will realise that when you talk like this, you condemn yourself. Your bigoted arrogance against religious believers (Alan Burns, Gabriella, Spud, Vlad) on this forum is legendary. The only time I ever see you posting in this section is to condemn someone. Is your life really that sad?

Even our C of E archbishop and the pope accept the T of E Sword, what's the problem?

You need to remember it's only the ideas presented on this forum that get broadsided, I would imagine we would more than likely be good neighbours and get on well with each other outside of these differences we have on the forum and let's face it Sword creationism's hardly backed up with shedloads of evidence as is T of E.

I do actually wish you well even though we disagree, regards ippy.



Regards ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The bigoted arrogance that I hear in those posts is so unpleasantand horrible,

Ok. Let's see what can be learnt from Susan Doris' contributions to this section ...

#31006 (about me)

well said, Shaker and DU.  SotS will probably disappear again until he thinks everyone will have  forgotten about his post hereabouts!

#30831 (about Alan Burns)

And you expect others to sit back and just take your word for it? Don't bother to answer that.

You sound like one of the street megaphone preachers who talk non-stop [ and as loudly as they can to passers-by and spoil my day if I happen to be one of them.

#30816

I weep silently for all the children and young people who are being and have been indoctrinated with all the sort of  stuff that AB produces over and over and over again on this thread. Scientific ignorance must be one of the nightmares of the future.

I continue to admire the patience of those who respond to AB with facts and teaching which are constantly ignored.

#30751

Aaaahhh! Two very satisfyingly sensible and clear posts to end my reading of this topic for today. So much better than ending my visits to R&E with one of AB's daft posts.

Not looking good, is it Susan Doris. Feeling any sense of embarrassment yet?

I could cite your #30703, #30652, #30646, #30559 too...
 
#30323

The one without the noledge is you, AB, and your overwhelming conceited self-delusion - it is correct to call it that, since you never produce one fact that will stand up to scrutiny, or any argument which will refute or replace the growing body of knowledge available. How anyone can live life enjoying such a mind closed to rational argument and reality is incomprehensible to me.

Somewhat ironic calling out someone on lack of knowledge and then spelling the word incorrectly!

All of this, and just this thread!

[Maeght]

#30323Somewhat ironic calling out someone on lack of knowledge and then spelling the word incorrectly!

Its spelt correctly later so clearly a typo and not a lack of knowledge of how to spell knowledge.

[Gordon]

#31010
Ok. What type of a marriage between a man and a woman is same sex marriage?

There is just marriage in all the bits of the UK apart from Northern Ireland.

When was the definition/nature of marriage changed?

It has actually changed quite a lot throughout history.

Was there a referendum?

There doesn't need be be one of the legislature thinks they have competence to legislate.

And don't say that it was when it was made government policy!

It was when it was made government policy since 'marriage' is a legal institution.

You could not cite discrimination against same-sex couples unless the definition had *already* been changed, so who changed it, and when?

Don't be silly: that there was discrimination was one of the drivers for change.

Or perhaps those who want to commit murder but need a way to absolve their consciences. Odd that so many go on about 'human rights', but where are the human rights for the unborn?

As far as I know in UK legislation the 'unborn' don't have personal legal 'rights'.