Telling God how you feel.

A recent post by Lander 7 over at his spot on Reality Decoded included the line …

”…..instead be bold and tell God directly how you feel.”

to which I responded:

”Exactly how would one go about this?”

and his reply:

”Prayer.”

We had a bit of a back and forth after my response of: ”You’re kidding?” but he deleted all my subsequent comments and his replies, suggesting we have covered this ground or similar before and me being decrepit my memory is somewhat unclear at times.

Nothing worse than a failing memory, let me tell you!  I keep making a hash of my tablets and have a bad habit of taking Viagra instead of Vitamins, which seems to ensure I get a lot more get up rather than get up and go. *Sigh*

 

However, Lander7 did invite me to put up a post and assured us he would pop over and engage.

Offer accepted! I just pray he turns up!

As quite a number of you heathens were once pew warmers and God-botherers, I invite you to offer insight into your own personal feelings about prayer and its benefits (or lack thereof) including how effective you found talking to God ( … ”tell God directly how you feel”)

 

Lander7 may want to engage.

I cannot promise anything, but based on experiences evidence is not something Christians are very big on.

Meanwhile, I’m off to watch the football so …. God bless us one and all!

 

Pea Ess: A note to Prof T: Asking God about Lost car keys, parking spots and bets on Dallas Cowboys don’t count! You have been warned.

Ark.

 


476 thoughts on “Telling God how you feel.

  1. They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
    — Quran 5 (Al-Ma’ida), ayat 72-75

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Saying a prayer simply makes the pray-er feel better. Period. Nothing has changed. (Of course trying to convince the pray-er of this truth is a waste of time since they’re convinced that some unseen entity resides “in their heart” and is at their beck and call.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. There are several elements to prayer that can have real and substantial benefit (psychological, emotional, and social), not least of which is a source of personal strength of character upon which one can draw even in the most appalling and hopeless of circumstances. I’ve encounter far too many first and second hand testimonials to discard the common theme that belief in a divine being (AND being inferior to it) that connects to the individual through prayer is somehow and necessarily delusional or harmful. Quite often, it is exactly right and essential.

    Before anyone gets their knickers in knot, let me be clear: I think there are better ways of achieving the same positive psychological, emotional, and social results. But I cannot deny that for many people the power of prayer to renew that connection is just such a route… especially for those who have survived truly terrible and de-humanizing experiences designed to break people’s will. The amount of cases where the believed-in external support/company from a divine source connecting to that praying individual (the id and ego yielding to the superego, so to speak) cannot be dismissed when this belief is highlighted by individuals for being able to accept, experience, survive, and leave behind awful suffering. It doesn’t mean the prayer ‘works’ to make an exterior connection to a ‘real’ thing; it means there can be a very real benefit to keep one’s ego in check and suppress the more basic urges to advance the best elements of one’s strength of character. And there’s a lot of data to back that up.

    It’s not that the prayer is means or the object of the prayer is real; prayer is a way of demonstrating acceptance to the body’s plight without giving up the moral and ethical framework that makes us all – torturer and tortured, rich and poor, healthy and sick, and so on – worthy and equivalent individuals capable of being more.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Of course, such benefit is wholly dependant on the individual who is praying being already indoctrinated into a religion – in context, Christianity. It would have no benefit to someone such as me, for example.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Right. That’s why I say I think there are better ways to achieve the same benefits but it’s hard work.. work that I suspect few people undertake while swimming in the luxurious waters of liberal democracies and having no immediate need to develop strength of character when not having to face profound suffering and towering adversity and yet find and nourish that still place within.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I guess this is one way of considering it.
            Certainly not something I would likely ever indulge in, and one can hope that in the future we will put aside all such nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice to consider it all ‘nonsense’. I think this opinion derives from how you frame the issue.

            But consider: if you read Solzhenitsyn, read Vasko, read Arendt, read Milosz, read Frankl, you see a common thread that has to do with using prayer to cope with very real suffering. It’s that heightened ability to cope that can be linked to all kinds of supportive data (in many areas of study and activity) and so my question is why.

            Well, if you think about one of the benefits of writing is that the practice helps one to clarify and crystalize one’s thoughts – and the more we practice, the better we get at doing this – then its the /writing and not the topic that provides the benefit.

            In the same way, if you think about one of the benefits of prayer is that it helps one clarify one’s psychological, emotional, and social state – especially during suffering – then its the praying – the intentional self examination and articulation – and not the object or topic of the prayer that provides the benefit.

            To claim that prayer is ‘nonsense” is a framing that I think throws away any means to figure out why it can be so profoundly powerful a tool as these previous authors describe over and over and over again.

            I also suspect religions have highjacked this effective method of critical self examination and subjugation to the realities of life and used it for selfish ends, used it to say that one ‘prays’ then one is ‘naturally’ religious. I don’t think that holds but I’m not going to throw away the baby because the bathwater is foul.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. While psychologically the points you make, tildeb, have substance and validity, the BIG difference is when most people use the word “prayer,” it is overwhelmingly associated with the idea of communicating with a deity.

            Since there are other ways to accomplish what you suggest (meditation? self-examination? clarification?), using the term “prayer,” IMO, takes away from the benefits you mentioned.

            Liked by 3 people

          4. There’s a strong element of being truthful in prayer (because one is praying to a deity) that I think plays a very significant role that otherwise might not be the case. After all, people are very good at rationalizing their own responsibility and culpability and choices after the fact because we are protecting own own egos, whereas prayer to a deity very often has the person willing to submerge the ego, accepting mistakes, accept being less than perfect yet willing to consider options even if difficult, and using an ethical framework acceptable not to one’s own self interest but one that aligns with the Master and Commander over everyone. Particularly, resentment over what was (or is) is often relegated to be less important than moving towards some kind of change or resolution or path forward (with the deity’s help, of course!).

            This often produces results that show up in data than just muddling through as best one can without equivalent thoughtfulness and articulation and sense of responsibility. But there’s a REAL problem associated with prayer and it’s not trivial: when a believer thinks some deity has provided a personalized ‘answer’, a kind of divine whispering in one’s very special ear, rather than understanding our brains have many kinds voices all worth serious critical consideration if we can learn how to ask for help and guidance and articulate it even if only to ourselves.

            I remember reading something a couple of decades ago that journaling (keeping faithful to a diary) produced better results in some psychological and emotional study when it came to dealing with difficulties and challenges and disappointments in life that showed a correlation with similar results from prayer compared to those who did not articulate the same considerations. But I also recall those who ranked highest were those people who 1) were married, 2) whose spouses were of equal status in the marriage, and 3) who handled daily life as a cooperative team, and 4) spent time talking together every day (usually at least 2 meals a day shared).

            Liked by 2 people

          5. For me, your comments about the REAL problem associated with prayer are spot-on. As you suggested, there is little to no way for an individual to know “what voice” is in play … yet too often it’s “assumed” to be from a deity and thus, that makes it right and just.

            Liked by 3 people

          6. I can meditate and a gain all the calming, ‘centering’ positive results and not concern myself with any sort of Sky Daddy.
            From this perspective unless one is already inculcated then prayer truly is nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. All I’m saying is that prayer has certain benefits and that it’s not ALL nonsense. And some of the cases of just how powerful prayer can be is something worth understanding.

            In this vein, asking people to pray to some deity about whether or not homosexual behaviour is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, is a way of thinking about our unspoken beliefs and perhaps grasping that “I don’t know” is a perfectly legitimate opinion that might result in elevating quality of character over colour of skin (which is really the Golden Rule for Christians). So it might not be utter nonsense to think about prayer as a tool or method but one that can and often does influence those who use it – for both better and worse! But it is something.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. If there are benefits it is only for those already inculcated to believe – otherwise it is nonsense.

            Like

          9. Tildeb, I equate the Placebo-effect (as defined by medical science) very closely to self-perceived benefits (Mind & Matter) of religious prayer or various forms/arts of meditation. From these neurological studies and medical research it has become clearer and clearer that our own INDIVIDUAL minds have great influence over our body’s overall health… provided of course that familial genetics have not hindered, weakened, or disabled such abilities. 😄

            Like

          10. If it were merely self-reported and self-received benefit, then – like you – I would have called it placebo. But these are measurable benefits (not least of which is rates of psychological health and well being coping with all kinds of obstacle, impediments, worrying, illnesses, separation, and death during the pandemic) that I think are worth better understanding… not because the object of prayer is real or not, not because intercessory prayer is used, not because certain self-reported benefits are accrued, but because of astounding and demonstrated resiliency using prayer as the tool to articulate (and it’s the articulation that I think is quite important as well as opening up one’s self to be subject to) acceptance, as well as other considerations and possibilities.

            So it’s not a kind of quiet meditation I’m referring to but a very active intention and practice to put thoughts, feelings, and worries into words and offer them up for review and even judgement. I think this is worth something more than tossing it all away under the file of ‘nonsense’.

            Said another way, I’m not going to allow religion to interfere with whatever I think is worth pursuing and understanding just because it claims dibs. I’ve played far too much inspired music to disregard the rich source of artistry religion claims as its own. So there’s something about the method of articulated praying that I think is worth recognizing as having real value.

            Like

          11. You took my sad song and made it better tildeb. You are surely pointed north.

            Wouldn’t it be something if One heard through all the clutter.

            Like

  4. You Stated — “However, Lander7 did invite me to put up a post and assured us he would pop over and engage.”

    My Response — I am here per your request.

    To recap for those who did not read my post:

    I posted an article to Theist stating that gay people are born the way they are and it is not a choice. I provided several biblical and scientific references as to why that was true.

    I ended the post stating the following:

    “Stop hating on individuals for not being born like you, it’s cowardly, instead be bold and tell God directly how you feel. Everyone is their own person, a wonderful and beautiful being. Leave them alone and let them live their lives in peace.”

    Ark wanted to know how theists should talk to god and I stated that they can use prayer (as I thought it’s known that theists do, per their beliefs).

    He wanted to have a debate about the existence of God but my post was focused on hate crimes.

    Since ark makes it a point to start god debates (no matter what I post) I just delete his posts since I don’t see any productive reason to keep having the exact same discussion with him.

    He asked me to come here stating that I would be exposed in some sense and I responded (as I always do) that I would come to his blog and have a discussion just like I have in the past when he invited me (just like I do whenever anyone invites me).

    Like

    1. Correction:
      YOU suggested I post – or pick an existing post -after deleting my comments, and you would come over. Faulty memory not withstanding and all that, I do not recall saying you would ”be exposed” at all.
      Ironic that, in one comment I mentioned about evidence and honesty … and here you are! Tsk Tsk Lander. What shall we say? You’re Bending the truth a little?
      I stated that most deconverts who visit would consider praying a waste of time and the comments bear this out.
      It’s also worth noting, although I’m sure those who pop over to your post will pick up – your post is peppered with quotes from the bible.
      It would seem logical that while your post is about hate crimes( your words) you use the bible as the foundation for refuting such beliefs, which is claimed by theists to be, alternatively, the literal word of (your) god or the inspired word of your god, therefore, asking for evidence for the existence of your god would seem obvious, even more so, perhaps, if the person reading such words was completely unaware of who your god is.
      But I didn’t ask.

      So, are you up for continuing where we left off or to be more precise when you started deleting my comments?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You Stated — “YOU suggested I post – or pick an existing post -after deleting my comments”

        My Response — Incorrect, I stated that the post I made was to theist about the topic of “Is Being Gay A Choice”. Where I proved my case that the bible and science support different gender roles as a natural occurrence.

        I focused my readers on a need to end hate against people of different genders based on facts that relate to them.

        I stated to you (as I always do) to stay in the context of the conversation or create your own post on prayer if you feel it is a more important topic, since my post is about combating hate against a specific gender minority.

        You should understand this since you did reply with this for your post when you invited me:
        You Stated — “As my request regarding prayer is topic specific I don’t want to get sidetracked by another topic.”

        You want me to stay on topic for your post but don’t understand why I deleted your sidetrack of my post on gender minorities being hated for how they were born.

        My post is still there, and it is still only on one topic: https://realitydecoded.blog/2021/06/16/people-call-god-a-liar-because-they-cant-accept-the-truth-is-being-gay-a-choice/

        I delete anyone who goes off topic just like you delete content when you want to since you replied stating that you deleted my comments from your blog.
        You Stated — “I have deleted many more to reclaim space”.

        My Response — I didn’t know WordPress had space limits for replies but it’s your blog and you should manage it as it pleases you to do so.

        You Stated — “Faulty memory not withstanding and all that, I do not recall saying you would ”be exposed” at all… What shall we say? You’re Bending the truth a little?

        But You Did Say the Following In Your Reply to my article on the treatment of gay people:

        You Stated — “You post quite a lot of content that exposes nonsense across a broad range of topics so why should prayer be exempt? Fair’s fair,right?”

        You Stated — “that I “lack any serious degree of honesty”

        You Stated — “I will generally call you out for such unsubstantiated waffle.”

        You Stated — “…surely you must expect to be challenged?”

        You Stated — “… such a position is indefensible”

        If you are not trying to expose me for my post on how being born gay is not a choice, then explain your comments? You did see my post, correct? And you are trying to have a discussion on what I posted correct?

        You Stated — “… your post is peppered with quotes from the bible”

        My Response — Since I am a theist, and the post was made to atheist about how being born gay is not a choice then I would expect there to be bible verses for the discussion.

        It is worth noting that the post also talked about science equally as a source to understand that being born gay is not a choice.

        Like

        1. You Stated — “As my request regarding prayer is topic specific I don’t want to get sidetracked by another topic.”

          And?
          You were not interested in discussing prayer on your post so (why?) do you have an issue discussing it here?

          You Stated — “… such a position (prayer)is indefensible”

          Correct. Suggesting that praying to your god and expecting an answer to anything IS indefensible.
          Surely you aren’t suggesting I was referring to anything else?

          You Stated — “YOU suggested I post – or pick an existing post -after deleting my comments

          Correct. However, my comment was made AFTER you suggested I post on the topic of prayer.
          So I hope you are not going to embark on some sort of extended word salad?

          My Response — Since I am a theist, and the post was made to atheist about how being born gay is not a choice then I would expect there to be bible verses for the discussion.

          And we both know there are passages about what your god expects to happen regarding gays – stoning for example.

          It is worth noting that the post also talked about science equally as a source to understand that being born gay is not a choice.

          I took no issue with the scientific data and the general thrust of the post. Kudos for taking on a difficult topic among many god-believers of many faiths/religions.
          My objection was primarily your statement regarding the nonsense of Telling God how you feel, and the topic of prayer.

          Now we have hopefully cleared the air on the periphery subjects, and I am keeping fingers crossed there will be no more ”You said,” ”I said” etc, perhaps we could now deal with the topic of prayer and talking to your god?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You Asked — “You were not interested in discussing prayer on your post so (why?)”

            My Answer — Because my post was on hate crimes against gay people. I havn’t created any posts on prayer.

            You Stated — “… such a position (prayer)is indefensible”

            My Response — I have no reason to defend or promote prayer so I’m not sure why you told me that. I haven’t created any posts about prayer and I don’t have an claims about prayer. Your comment at the time when asked seemed disconnected and not related to my topic of gay people being born the way they are and it not being a choice.

            You Stated — “I hope you are not going to embark on some sort of extended word salad?”

            My Response — What do you mean by “Word Salad” and how is it related to my post about gay people? or Your post about me?

            My Response — “And we both know there are passages about what your god expects to happen regarding gays – stoning for example.”

            My Response — I am not aware of bible verses where gay people are stoned. I have no refrence. Did you want to provide them or pause until I have time to research your refrence?

            You Stated — “Kudos for taking on a difficult topic among many god-believers of many faiths/religions.”

            My Response — Thank you. For the record I would like to add that the post was easy and really didn’t require much effort since the science and biblical verses were common knowledge. No Thiest has found a way to argue the point given the way I posted it.

            You Stated — “My objection was primarily your statement regarding the nonsense of Telling God how you feel, and the topic of prayer.”

            My Response — The post was to Theist from a Theist about a biblical view on gender assigment in relation to hate crimes. I would imagine that you don’t believe in God so anything related to Theism would not be believed by you. But you asked a question on “How a Theist would…” and I provided the answer in context.

            The solution, in my post, effectively removes the process by which certain people abuse gays and focuses that energy, in private, per what their actually belief requests that they do.

            You Stated — “…perhaps we could now deal with the topic of prayer and talking to your god?”

            My Response — Sure, what is your question?

            Like

          2. My Response — Sure, what is your question?

            1. As you suggested that prayer is the way to ”…tell (your) god how you feel) what evidence can you provide to demonstrate the efficacy of such an action?
            Note: as this is a direct appeal to your god the efficacy in question is notreferring to the psychological/neurological (self-induced) feel-good aspect one might experience.

            2. Can you provide or offer a link to a single documented and independently verified example where prayer has resulted in any form of intercession by a deity – your god (Yahweh/Jesus) or any other?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. My Response — Sure, what is your question?

            You Asked — “As you suggested that prayer is the way to ”…tell (your) god how you feel) what evidence can you provide to demonstrate the efficacy of such an action?

            My Answer — Once I tell (my) god how (I) feel, the expression of feelings addressed to God is completed. The evidence is that I finished.

            You Stated — “the efficacy in question is notreferring to the psychological/neurological (self-induced) feel-good aspect one might experience.”

            My Response — That seems obvious since prayer does not require any feelings whatsoever. Although I find it interesting that you associate prayer with “feeling good”. If you communicate to god are you saying it causes euphoria?

            You Asked — “Can you provide or offer a link to a single documented and independently verified example where prayer has resulted in any form of intercession by a deity – your god (Yahweh/Jesus) or any other?”

            My Response — Yes. I googled prayer works and it came up with 5,140,000 results in (0.65 seconds). I offer all 5,140,000.

            Like

          4. It seems you did not phrase your enquiry correctly. Wiki has a page on intercessory prayer which concluded that it had no discernable effect.
            I previously mentioned the study on intercessory prayer conducted by the Templeton Foundation which returned no positive results, and in fact some patients who were aware they were being prayed for show a decline in health.
            Therefore, aside from the potential for personal feel good, it can be asserted that prayer directed at your god is a waste of time.
            However, if you can provide a single documented case of the efficacy of intercessory prayer as originally asked then I am more than willing to consider it/them.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. If I may poke my nose through this door…

          I enjoyed that post of yours, and was genuinely pleased about your position.

          Your suggestion, though, to talk to god (I presume you’re talking about the Middle Eastern deity, Yhwh) is a fart in the wind as the theist who’s determined to hate (which seems like what most US evangelicals are only capable of doing) will simply point to scripture which states, quite clearly, that gays (and witches, and disobedient children, and…) are to be hated on, and murdered.

          Leviticus 20:13:

          “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

          I’m curious: how would you answer that objection when presented to you by a fellow Christian? What would you tell them?

          Liked by 3 people

          1. You Posted This Verse — Leviticus 20:13
            13 ¶ The man also that lieth with the male, as one lieth with a woman, they have both committed abomination: they shall die the death, their blood shall be upon them.

            Then Asked Me This Question — “I’m curious: how would you answer that objection when presented to you by a fellow Christian?”

            My Response — The same way I always do, by asking the obvious… Which is a hermaphrodite? Is the hermaphrodite a man or a woman?
            –They don’t know.

            Which is a pseudohermaphrodite? Since some look like men on the outside (but are female inside) are they men?
            –They don’t know.

            I ask, “Why are animals doing the same thing? Are animals making a choice to be gay? Are animals like humans in that they are sinning?
            –They don’t know.

            Easy questions like, “Have you ever seen a man lie down with a man? Answering either way puts the person in an odd spot. One that indicates they were seeking it and the other revealing that they never have… the later begs the question… If you haven’t seen it then what is all the hate for.
            –They don’t know.

            Are (5-ARD)? Are (CAH)? Are (AIS)? Who should they lie down with?
            –They don’t know.

            And if they don’t know, how are they qualified to complain?
            –They agree they are not.

            I use the same argument with atheist who hate gays because the argument is the same. I change the references to nature and the natural order… same outcome. It’s an easy argument.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I accept the answer, but the evangelical will simply roll their eyes and repeat Leviticus 20:13:

            The man also that lieth with the male, as one lieth with a woman, they have both committed abomination: they shall die the death, their blood shall be upon them.

            So, you didn’t actually answer the question.

            Again, if GOD WRITTEN CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE says hate and kill gays, why should the Bible-believing evangelical Christian disobey the clear holy commandment to hate and kill gays?

            Would you tell them the bible is wrong?

            That is the question…

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You Stated — “if GOD WRITTEN CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE says hate and kill gays,”

            My Response — Since they can’t tell me who is and isn’t gay the “evangelical stop rolling their eyes” and acknowledge they are wrong.

            You Asked — “Would you tell them the bible is wrong?”

            My Response — I don’t make any claims about the bible. I didn’t write it and I don’t have to defend or prove it.

            Right and wrong to me, are at best, relative. People are free to believe or disbelieve what they want.

            My response to theist is based on what they claimed to me to be true so I just respond to them with some questions related to people being born a certain way and they acknowledge that they “don’t know”.

            They have never been able to get past that response.

            Like

          4. I don’t make any claims about the bible.

            Oh but you are… By your position, you’re stating (quite rightly, I might add) the bible is wrong.

            You position contradicts clear Holy Scripture.

            So, again: would you tell the evangelical the bible is wrong on this matter?

            Yes or No?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Asked and answered. If the bible is right or wrong has no bearing on thier position since they don’t know what a person is or isn’t.

            Since I have literally had this conversation with them a plethora of times over the years, and it has always ended exactly the same, I am not convinced by your assertion that it wouldn’t work.

            I am still convinced by my direct and repeated observations.

            Like

          6. Still not answered.

            Their position is BASED on the bible. The bible TELLS THEM to hate and kill gays.

            Would you tell an evangelical that the bible is wrong when IT SAYS hate and kill gays…

            Yes, or No?

            Liked by 3 people

          7. Still answered.

            My position is also based on the bible and I have direct experience that my argument is successful, (literally every time I used it with them).

            I have no reason to believe you over my direct experience.

            And I still don’t care if they believe the bible is right or wrong because I still didn’t write it and I still do not need to defend it.

            To be fair to them, they never accused me of saying it was wrong just that their understanding was in incorrect. Which I already knew before I talked to them so I wasn’t surprised.

            Like

          8. So you can’t answer a simple Yes or No question, even though your stated position on the matter makes that decision not only simple, but self-evident to everyone reading.

            10 points for being utterly pathetic.

            Liked by 4 people

          9. Give yourself 20 points who cares lol

            If you don’t like my answer so what.

            You havnt convinced me that your opinion is better than my experience.

            My argument with theist works and is direct proof that your opinion of my method is incorrect.

            If you want me to believe you over countless successes then give me a better reason than, “they will roll their eyes”, so I must be incorrect lol

            Like

          10. The more you speak (without answering the simple Yes or No question, which everyone already knows your answer to) the more miserably pathetic you look.

            Keep going…

            Liked by 2 people

          11. No problem, add 10 more points to your scoreboard and call me more names lol but until you provide me with something better than people rolling their eyes I won’t take you seriously.

            Like

          12. I never said you were insulting me, I just implied that your argument was so weak that all you had left was name calling like children do in a play ground.

            Is this where I use your catchy one liner… Keep going…

            I would like to go with something more modern

            Your turn boomer….

            Like

          13. And again, with every word you type just to avoid answering a simple Yes or No question which everyone reading along already knows the answer to, the more utterly pathetic—and cowardly—you reveal yourself to be…

            Carry on…

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Great, I want you to get that high score you are looking for.

            If you decide you want to take me seriously and offer a better argument than, “I’m wrong because people roll their eyes”, then let me know.

            I’m also curious as to how many names you will call me to avoid providing a better argument.

            Your turn lol

            Like

          15. Wholeheartedly agree with John. This is almost 99% of the time the same ole same ole reactionary response I get with TRYING to civilly converse with self-righteous Christians™ 🤦‍♂️ Doing this merry-go-round Whack-a-Mole with these Blind-Faithers is also like dealing with ostriches with heads in the sand and/or fat frogs in a frying pan. 😄

            Liked by 4 people

          16. Tiresome, isn’t it?

            Seems Lander is not terribly secure in his beliefs, or else he’d happy to stand up for them by simply answering the question put to him.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. He can… he just won’t. Like a lot of Christians who believe one thing, but are either embarrassed to admit it out loud for the ridicule it garners or they’re dishonestly attempting to conceal it, so they don’t seem like bronze age goat herders.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. The biblical authors were not referring to intersex individuals. When Paul wrote, “And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.” he was referring to men with male genitalia and women with female genitalia.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. I never said it did in my post. I said that people are not allowed to judge, They can’t presume anything about anyone per scripture. They don’t have the authority or knowledge to know, thus they cannot take a position against anyone.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. They don’t have the authority or knowledge to know,

            In your view, who (if anyone) does have the authority and/or knowledge to judge?

            Liked by 1 person

          21. You Stated — “In your view, who (if anyone) does have the authority and/or knowledge to judge?”

            My Response — We are a land of laws so short of breaking one, no human being should be judging any other human being.

            If a law is broken then we have court assigned authorities to judge what was done and they can be reviewed by the public.

            In the context of my article the people committing hate crimes against minorities did so in “Absence” of evidence and “Absence” of authority.

            This is to say that the “reason they used” to commit the hate crimes had a provision that linked them directly to the law of the land. The law of “this land” forbids discrimination and hate against minorities. They ignored the first provision — Authority.

            They then ignored the second provision — Knowledge. They have no knowledge of who they are accusing in regards to what they believe (regardless of it being right or wrong from their perspective) they flat out just don’t know. They can’t even get to the “Right or Wrong” aspect of something in absence of knowing what is actually happening. They are not a creator or a doctor and they are not in those bedrooms so they are clueless to anything that is taking place.

            I’m not in the process of arguing right or wrong with Theist in my post but rather I’m stating that there is no case for an argument since they don’t know what’s going on with the individuals they are attacking.

            Like

          22. Because I stated — “We are a land of laws… no human being should be judging any other human being. / If a law is broken then we have court assigned authorities… /
            In the context of my article the people committing hate crimes against minorities did so in “Absence” of evidence and “Absence” of authority.”

            So You Asked — “So you do not subscribe to the belief that, ultimately Yahweh has authority?”

            My Response — Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

            Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

            Like

          23. I Posted These Verses — “Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

            Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

            So You Asked — “How did you ascertain there was any veracity to this biblical claim?”

            I confirmed through my local government that we are actually a nation of laws and are in fact required to follow those laws or be subject to judgment.

            As a side note and not required but experienced, I would also add that local government often states in court, “so help you God”, in acknowledgement of said authority that was provisioned.

            I was recently a witness in court for a case regarding cyber security so I can also confirm this to be true directly.

            Like

          24. I am referring to the claim regarding Yahweh and his supposed authority as reflected in Romans 13:1 for example.
            How do you establish that there is any authority derived from your god?

            Liked by 1 person

          25. You Asked — “How do you establish that there is any authority derived from your god?”

            My Response — I have not established any authority for any governing body or entity. They were all acknowledged or established before I existed by nothing short of billions of people.

            “In context” of my post, I am not trying to prove the existence of god but rather the misplaced crime of oppression by individuals claiming they have a mandate under scripture over gender minorities.

            I do not go up to them (as you might) and say: Stop abusing gender minorities because I think your theology is stupid. It tends to either increase the abuse to minorities or simply cause a circular argument with no real ending.

            I say stop abusing gender minorities because that which you believe said not to. Then provide them with the evidence that they acknowledge as authoritative. They then stop out of either fear or guilt in respect to their own beliefs.

            In context of my post about not abusing gender minorities, I do not change the theist mind on how they perceive other genders but I do stop the behavior of confronting and abusing them verbally and physically (which is my only goal).

            Like

          26. Oh, I agree with you about refrain from abuse of minorities and I already said so, but YOU were the one who introduced prayer into your original post – “Tell God how you feel”, and in previous comments you referenced the bible and Romans.
            Therefore this has nothing to do with proving the existence of Yahweh,which is already presumed on your part by the fact you quoted the bible.
            My question concerns how you determine the veracity of the claim you quoted that mentions Yahweh ( God).

            Liked by 1 person

          27. You Stated — “but YOU were the one who introduced prayer into your original post”

            My Response — I also introduced bible verses and referenced god. As I always do when talking as a theist to other theist.

            If your claim is that god does not exist then just say that.

            Don’t act shocked when I (as a theist) make a post directed to other theist (on my site) asking them to change their position on gender roles per the scripture they believe in.

            Also if you ask me a question (like you did that day) wanting to know how a theist would communicate with god and I provide the same answer you already knew which was prayer, don’t pretend to be shocked.

            You knew my post was focused on having a discussion about hate crimes but you wanted to redirect it to (another) debate with you about “Does god exist”.

            Even now we are not covering any new ground and we haven’t come to any new understanding.

            One would hope there was a way to spread a positive message about treating gender minorities better between both atheist and theist communities (where both sides have individuals abusing those people) but instead of joining on a topic that can benefit minorities you just want another waste of time belief debate.

            Like

          28. You knew my post was focused on having a discussion about hate crimes but you wanted to redirect it to (another) debate with you about “Does god exist”.

            I recognised and applaud the aim of the post as I have already stated several times.
            Yes, the post can benefit theists and atheists with regard the treatment of minorities and this too I have no argument with.

            The post would have been perfectly fine if you had left it at that. However, your reference to prayer, and then your subsequent biblical references – Romans etc – puts the post into a different light and this is what I questioned.

            Even now we are not covering any new ground and we haven’t come to any new understanding.

            Then perhaps you should try to learn not to obfuscate and answer the question/s I ask with honesty and integrity.

            So, taking the above into consideration, once again: How you determine the veracity of the claim you quoted ( Romans 13:1) that mentions Yahweh ( God).

            Liked by 1 person

          29. You Stated — “The post would have been perfectly fine if you had left it at that. However, your reference to prayer, and then your subsequent biblical references – Romans etc – puts the post into a different light”

            My Response — You are incorrect on two counts. My post was from a theist to a theist (on my blog) about ending hate crimes via scripture so bible verses did not put that in another light, that is nonsensical.

            Also you asked me how a theist communicates with god and again the answer to your question was prayer which we both already knew. There is no different light, just you ignoring my post on hate crimes to generate a discussion on “if god exists”.

            Again, you stated that you haven’t deleted any of our past conversations so you know for a fact that we have had this conversation over 10 times now and could just paste the entire thing to save time.

            You Asked — “How you determine the veracity of the claim you quoted that mentions Yahweh ( God).”

            My Response — Paste the claim you said I maid so I can address it directly.

            Like

          30. You Asked — “How you determine the veracity of the claim you quoted ( Romans 13:1) that mentions Yahweh ( God).”

            Because We had this discussion:
            ——————
            Because I stated — “We are a land of laws… no human being should be judging any other human being. / If a law is broken then we have court assigned authorities… /
            In the context of my article the people committing hate crimes against minorities did so in “Absence” of evidence and “Absence” of authority.”

            So You Asked — “So you do not subscribe to the belief that, ultimately Yahweh has authority?”

            My Response — Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

            Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

            You Asked — Re:Claimed authority from Yahweh.
            How did you ascertain there was any veracity to this biblical claim?

            I Posted These Verses — “Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

            Romans 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

            So You Asked — “How did you ascertain there was any veracity to this biblical claim?”

            I confirmed through my local government that we are actually a nation of laws and are in fact required to follow those laws or be subject to judgment.

            As a side note and not required but experienced, I would also add that local government often states in court, “so help you God”, in acknowledgement of said authority that was provisioned.

            I was recently a witness in court for a case regarding cyber security so I can also confirm this to be true directly.

            You Asked — I am referring to the claim regarding Yahweh and his supposed authority as reflected in Romans 13:1 for example.
            How do you establish that there is any authority derived from your god?

            My Response — I have not established any authority for any governing body or entity. They were all acknowledged or established before I existed by nothing short of billions of people.

            “In context” of my post, I am not trying to prove the existence of god but rather the misplaced crime of oppression by individuals claiming they have a mandate under scripture over gender minorities.
            ——————

            My Answer– Fact: The bible acknowledges my local government and my local government acknowledges god.

            Like

          31. So, in essence you have no means of establishing any veracity for your claims re:Yahweh and his supposed authority.
            How difficult would it have been for you to have simply said this in the first place instead of all this equivocation and the usual somewhat silly theological two step?

            Liked by 1 person

          32. Because I Made The Following Claims —

            — Gay people are born the way they are and it is not a choice.

            — We are a land of laws… no human being should be judging any other human being. / If a law is broken then we have court assigned authorities… /

            — I have not established any authority for any governing body or entity.

            — I am not trying to prove the existence of god but rather the misplaced crime of oppression by individuals claiming they have a mandate under scripture over gender minorities.

            — The bible acknowledges my local government and my local government acknowledges god.

            — I have no reason to defend or promote prayer… I don’t have an claims about prayer.

            Your Response To Those Claims — “How difficult would it have been for you to have simply said this in the first place instead of all this equivocation and the theigical two step?”

            My Other Claim, (which I have repeated many times), is that you ignored my post on gender hate crimes to have a repeated debate on if god exist.

            Which I have stated many times in numerous conversations with you is a waste of time and unproductive.

            I still believe this conversation should be dropped and the focus returned to my post on how gender minorities can be better be served by a change in understanding that causes hate against them.

            After All You Did State — “Faulty memory not withstanding and all that, I do not recall saying you would ”be exposed” at all…”

            Like

          33. I reiterate, I have no argument regarding the aim of your post in trying to promote greater understanding and sympathy towards minorities, and although you quoted Romans suggesting authority is ultimately derived from your god, you have absolutely no means of establishing any veracity whatsoever of said authority regarding this claim which is nothing more than an erroneous statement among many in a man made text that has no evidence of divine inspiration.

            Again, why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge?

            Like

          34. Since we are going to continue ignoring my post on gender hate crimes to focus on what I have never posted about (prayer), I will speed this up and just get to your end argument about god.

            You want to know what right I have for creating a blog and posting a bible verse as a theist to other theist.

            You also want me to answer to you for why theist use prayer since you find it to be without merit.

            First answer, I have the right to create whatever I want and post to whoever I want regardless of discrimination from anyone (definition related to recognition not prejudice).

            Second answer, no one has presented evidence to me that god does not exist. So I continue to be a theist.

            Like

          35. I am not questioning the topic of the post. I have commended you for it.
            You suggested/instructed those people – presumably Theists – to… “tell God how you feel”.
            You mentioned prayer in your initial response to my question.
            I have been asking over numerous comments how you ascertain veracity to Yahweh’s claims as recorded in the bible verses you claim are authoritive.
            You have finally committed to a relevant answer of a sort and have indicated that because You have not been presented with evidence to demonstrate there is no veracity to the claims of Yahweh you have made using the bible verses – Romans, for example, then you accept the veracity.
            Phew… this was a very long winding road for you to take merely to admit you have no evidence and thus we can dismiss such claims with impunity.
            However, it is at least finally an admission of no evidence, so. I’ll take it.
            May I suggest for future reference, when confronted by such questions, you save yourself a lot of pointless obfuscation and simply write… “By Faith.”

            Best wishes to you.
            ,

            Like

          36. I guess you see it this way because of your earlier claim (that I rejected).

            You claim there is no god but you never provide any evidence to support your claim.

            Instead of simply providing evidence to support your claim of no god existing you create the long winding road that you always copout at in the end.

            Today you have created yet another full webpage dedicated to me for the sole purpose of avoiding providing your evidence to support your claim.

            I fully agree that it’s a long winding road but that it’s one you repeatedly create and then (as always) run from at the end.

            You may be wishing me best wishes now but we all know (for a fact) you will be back on my website begging me to have the exact same debate in a few months like clockwork. I said ot before (and here we are) so I’ll say it again, you waste time distracting people on their sites and that’s why you get deleted.

            Like

          37. You claim there is no god but you never provide any evidence to support your claim.

            And those (including yourself) who claim there IS a god never provide any evidence to support their claim. 😎

            Liked by 2 people

          38. I have not said there is no god/s, only that there is no evidence of one/them
            I am always open to be shown evidence to demonstrate that statement is wrong!

            Like

          39. You Stated — “And those (including yourself) who claim there IS a god never provide any evidence to support their claim. 😎”

            My Response — I didn’t claim anything Nan and that’s the point.

            I made a post about gender minorities suffering from hate crimes. A post by the way directed to theist.

            I keep saying (repeatedly) that Ark just trolls peoples websites starting the exact same debate (never any other), ignoring their posts and then starting a debate about proving god exists. This is not the first post dedicated to me from Ark.

            In my opinion it’s just trolling for attention. I made a post about why I think people do it.

            https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/12/17/the-god-paradox-and-how-theist-and-atheist-are-being-trolled/

            Like

          40. Nowhere in this dialogue did I assert there is no god.in fact I have never said this.
            Once again your refusal to address the question directly demonstrates your lack of integrity and sincerity, a charge that will, I’m sure, be supported by those who have engaged you on similar topics.
            So, to reiterate, we can say you have no evidence to support the claims you have made regarding authority from Yahweh.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. You Stated — “Nowhere in this dialogue did I assert there is no god.in fact I have never said this.”

            My Response — I didn’t assert that there was one.

            It’s your copout, you see me post a verse to other theist for a discussion and say that’s my claim but when you make comments about how there is nothing there for theist to talk to and offer sites to prove there is no one listening you jump ship and run when I call out you claim.

            Like

          42. What the hell are you prattling on about now?
            You made the claim, I challenged you on the veracity of said claim and the claimed authority behind it.
            You have provided no evidence but spent your time equivocating and being obtuse.
            Therefore we can conclude you have no evidence and thus your claims of authority per your god, Yahweh, are without any merit and can be dismissed as nothing but faith based nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          43. Incorrect:

            You came to my site and made a claim. You didn’t provide any proof of it.

            You challenged me to come to your page because you didn’t want to talk about gender minorities being abused but rather wanted to talk about god (again).

            I came and then after I called you out you tried to quit.

            You — “Best wishes to you.”

            Me — Stop running away and prove your claim or stop trolling to make them.

            Like

          44. Bollocks! You made the claims re prayer, hence my follow up post.
            As you refused to discuss the topic of prayer on your site, which was inferred in the body of the post, re your suggestion of Tell God How you feel, you suggested I write a post and as you can see I obliged.
            The topic has developed from this and to date you have not provided a scrap of evidence to support such claims
            So I have no idea where you are pulling this nonsense from but it is patently obvious you aren’t thinking clearly.
            Maybe take a few moments and have a breather then come back when you have cooled down a bit?

            Like

          45. So based on that, you’d have to concede that the American revolutionaries were wrong to oppose King George’s divinely-ordained authority. And that the anti-slavers who assisted slaves in their escape were wrong to violate the Fugitive Slave Act passed by God’s lawfully-ordained Congress. Right?

            Liked by 2 people

          46. Jim tore your post to pieces and your comments as well.
            Again, you are Claiming there is authority derived from your god, Yahweh as it is written in the bible yet you cannot provide any evidence to demonstrate the veracity of such an outlandish claim, and this has been the thrust of my assertion from the very beginning.
            No evidence!

            Like

          47. I think I provided evidence that people in all gender roles should be left to live their lives. That was what I posted on and I proved it.

            I also came over and answered all your questions as you begged me to do on your post dedicated to me.

            You still to date have never provided me with any argument or proof to stop believing what you say does not exist.

            I guess we will wait a few months for your next round of the same exact thing.

            Like

          48. I think I provided evidence that people in all gender roles should be left to live their lives. That was what I posted on and I proved it

            And I agree, they should, and I have offered kudos for your post. Why you keep raising this is beyond me. It suggests you’re not paying attention or trying to deflect.
            Which do you think it likely is?

            I also came over and answered all your questions as you begged me to do on your post dedicated to me.

            Begged? Good grief! Now I know you are simply being a fatuous arse.
            Aside from you actually commenting nothing in this comment is correct.

            You still to date have never provided me with any argument or proof to stop believing what you say does not exist.

            What on earth inclined you to believe such a ridiculous notion?
            The onus is on you to provide evidence – not proof, which I would never demand – for any and all god claims you make or subscribe to.

            I guess we will wait a few months for your next round of the same exact thing.

            You are referring to your penchant for obfuscation and wilful ignorance, no doubt?

            Like

          49. Your post does not address my questions, and attempts to circumvent them by special pleading that the American colonies were established and run by companies (which is true) but ignores the fact that those companies were granted a corporate charter by the British Crown, and by extension became legal subjects of the British monarchy

            So based on the biblical edict to “Obey the king’s command, because you took an oath before God to be loyal to him” (Ecclesiastes 8:2) , it would have been wrong for the colonists to reject the authority of King George. And based on the verses you quoted in your previous comment, it would have been just as wrong to assist slaves in their escape to freedom in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act.

            Liked by 2 people

          50. You Stated — “Your post does not address my questions, and attempts to circumvent them by special pleading that the American colonies were established and run by companies (which is true)”

            My Response — Of course it’s true because it’s documeted fact. Companies are in fact not countries and are not leaders of countries. The companies in question worked for multiple countries and benifited from supported advantages granted by each. They were not beholden to any of them and helped the colonist create a new country.

            The special pleading line is weak. I could fight your argument better by offing a direct example rather than trying to force this round one to fit in a square hole.

            This is the problem I have with theist and atheist, you try to hard to fight an argument that doesn’t work and get mad at the other person in the debate rather than just finding a better example that actually fits.

            Like this one:

            https://realitydecoded.blog/2019/07/02/the-loved-slave-ship-jesus-of-lubeck/

            That seems better for your argument and would be a better debate. I wouldn’t have to waste time talking about how companies are not governments simply because you want to force me into an imaginary corner. It would actually be more fun.

            Like

          51. The English colonies received their charter from the English monarchy, which made them possessions of the English Crown, which meant anyone living or operating a business within those colonies became a subject of the English monarchy, much in the same way that individuals and companies taking up residence within in the U.S. and it’s possessions become subject to the authority of the local, state and federal governments within those political boundaries.

            To the second part, I fail to see how your post addresses the question on disobeying the laws of the land, which made it illegal to assist in the escape of slaves — especially in light of the fact that the Bible condones slavery.

            Liked by 2 people

          52. You Stated — “…companies taking up residence within in the U.S. and it’s possessions become subject to the authority of the local, state and federal governments within those political boundaries.”

            My Response — So are saying that US companies on foreign soil are US territory and only have to follow US law?

            You Stated — “I fail to see how your post addresses the question on disobeying the laws of the land”

            My Response — Authority came form mercantile charters connected to English companies to found and run settlements. They worked outside of governmental laws and could violate human rights anywhere they went. This was also true for Spain and other countries. We do the exact same thing now in “International Waters” or “International Airspace”.

            We will most likely do the same when we colonize space.

            International law is a system of treaties and agreements between nations that governs how nations interact with other nations, citizens of other nations, and businesses of other nations. … These are known as “customary” laws, and nations consent to them by doing nothing.

            We use corporations to circumvent laws on foreign land and justify the use of the military to protect workers and products. This is exactly what we are doing right now in Somalia against the local people we call pirates.

            Not only is this standard practice for human rights violations, it’s the easiest way to secure land and resources without an ability to fight a government in court since there is no direct tie back to them.

            Your argument is nonsensical since we are still using this practice.

            Like

          53. ” So are saying that US companies on foreign soil are US territory and only have to follow US law?”

            No. I’m saying you are subject to the law of the territory in which you reside. If you set up shop in Japan, you must abide by the laws of Japan. If you set up shop in Europe, you must abide by the laws of the European country in which you operate.

            Liked by 1 person

          54. “So you are saying . . . ”

            Translation: I will disregard what you actually wrote and project my own thoughts into the conversation.

            Liked by 3 people

          55. Proof? The fact that most (if not all) cities, towns and counties exist as state-incorporated entities, complete with corporate charters, comptrollers, clerks and agents, who “sell” or contract for goods and services you must pay for as a “taxpayer” of the geographic area they are sanctioned to govern.

            That aside, my argument was that a company must abide by the rules and regulations of the political entity in which it operates. If a company like Microsoft opens offices in foreign locations, those foreign operations are governed by the laws of the nations in which they conduct business.

            Liked by 1 person

          56. You Stated — “That aside, my argument was that a company must abide by the rules and regulations of the political entity in which it operates.”

            My Response — Incorrect. They can operate by any means they wish. They can openly violate rules and regulations appointed by any country simply by doing business outside it jurisdiction while at the exact same time having it’s headquarters stationed in that same country and paying taxes to it.

            Case in point:
            The medicine, called Factor VIII concentrate, can stop or prevent potentially fatal bleeding in people with hemophilia. Bayer division Cutter Biological created a version that was heat-treated to kill HIV but continued selling old stocks of the medicine that could be infected, outside of the US. The medicine was made using plasma from thousands of donors before a screening test for HIV was available.

            The medicine is used mostly for children.

            Thousands Of Children Given HIV For The Sake Of Money

            Companies still do this today, we are even selling vaccines not approved in the US to other countries in Africa right now.

            You are simply wrong Ron. You can sue a company but you can’t control them because they don’t belong to the government and they don’t have to follow the rules. They just exist to make money and will do anything to get it. Companies often go against governments to turn a profit.

            Like

          57. Yes, companies and individuals often disobey the rules. But what’s your point? Because my question to you was whether or not it was proper to do so in light of the biblical edict commanding obedience to all earthly authorities because they were instituted by God — not whether or not people actually followed the biblical guidelines.

            Like

          58. It’s not a violation against the bible for a company to disobey a government.

            Prove me wrong and show me where the bible talks about companies. Companies have no agency nor can a company commit sin.

            Like

          59. LOL

            Yours is a difference without a distinction, because companies are merely a method by which flesh-and-blood human beings conduct business. The colonial charters were drafted and signed by human beings, the DOI was signed by human beings, and the war for independence was fought by human beings — all of which were subject to follow the biblical edict enjoining them to obey their king.

            Liked by 1 person

          60. You Stated — “Yours is a difference without a distinction, because companies are merely a method by which flesh-and-blood human beings conduct business.”

            My Response — Then there are no governments since they too are simply a method by which flesh-and-blood human beings arrange resources.

            You Stated — “The colonial charters were drafted and signed by human beings, the DOI was signed by human beings, and the war for independence was fought by human beings — all of which were subject to follow the biblical edict enjoining them to obey their king.”

            My Response — From a bible perspective connection to a leader only exists in the land owned and controlled by that leader, not in foreign lands.

            You want to convince me that a leader it’s countries laws exist anywhere at anytime which is incorrect. You also want to convince me that people cannot abandon their country to join another, this is also incorrect.

            It’s still a fact that the king did not own the Americas in the same way other countries didn’t own it. They attempted to take ownership but failed.

            Like

          61. “Then there are no governments since they too are simply a method by which flesh-and-blood human beings arrange resources.”

            Exactly!! Now you’re getting it. Companies and governments are legal fictions run by human beings.

            “From a bible perspective connection to a leader only exists in the land owned and controlled by that leader, not in foreign lands.”

            [citation needed]

            Like

          62. You Stated — “Exactly!! Now you’re getting it. Companies and governments are legal fictions run by human beings.”

            My Response — Incorrect, they are logical constructs designed to obtain common goals and control the flow of resources. They are run by laws and rules, even in the absence of people.

            I Stated — “From a bible perspective connection to a leader only exists in the land owned and controlled by that leader, not in foreign lands.”

            You Requested — [citation needed]

            Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Psalms 2:8

            “Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the western sea.” (Deuteronomy 11:24)

            “I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.”
            (Joshua1:3)

            Like

          63. lol

            From the Law Dictionary:

            What is CORPORATION?

            An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular oltice, but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals, who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded In law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred upon such bodies by law.

            https://thelawdictionary.org/corporation/

            And from John Marshall, the Chief Justice presiding over a landmark Supreme Court decision in “Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819)”:

            “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it either expressly or as incidental to its very existence.”

            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/518/

            In short, they exist only as legal entities in coroporate law offices. You cannot directly have dinner with “Mr. Microsoft” or have a conversation with “Mr GM” or go on a fishing trip with “Mr. Kraft Foods” or ask to take “Miss Wendy’s” out on a date, but you can (potentially) do those things with the shareholders, directors and employees of those companies.

            To the second point, all of your citations indicate that the Jewish nation would take possession of every land they set foot upon — including the foreign territories then occupied by the Canaanites — which is the exact opposite of what you stated. 🙂

            Liked by 2 people

          64. Because I stated (for companies) — Incorrect, they are logical constructs designed to obtain common goals and control the flow of resources. They are run by laws and rules, even in the absence of people.

            You Responded with (for companies) — “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation…”having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members… relating to the common purpose of the association…”

            (Thanks for agreeing with me)

            You Stated — “In short,… You cannot directly have dinner with “Mr. Microsoft””

            My Response — I would agree and also add that I never said you could have dinner with a logical construct. You are creating a strawman that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

            You Stated — “To the second point, all of your citations indicate that the Jewish nation would take possession of every land they set foot upon”

            My Response — Incorrect, it means that anyone can from a bible perspective based on belief. It has nothing to do with nations.

            Like

          65. I see we’re going in circles. The point remains: the bible enjoins individuals to obey the edicts of their king, regardless of how their business model is set up.

            Liked by 2 people

          66. You Stated — “I see we’re going in circles.”

            My Response — The reason we are going around in circles is the same reason everyone does in any conversational paradox, Absolute VS Variation

            You are trying to claim an absolute “The Bible wants monogamy”.

            My response to your claim is that the bible has many people with multiple wives and it even has rules in place for when a person has one or more wives.

            I don’t see an absolute but I do see variations of what marriage looks like in the bible.

            I’m not convinced by your position because the bible displays so many marriage options.

            Like

          67. The topic of this particular diversion was the biblical edict to obey all earthly authorities. Your contention that the bible doesn’t specifically mention corporations and companies — a legal vehicle used to organize one’s business affairs — is irrelevant, because it does not absolve the individuals running those companies from fulfilling their legal obligations and abiding to the laws of the land. (For further proof of this principle in action, search “Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC”)

            And I didn’t say the bible wants monogamy (because the OT permits multiple wives). I specifically wrote that the NT author named Paul advocates it.

            But at some point, you will have to pick a lane and stick with it. If you choose to follow the OT then you must adopt the entire Jewish code. But if you want to call yourself a Christian, you must follow the NT teachings of Paul and Jesus.

            Liked by 1 person

          68. You Stated — “I specifically wrote that the NT author named Paul advocates it.”

            My Response — I thought you were referring to the bible and not one specific person. I thought you were saying that Paul’s view spoke for the entire bible or even the entire religion.

            I posted this earlier about Paul during our discussion so it would appear that we are in agreement.

            1 Corinthians 7:12-
            12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)….

            Paul clearly stated that he had his own ideas on how things should work that were not from god and then went in detail about them.

            Moving forward I will only focus on the corporation conversation, I am researching it more to see if I am wrong. I will also be looking into this “Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC” case

            Like

          69. Just to confirm.
            Are you suggesting that even after Paul informed his listeners that ”his” gospel was revealed to him he made comments regarding sex outside marriage based on his own personal views and not that of his god?

            Like

          70. We were talking about a verse that Paul wrote not any suggestions from anyone. I thought Ron was referring to the entire bible but he was focused on one individual for a specific position. It was an interesting thought, one to think about.

            Like

          71. So, am I understanding you correctly, in as much that you are asserting Paul took his own initiative regarding sex outside of the traditional one man, one woman paradigm?

            Like

          72. We were talking about marriage and multiple wives. It would be better to just review our debate. We finished it. Restarting it wouldn’t provide any new information and I think most of it may have been me not understanding that he wanted me to just focus on Paul because he saw a difference between the OT and NT.

            It was an interesting view and somewhat convincing. I may have to change my viewpoint (hard to say). I would need more data.

            Like

          73. I’m not sure what we are talking about now but I was wrong in how I thought Ron was looking at multiple wives. I made an assumption about what he was stating but he pointed out what his focus was and what message he was trying to convey.

            The full post is still there. There is no need for a second round of the same debate.

            Like

          74. You disputed Ron’s claim regarding Paul/sex and marriage
            The relevant bible verse clearly show you were mistaken.
            Do you require the relevant comments to be reposted for you to look over?

            Like

          75. As to slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act applied to inter-state commerce (in a manner of speaking), not companies operating in foreign lands.

            Liked by 2 people

          76. You Stated — “especially in light of the fact that the Bible condones slavery.”

            But Then You Sent Me This Verse — 1 Corinthians 7
            21Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”

            I’m not convinced by your position

            Like

          77. “Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.” (i.e. slave or free man)

            I’m not convinced you read the text.

            Liked by 1 person

          78. 1 Corinthians 7:23
            23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

            God calls you … god sets you free

            Your argument is not convincing me that your opinion is correct

            Like

          79. . . . which is sandwiched between verse 21 (“Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.”) and verse 24 (“So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.)

            Furthermore, “do not become” is not the same as “do not remain”.

            I’m not convinced your eisegesis is going to win the argument.

            Liked by 1 person

          80. The start of slavery in the Bible
            Exodus 1: 11,14
            11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.
            14 and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves.

            Was God aware of it?
            Exodus 2: 23
            23 During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God.

            Exodus 3: 9
            9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.

            How did God feel about it?
            Exodus 2: 25
            25 So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them.

            Exodus 3: 7
            7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.

            What was Gods response to it?
            Exodus 3: 8
            8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

            Exodus 12: 36
            36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

            Exodus 20: -2
            And God spake all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

            Final Message:
            1 Corinthians 7:23
            23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

            I don’t use eisegesis, I go with the factuality of what is actually written.

            Like

          81. Let’s finish with Paul, first. In Colossians 3:22 he implores, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. ”

            As to your questions . . .

            Q1. “Was God aware of it?”

            Well, if not, he should have been, given that he himself predicted it would happen when making his covenant with Abraham:

            Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.”).

            What was Gods response to it?And given that he permitted it to happen, and continue for four centuries, he must have been okay with it as well.

            And post Exodus, he commands the Israelites to go annihilate all the Canaanites living in the land he promised them (which is why I often call Yahweh Lord Genocide).

            And thereafter, the rules against slavery only applied to fellow Israelites. Foreign slaves were fair game.

            “The people of Israel are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, so they must never be sold as slaves. Show your fear of God by not treating them harshly. However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.” Leviticus 25:42-46

            Liked by 1 person

          82. The tension between biblical exegesis and eisegesis is on full display in this thread so I thought I just throw this long comment in here (would you expect a short one from me?).

            I sometimes wonder why the difference between understanding and knowing is not better realized. I do not know many facts about, say, love but I am pretty sure I understand something about it. Not recognizing this really important and meaningful difference in regard to religious ideas has a price. A pretty steep price I think.

            The exegesis of the OT I think is not knowledge, not about facts, not history (this should be self-evident because reality simply does not support many factual and historical claims from the texts we know are ‘wrong’). This is where I think the fundamentalist goes wrong in the sense they miss out on so much available wisdom, miss out on gaining a deeper understanding of what the text means rather than what it says, misses out on how these stories pertain to themselves and others today, how the lessons within the meaning help us adjust and cope and direct getting through life today as a meaningful and valuable process (especially pertinent to today’s rising tide of illiberalism), an understanding away from believing in nihilism and the tearing down of social structure towards acceptance and celebration of life as it is within an evolving liberal social system. I think this blunt fundamentalist approach (as in, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”) loses out on gaining very valuable understanding, which I think is the ‘true’ value that accompanies it. I suspect this is why so many religious people are the loudest and bravest critics of the deleterious effects on individual liberty done in the name of ‘social justice’ today – people who DO pay the price, who do stand up to the bullying, who are the ones fired and vilified when they stand against the demands of the mob – and why so many atheists seem to be oblivious to and silent about both the dangers and damage to liberal democracy. This is not a trivial difference and I think we can learn something important by trying to understand what’s going on here. And that’s where the difference between knowledge and understanding I think is central.

            This basic misunderstanding between knowledge and understanding available from religious texts is also where many an atheist goes wrong presuming anything less than a one-to-one connection with knowledge, with facts, with history makes religious texts worthless, the texts misguided attempts to control people at best, useless as a tool for gaining knowledge, and a danger when acted upon as if ‘true’ by fundamentalists to one’s self and others (all equivalently ‘true’, too, with lots of evidence to back this up).

            Yes, but…

            I think these texts can be (and are often demonstrated to be) a highly valuable instructional and revealing tool into one’s self if we read the themes symbolically, if we ask ourselves what the characters including Yahweh represent in the ‘real’ world to make the stories applicable to ourselves today and our place in it today. I think much of the OT actually teaches us how to grow up and become responsible and (to each other) autonomous moral agents. This is highly valuable and undergirds ‘liberal’ values: a basic respect for the individual (in Christianity as reflections of God, made in God’s image, hint hint, nudge nudge, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man) but also understanding why we should treat others as equivalent to ourselves in whatever their various worldly roles might be, whatever positions they may hold, whatever authority may be exercised. This is not to say such scripture is a blueprint on how to treat individuals but a basis on which to build on (which liberal society has done with remarkable success).

            In this sense, talking to God (prayer) is a means to have a conversation (to both speak AND listen) with the ideal that embodies our highest values so that we can try our best to honestly see ourselves and our mundane concerns in context with (and to) them, to find out if we’re moving in the right direction, seeing and comparing and contrasting the trajectory of our lives to determine if we are gaining value towards that ideal or letting it slip away. Of course this can be misconstrued if we try to rationalize and manipulate the ‘conversational’ outcome, in which case we’re only fooling ourselves and claiming it’s ‘divine’! Prayer is a means of honest self reflection about all kinds of concerns an decisions and actions and consequences and, most importantly, intentions. That’s why real and honest and truthful conversations are hard to have. But it is a means (prayer) to better understand the here and now and adjust (aka the need to sacrifice what is pleasing ‘to God’) for a better tomorrow.

            We lose this window into understanding ourselves, our motivations and intentions, better when we assume such stories cloaked in religious garb are about knowledge that is either true or false.

            Liked by 2 people

          83. You Stated — “I think this blunt fundamentalist approach (as in, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”)”

            My Response — I don’t believe anyone takes that approach (at least I haven’t seen it). I think the majority of people pick through the bible looking for anything that will support their personal bias (good or bad) and then use it as an excuse when they engage others. Just as they do in science, culture and politics.

            Jim Crow in the south was supported by religion, science, politics, and culture. Theist and atheist alike subjugated blacks to cruel and unusual conditions basically for money. They used every path possible to use a race of people for cheap labor and took personal joy in their suffering. I can still pull up the science books that stated black people were not human.

            If they really believed the bible then they would be more like this:
            https://realitydecoded.blog/2020/10/28/how-to-know-who-is-a-christian/

            You Stated — “I suspect this is why so many religious people are the loudest and bravest critics of the deleterious effects on individual liberty done in the name of ‘social justice’ today”

            My Response – They seem more like cowards to me. If they truly believed in the bible that they claim, then they would have stopped the injustices that were performed on the people before they were forced to become more extreme via platforms like ‘social justice’.

            I’m not convinced that Nazis storming the capital to keep voters away from the ballet box are in any way the new front line to protect the republic from ‘social justice’ advocates.

            Just an observation

            You Stated — “This is not a trivial difference and I think we can learn something important by trying to understand what’s going on here. And that’s where the difference between knowledge and understanding I think is central.”

            My Response — I think you are correct.

            You Stated – “I think much of the OT actually teaches us how to grow up and become responsible and (to each other) autonomous moral agents.”

            My Response – This is an interesting thought. I do not see the bible as a tool for morality but I can see your point. I will have to think about this one more.

            Like

          84. I think you are framing what I said is what makes sense to you. For example, I have an elderly neighbour who spent time in Poland (now married to a woman who came from East Germany) who cannot understand why younger people are heading blissfully down the road toward the kind of self-censoring society he escaped. He doesn’t understand why people do not have overwhelming gratitude for liberal democracy: no one tries to escape to China. He is quite Catholic and tells stories of religious people able to withstand personal suffering on a scale few people raised in liberal democracies can truly appreciate because they were living for their principled conscience shaped by their religious practices and not for any social concern. He shales his head at the expression ‘right side of history’ because, as he says, this wokeness (my term, not his) is in exactly the wrong direction to reach it. It’s going straight to what he knows and has experienced as the ‘wrong’ side of history. And he marvels that with the world’s knowledge at everyone’s fingertips, so many people delude themselves so easily.

            Now, you think such a person in your comment is cowardly. I think that’s absurd because I do not think you are recognizing what I said as it applies to this example.

            Liked by 2 people

          85. You Said — “…cannot understand why younger people are heading blissfully down the road toward the kind of self-censoring society he escaped. He doesn’t understand why people do not have overwhelming gratitude for liberal democracy:”

            My Response — Because we do not have a democracy.

            The US is not a Republic or a Democracy.
            1) We do not follow the Constitution.
            2) We do not listen to the majority of the people.

            The US is a Capitalist Commonwealth

            Money controls the government, business, health, home, religion, science, and culture. The poor staff the military to fight wars for resources that the middle class uses to make the rich richer. Even the news we watch is controlled by money.

            You Stated — “He is quite Catholic and tells stories of religious people able to withstand personal suffering on a scale few people raised in liberal democracies can truly appreciate because they were living for their principled conscience shaped by their religious practices and not for any social concern.”

            My Response — But they are not living for any form of principled conscience. If they were, they wouldn’t want gay people put in conversion facilities. They would not want contraceptives banned for people suffering from aides. They would not want priest to go free after raping children.

            What you are seeing in your friend is determined stubbornness that looks like strength when it’s him being oppressed and him surviving it. But when it is him oppressing, it just looks like cowardly hypocrisy.

            Just saying

            Like

          86. Also, when the phrase ‘believe in the Bible’ is used, very often this means what I pointed out: it fairly significant difference to justify what it says rather than what it means. This is why non believers jump all over certain claims because we know these are not factually true. We know snakes don’t talk. We know there was no global flood. We know there was no exodus from Egypt. And so on. These are, at the very least, clues about how to read the Bible, not believe in it. We’re not there for facts and history; we’re there to find out why so many big brained people say it’s worth reading, that it contains a lot of wisdom. So how we read it is rather important.

            But when how to read it is supplanted by what is written, then this becomes the argument: it says here, it says there, so, in practice it becomes nothing more than my next criticism, namely, the method used that relies on arguing that the Bible says it, so we should believe it, so that settles it. And this is EXACTLY where eisegesis occurs (People import what they want and then use the Bible to support it, including diametrically opposed ideas!).

            When you hear a believer use the phrase, “Believe in the Bible”, this is fair warning that the person is most likely a a fundamentalist who does not read the text for deeper meaning. And I say that not as any kind of belittlement but as an indication that the person has elevated faith-based belief over and above evidence-adduced belief. In other words, there is nothing reality can offer to counteract this willful decision to use scripture and quotations to do their thinking rather than reason and reality. Atheists who criticize this have merit. So this is the trap that confuses reading for knowledge from a text that contains very little that accurately offers us any insight into facts about reality rather than reading it for the rich source it is for understanding what it means to be human. And I think this is shame.

            Liked by 1 person

          87. You Stated — “This is why non believers jump all over certain claims because we know these are not factually true.”

            My Response — What you are talking about isn’t factual knowledge of what is true or not true, you are talking about what has been observed and what is known. This is to say that science has no observation supporting the bible (currently) from the perspective of the scientific community. But at the same time: Science does not disprove the existence of a god nor does it disprove anything a god could do.

            You Stated — “And this is EXACTLY where eisegesis occurs (People import what they want and then use the Bible to support it, including diametrically opposed ideas!).

            My Response – True for most supporting and opposing the bible but to be fair this is done for everything in society.

            I don’t use interpretation, so I have a conflict with everyone in everything from religion to politics and culture.

            You Stated – “When you hear a believer use the phrase, “Believe in the Bible”, this is fair warning that the person is most likely a a fundamentalist who does not read the text for deeper meaning.”

            My Response – I would disagree, it usually means that they don’t know what’s in it flat out. It’s more of a colloquialism that people use. When people say it to me they tend to want to stop talking to me because I’m not agreeing with them about what preacher number 23 said last Sunday.

            You Stated – “And I say that not as any kind of belittlement but as an indication that the person has elevated faith-based belief over and above evidence-adduced belief. In other words, there is nothing reality can offer to counteract this willful decision to use scripture and quotations to do their thinking rather than reason and reality.”

            My Response – You could use money to change a person’s belief in seconds (examples in the bible). It’s not that hard to change a person’s belief, that’s why we have so many denominations (because people are so easily led to other beliefs).

            Like

          88. Apologies. My previous response got garbled, so this is a (slightly) edited repost for readability purposes. Ark can you please delete the other one.

            Let’s finish with Paul, first.

            In Colossians 3:22 he implores, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

            Seems to me that he’s ok with slavery.

            And Jesus sanctions slavery in a parable when he says:

            “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Luke 12:47

            As to your questions . . .

            Q1. “Was God aware of it?”

            Well, if not, he should have been, given that he himself predicted it would happen when making his covenant with Abraham:

            “Then the LORD said to him, ‘Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.’” (Genesis 15:13)

            Q2. “What was Gods response to it?”

            Extremely slow given that he not only permitted it to happen, but allowed it to continue for over four centuries before finally intervening in a very convoluted Rube Golbergesque manner.

            And post Exodus, he commands the Israelites to go annihilate all the Canaanites living in the land he promised them (which is why I often call Yahweh Lord Genocide).

            And of course the rules against slavery only applied to fellow Israelites. Foreign slaves were still fair game.

            “The people of Israel are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, so they must never be sold as slaves. Show your fear of God by not treating them harshly. However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.” (Leviticus 25:42-46)

            So God appears to be hunky-dory with slavery — at least for non-Jews — though it appears he didn’t give a toss for ‘his peeps’ during the Holocaust.

            Like

          89. You Stated — “So God appears to be hunky-dory with slavery”

            My Response —

            hunk·y-do·ry
            adjective
            fine; going well.

            If it was, as you say “fine”, then why did god say “concerned about their suffering”?

            Exodus 3: 7
            7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.

            If it was, as you say “fine”, then why did god stop it? Why “Rescue” someone if everything is fine?

            Exodus 3: 8
            8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

            If it was, as you say “fine”, then why kill someone for selling people?

            Exodus 21: 16
            16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

            If it was, as you say “fine”, then why tell people not to do it?

            1 Corinthians 7:23
            23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

            I’m not convinced it was hunky-dory.

            Like

          90. Actions speak louder than words. If God was concerned about their suffering, why did he permit it to go on for 400 years before finally intervening? In fact, if it was of grave concern, why permit it to occur at all? And why only limit his concern to only one particular group of people? Shouldn’t an all-loving God be concerned for all those who are enslaved, regardless of their nationality?

            Liked by 2 people

          91. You Stated — “Actions speak louder than words.”

            My Response — You are correct:

            This was an action and it does speak louder than words since it freed them:
            Exodus 3: 8
            8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

            You Asked — “If God was concerned about their suffering, why did he permit it to go on for 400 years before finally intervening?”

            My Response — I have no idea why god does things, I also don’t know why people do things, I’m not a mind reader. But the bible provides a reason for mans trouble with men ruling them.

            1 Samuel 8:6-7
            6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

            1 Samuel 8:10-18
            10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men1 and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

            It was also talked about that they wanted to return to enslavement.

            Numbers 14:2-4
            2 And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron: and the whole assembly said unto them, Would God we had died in the land of Egypt, or in this wilderness: would God we were dead. 3 Wherefore now hath the Lord brought us into this land to fall upon the sword? our wives and our children shall be [b]a prey: were it not better for us to return into Egypt? 4 And they said one to another, Let us make a captain and return into Egypt.

            I am guessing that if they returned and were enslaved for another 100 years you would ask why god didn’t stop if sooner again.

            You Asked — “In fact, if it was of grave concern, why permit it to occur at all?”

            My Response — Are you saying that the world would be better if mankind removed it’s leaders and said god should be in charge? This would assign full say over all of mankind’s affairs.

            You Asked — “And why only limit his concern to only one particular group of people?”

            My Response — It seems clear that it still states not to allow yourself to be a slave (no matter where you are from).

            1 Corinthians 7:23
            23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

            You Asked — “Shouldn’t an all-loving God be concerned for all those who are enslaved, regardless of their nationality?”

            My Response — Yes.

            Galatians 5:1
            5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

            Like

          92. “I have no idea why god does things”

            Well, the answer is revealed in Exodus 9:13-16 and Romans 9:16-18.

            TLDR: God did it for his own engrandizement, and that all that transpires is in congruence with God’s will — not yours or mine. IOW, according to the scriptures, we have no real say concerning what happens: we merely act out the part we’ve been assigned to play prior to birth.

            As for Galatians, when read in its entirety beginning with chapter one, it becomes evident that Paul is talking about being freed from the bondage of the OT law and Jewish customs (particularly circumcission) — not physical slavery.

            Furthermore, he admonishes his “brothers and sisters” not to use that new freedom to “indulge the desires of the flesh” in 5:13 and then “fleshes out” what those desires are in verses 5:19-21:

            “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

            “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.”–Donald A. Carson

            Liked by 1 person

          93. You Stated — “…all that transpires is in congruence with God’s will — not yours or mine. IOW, according to the scriptures, we have no real say concerning what happens: we merely act out the part we’ve been assigned to play prior to birth.”

            My Response — That may be how you see the world but I see no evidence in reality that it’s true. It seems to me people choose their own way and it seems to me that the bible confirms this.

            Proverbs 16:9
            The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.

            You Stated — “…it becomes evident that Paul is talking about being freed from the bondage of the OT law and Jewish customs (particularly circumcission) — not physical slavery”

            My Response — You may think that but it literally doesn’t say that. You would have to show me where it literally states what you think it says to convince me.

            You Stated — “Furthermore, he admonishes his “brothers and sisters” not to use that new freedom to “indulge the desires of the flesh” in 5:13 and then “fleshes out” what those desires are in verses 5:19-21:”

            Then referenced this verse — “19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

            To prove (I think) that having more than one wife is not allowed or being an hermaphrodite is bad, but he didn’t say they were and he even gave an example of what a sexual immorality was (orgy).

            If the bible is against having multiple wives or being an hermaphrodite then just show me a verse that states that. The bible has plenty of verses stating that a person cannot have something so this should be easy.

            Like

          94. This comment/thinking makes me laugh because this is EXACTLY what believers don’t do — yet require it of non-believers:

            You would have to show me where it literally states what you think it says to convince me.

            Like

          95. You Stated — “This comment/thinking makes me laugh because this is EXACTLY what believers don’t do”

            My Response — And I’m in the same boat laughing on my end because I’m in a conversation I think is useless because the same atheist keeps coming to my website spamming my posts begging me to have a conversation even though I haven’t made any claims.

            My post (that led to this nonsense) was about stopping people from abusing gays and backing the FACT that being born gay is not a choice.

            I think this conversation (and others like it) are a waste of time and should be ended until we finish our conversations about how children and minorities are abused. Those conversations I can’t find anyone to join in on but this useless conversation people will have every week.

            Like

          96. Just my opinion … but it seems quite common that anytime a believer uses Faith to validate their opinion/thinking, many people consider it an open door to oppose that line of thinking.

            And in response, the believer then defends her/his faith … and the “discussion” begins. 🙂

            Liked by 2 people

          97. You Stated — “…anytime a believer uses Faith to validate their opinion…the believer then defends her/his faith … and the “discussion” begins”

            My Response — Ok so here is my opinion (again) per my post:

            “I believe people are born into the gender that their body comes with and that it’s not a choice.”

            Now that we have my opinion (again) I’ll state what I always state to both atheist and theist… I don’t care if you agree with me. People don’t have to agree with me, it’s not a requirement. I also don’t have to care if they do (same reason). There is no reason that I can think of for me to use faith to validate my opinion since I can believe anything I want, for whatever reason I want.

            As for defending my faith, that also seems nonsensical. Why would I need to defend anything other than my property, wife or food? I don’t get paid to defend faith and no one directed me to do so. What would be my motivation?

            Opinions are only good for understanding another persons perspective. That understanding has helped me greatly when collaborating on projects between different tribes, (democrats, republicans, theist, atheist, etc.). My conversations online help me to quickly navigate the limitations that tribalist have when working projects.

            In this case it’s more of a struggle since people don’t like addressing gender challenges so they deflect to any other kind of conversation like Ark did by spamming my site until I agreed to join him here for a conversation on faith and belief.

            We can work together to support minorities in abusive environments or we can work against each other. Either way works for me. I will either have another ally or someone who will make me stronger through resistance.

            As for the rest who cares. Believe in god or don’t, that’s your choice, at least you have one 😉

            Like

          98. One thing that seems to happen again and again in blog comments — people take them personally.

            I try very hard to write general-type comments — more like “observation” remarks — and avoid including the word “you” to keep things neutral. Yet time and again, the person takes it personally and feel they must defend their remarks.

            Notice … even this comment is NOT directed at “you.” it is simply a general statement. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          99. You Stated — “One thing that seems to happen again and again in blog comments — people take them personally.”

            My Response — I feel your pain Nan which is why I try to keep my inner asshole under control and not take things personally. I don’t want people avoiding conversations with me. I honestly don’t feel my personal opinion on most things has any importance anyway. I’m much more interested in the mechanics of what people believe rather than the belief itself and I really don’t see the point in knowing how people “feel” about something.

            I like to see how people reconcile my posts with their reality. I don’t want to inject my personal thoughts about anything I post unless directly asked (and even then reluctantly).

            If you say to me that you want prayer in school then I ask which one “Voodoo or Jedi”, because I want to see where these ideas are going. I don’t care who they personally believe in or how they feel about it, I just want to know where they draw the line and why they think I should care. That’s my learning space.

            I think people get offended because they are not used to being challenged and so, they take it out on those who challenge them. There are people out there so sensitive that they couldn’t even imagine posting on ark’s site… that’s truly sad that people are that scared just to have a conversation. We don’t have to agree but if we can’t communicate then the world is in bad shape.

            Ron is a great example of what opposing concepts and communication could be. He brings great facts to the table, doesn’t resort to name calling, and has the ability to answer questions when asked. As far as I can tell he doesn’t take anything personally. You can’t end a conversation with Ron and not have new thoughts in your head. He will challenge your understanding of any topic he jumps in on. I take him seriously every time he replies.

            I just recently talked to him about a post I made about the titanic and he was the only one out of dozens to give me doubts about my conclusion. He had a very convincing argument that made me open up to the possibility.

            We could all learn from each other, if we were better in how we communicate (like you stated) and better at accepting challenges to our understanding.

            Just a thought

            Liked by 1 person

          100. I like to see how people reconcile my posts with their reality

            More the point , when it comes to your religious leanings, how do you reconcile your reality with reality ?

            Like

          101. My reality is work, bills, eat, sleep. My “religious leanings” are things that happened in the past and that god exists. I reconcile them the same as I do with politics, culture, science, and philosophy.

            I get up in the morning and I go to work. What I have learned from all of the above is this:

            I am here to work and learn, so I do so.

            Like

          102. So how do you understand the term you used their reality. a

            Are you suggesting that as a theist your worldview (reality) is not different than mine or any non theist?

            Like

          103. You asked — “So how do you understand the term you used their reality.”

            My Response — It’s a general term used often in social media. Your reality is where you live, your culture, your politics, friends, family, health, education, beliefs, job, etc.

            Who you are and how you live and what you want out of life equals your reality.

            Like

          104. Lol I’m not sure you’re reading what I post.

            A person’s reality isn’t something they guide, it’s something they accept and do the best they can with. It makes the person and the person makes it.

            Like

          105. A person’s reality isn’t something they guide

            Serious question. Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
            I asked if your reality was guided by your Christian Worldview.
            If you do not understand the question I may be able to explain it in simpler terms, or you could consult a Christian – Pastor, Priest, Vicar to explain it for you.

            Like

          106. You Asked — “Serious question. Do you have a reading comprehension issue?”

            My Response — I will think about this and get back to you.

            Liked by 1 person

          107. Lander:
            I agree your post was all about abusing gays, but if you recall, some complete numpty introduced the Christian god into the conversation and look what transpired!

            Like

          108. Incorrect — My post was about theist using the bible to prove a bad argument. As a theist I was responding to what other theist were arguing about in other posts.

            I still believe your position is nonsensical, since theist normally quote documents within religions when talking to each other. You explained to me that I shouldn’t talk to Christians with bible references when talking about their beliefs but I think you are incorrect. Not to mention I can do as I please on my site and use bible verses when talking to anyone I want.

            As I always do, I made my own post to limit the number of repeat responses I have to make to those who want to challenge my understanding.

            I post it once and respond with the post rather than repeating my argument.

            Some people like to bring up the same old arguments over and over again no matter how many time you tell them 😉

            Like

          109. Sorry. My mistake. I should try to remember the importance of exactitude when replying.
            I have repeatedly mentioned that I agree with your position regarding the topic of your post
            The only real point of my post was with regard your suggestion to tell God how you feel (via prayer).
            That is the only really nonsensical part of your post and when challenged you became highly defensive of a practice that has been demonstrated to have no value other than in a limited therapeutic sense.
            Certainly the claims made in the bible regarding prayer are erroneous.

            Liked by 1 person

          110. You Stated — “…when challenged you became highly defensive of a practice that has been demonstrated to have no value”

            My Response — I have two surprising take always there. The first being that you think this was a challenge.

            I told theist to stop confronting gay people and harassing them for being born the way they are. I challenged them to stop being cowards and take their complaints to the god they claimed to believe in, who by their belief, created the people they hate.

            You asked me how do theist communicate with god and I told you that they use prayer, this is well known. I get that you don’t believe in god but the post is about abuse to gender minorities not belief in gods. Also the post is to theist and contains bible verses which I would also imagine you don’t believe in so this argument seems nonsensical to me. As I have told you in the past, you start the same debate no matter what the post is about. You don’t seem to have the ability to understand context. People have different interests and goals, mine that day was to help protect a minority community and show my support.

            The second is that you think I’m angry or that there was a need for me to become, “highly defensive”. From my perspective this is just a conversation, I wasn’t aware it was heated on your side. We’ve had this same conversation so many times that I just assumed you knew it was no big deal to me. I don’t have any passion for this I was just responding (you asked a question and I answered it). It doesn’t matter to me if people pray or if you believe in prayer or not.

            I still think blogging lacks an accurate way to view others in a descriptive venue that allows people to accurately read a persons face and hear their voice to formulate an understanding of how they feel about the topic. I often wonder if top blog writers should hold a video summit. (by top I mean people who post a lot)

            I haven’t decided yet if that’s a good idea but I’m thinking about it.

            But to be clear, I don’t have any feelings about what we are currently talking about. I don’t feel defensive because I don’t think the topic is important or complicated. You feel prayer is useless (ok), I feel theist should talk to god rather that talk to abused gender minorities (seems fair). You haven’t convinced me with any argument so far that I should take my post down or change the content. It’s possible you could (if you had a better argument), but so far it hasn’t happened.

            Like

          111. You read angry into highly defensive?
            Okay … well score one for making shit up on your part.

            I don’t feel defensive because I don’t think the topic is important or complicated.

            Yet, you continually feel compelled to respond – defend – your position. How odd.

            I feel theist should talk to god rather that talk to abused gender minorities (seems fair).

            Yes, and this was the entire point of my post and my initial comment on your post.
            And you STILL don’t seem to grasp the point , or are you simply being obtuse?

            Prayer has no function other than a potential for some sort of therapeutic value, so how does one ”talk to god” especially as there is no method of establishing if such an entity exists.

            If you were to advise theists ”talk to their dolls/teddy bears/ fairies/ trees or any other inanimate object , especially if you were being serious then there is a strong likelihood you would be regarded as delusional, and yet, in context praying to a deity you consider perfectly normal.

            Furthermore, as intercessory prayer has been demonstrated to be useless, and in some cases has had a negative effect, what possible reaction do you expect from your god, Yahweh?

            You haven’t convinced me with any argument so far that I should take my post down or change the content.

            And this is a perfect example not only of your lack of reading comprehension but I suspect a degree of disingenuity is at play also. At no point have I ever suggested or even alluded that you change your post or take it down,.

            Therefore what is the point of recommending praying to (your) god
            when any ”response” would seem to be simply a product of the imagination of the one praying.

            Like

          112. You Stated — “Yet, you continually feel compelled to respond – defend – your position. How odd.”

            My Response — You asked me repeatedly to come to your site and answer questions. You then created a post dedicated to me and I agreed to come over and answer any question you asked.

            I’m not sure how that makes me angry, I seem to be complying and answering no matter what’s asked.

            I will also add that I continue to answer even when you call me names ;), how am I being seen as angry?

            You Asked — Therefore what is the point of recommending praying to (your) god”

            My Response — Again since I posted an article to theist about gender abuse, I (a theist) tell other theist to talk to god rather than gender abused people. My answer is still the same, they should talk to who they believe made the person rather than the person who had no choice in how they were made.

            When I talk to bigots who are non-theist I use science to do the same thing and show them how gender roles are not written in stone with other life forms in nature.

            How this makes me seem angry is silly.

            Like

          113. You asked me repeatedly to come to your site and answer questions

            False.
            The post was not ”dedicated to you.” You really are not special enough.
            The reason for the post should be obvious.
            It’s even in the title.

            My answer is still the same, they should talk to who they believe made the person rather than the person who had no choice in how they were made.

            And my response is also the same.
            When there is no demonstrable evidence to show that prayer is in any way effective why recommend it?
            What, if any, response from your god were you expecting?

            When I talk to bigots who are non-theist I use science to do the same thing and show them how gender roles are not written in stone with other life forms in nature.

            Knowing full well that prayer is demonstrably futile why would you not direct theists to the scientific evidence as well?

            How this makes me seem angry is silly.

            I agree it would be silly. Why did you mention it?

            Like

          114. I think we all understand that you don’t believe in prayer as an atheist.

            You still havnt convinced me to not talk to other theist about prayer on my website. I still believe that as a theist I can talk to other theist about any topic I want especially on my own website.

            Like

          115. I wasn’t trying to convince you not to talk about prayer. I asked why you suggest it when evidence shows it is demonstrably futile.

            Have you managed to recognise that I have not said you were angry?

            Liked by 1 person

          116. You Stated — “I wasn’t trying to convince you not to talk about prayer. I asked why you suggest it …”

            My Response — I didn’t suggest anything, you asked me a question and I answered it.

            You Asked — “Exactly how would one go about this?”

            Because you saw that I stated this in my post to theist:

            “Stop hating on individuals for not being born like you, it’s cowardly, instead be bold and tell God directly how you feel.”

            My answer to your question was “Prayer”.

            You asked me to explain what I was talking about because you didn’t know theist use prayer to communicate with the god they believe in OR you wanted to change the focus of my article from gender abuse to another debate about if god exist.

            You Asked — “Have you managed to recognise that I have not said you were angry?”

            My Response — If you say you didn’t that’s good enough for me but it doesn’t really matter. My feelings are irrelevant. All that matters is that you get the answers that you want. It’s what I agreed to provide for the post you made from my article.

            I was just surprised by you statement that you think I’m defensive about this conversation. How you are not bored with this same topic eludes me but to think I am defensive indicates that you envision me having a passion for this.

            I’m not interested in peoples views on prayer (like you are). I’m interested in what people pray for and why.

            Do you have any more questions?

            Like

          117. Of course you suggested prayer. You explicitly wrote that Theists should talk to your god! Prayer /talking to your god is the reason for this post.
            Again, it’s in the title.
            Goodness me, are you havinge some sort of breakdown?
            More questions?
            Why yes, I do as a matter of fact.
            Why would you not point Theists to scientific evidence to support the laudable aims of your post rather than suggest prayer which will return zero information and thus in context be a complete waste of time?

            Like

          118. You Asked — “Goodness me, are you havinge some sort of breakdown?”

            My Response — I will have to think about that and get back to you.

            Like

          119. You Stated — “No stance on women being with women? Surely you jest? Romans 1: 26 – 27”

            My Response — Now this is an interesting verse which is what my post was about.

            In the context of the verse where would a hermaphrodite fall?

            Side Note — This response post you made did not show up in the wordpress unread list and would not allow me to reply to it directly so I had to put it here. If any others are like this I wouldn’t know since I only reply from the wordpress strip and not your actual site (easier to follow the conversation thread).

            Just an FYI

            Liked by 1 person

          120. In the context of the verse where would a hermaphrodite fall?

            I have no idea.
            However, if fallen I am sure your god will offer an invitation to repent or failing that send them to Hell.
            Should we pray and ask your god, do you think?
            It would probably be best if you undertake this task as …well, you know, I’m an atheist.
            Let me know what your god suggests, okay?
            Cool.

            Like

          121. You Stated — “I have no idea.”

            My Response — I don’t know if you remember this but I stated to you earlier (several times) that this was the reason theist give up the debate with me because they didn’t know there were so many variations of gender. They had no idea and sharing that information changes the tide of abuse.

            Same thing with non-theist, most people don’t know any thing about the different genders so I educate people to reduce hate and abuse.

            Some people are born with both male and female sexual organs, they are called hermaphrodites. A person born with both ovaries and testicles and has both male and female sex organs.

            In 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), androgen levels are normal but an enzyme necessary for male genital development is missing; these individuals may appear to be female and may be raised as girls, but at puberty they develop masculine secondary sex characteristics.

            A female pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic female but has male external sex organs.

            A male pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic male but with external sex organs that fail to develop properly, resulting in female or male/female physical characteristics.

            Intrauterine hormonal effects. In congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a female fetus (XX) has high levels of adrenal hormone and is born looking like a boy.

            In androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), a male fetus is unresponsive to androgens and is born looking like a girl.

            Why this makes me an angry person in your eyes is nonsensical.

            Like

          122. The same ‘spectrum’ across about 100/th of 1 % of the animal kingdom is also ‘non-binary’ this way. But it makes absolutely no rational sense to pretend 99.99% of the population isn’t binary and divided into males and females based on gamete size. This binary biological sex-based differential is not stopped at the brain where, POOF! – it becomes fluid. Your entire biology AND biological development is unquestionably affected by either male or female sex. Not both. Not neither. One or the other even though secondary sex characteristics may be constituted from some combination. But unless you truly believe that bulls and cows are ‘assigned’ their sex by other bovines, this entire subject of all of us going along with some magical malleable gender identity is beyond ludicrous: it denies reality in the name of something else.

            Liked by 1 person

          123. You Stated — “The same ‘spectrum’ across about 100/th of 1 % of the animal kingdom is also ‘non-binary’ this way.”

            My Response — The number of genders doesn’t negate the reality that they exist. If anything you are stating that I’m factually correct in saying that more than two genders exist and they did not have a choice in it.

            You Stated — “This binary biological sex-based differential is not stopped at the brain where, POOF! – it becomes fluid.”

            My Response — Nature disagrees with you. Male Clown Fish can turn into females if the alpha female dies. You know… like POOF.

            You Stated — “Your entire biology AND biological development is unquestionably affected by either male or female sex. Not both.”

            My Response — Which one is an hermaphrodite affected by?

            You Stated — “But unless you truly believe that bulls and cows are ‘assigned’ their sex by other bovines, this entire subject of all of us going along with some magical malleable gender identity is beyond ludicrous: it denies reality in the name of something else.”

            My Response — People are complicated and their bodies are complicated. We can no longer live in a world where we deny others the right to be who they were born to be. It’s damaging lives and we don’t know enough to say they are wrong. Let them be who they say they are, it’s not hard to do.

            Liked by 1 person

          124. “The number of genders doesn’t negate the reality that they exist.”

            Well, if you can even define gender, that would help tremendously in determining this ‘reality’. Good luck with that. So the problem is immediately apparent: not knowing what ‘gender identity’ means in reality makes “determining this reality” highly problematic, don’t you think? Remember, you can’t use biological sex in this definition because we already know what this definition is based on physiological facts, and so whatever this other ‘identity’ is you’re talking about doesn’t align with the biological facts that every human (except for a tiny fraction) is born with: either male or female gametes. No amount of emotional or psychological confusion about which applies to whom alters this fact.

            “We can no longer live in a world where we deny others the right to be who they were born to be.”

            Two things here: I’m not denying anyone their ability to live any way they want… as adults. That’s fine and I think adults can alter whatever they want on their bodies including hormones and testosterone. I sincerely doubt most teenagers today who are transitioning without any meaningful and honest medical and psychological process to weed out normal developmental confusion have any clue what this medicalization of their future lives will be like to make an informed decision. Adults at least have the stability from developing FIRST before making such profound an disruptive change. But please, don’t try to pretend we can substitute slippery words to alter these hard facts of a binary sex model that follows typical human development and intervene with these drugs that only mask their physiological facts to create wiggle room for made up gender shit. For example, this crap that babies are ‘assigned’ a sex at birth is full on bullshit: their bodies determine their sex in almost every case (sure, there are a few outliers) and they physiologically develop according to this biology. The exceptions are just that: rare exceptions (and not some vague and temporary mental state) and should be medically treated this way.

            Then second part involves assuming – because that’s what you are doing – that ‘gender’ is established at birth. This is the big lie. Sex is established at birth, not this undefinable term called gender, and sometimes there’s a discrepancy between birth sex and the feelings someone has about being that sex. Again, adults have the right too live whatever way they want but no one has the right to insist I go along with the lie that sex is the arbitrary assignment at birth and ‘gender identity’ is the biological fact. That’s simply not true. In fact, this claim is exactly backwards and it is pushed as an ideology to then justify later transitioning to ‘correct’ for a mistaken ‘assignment’… aka biology! It’s a circular argument that is trying to replace reality with a belief. And the belief is factually wrong 99.99% of the time IN REALITY. In fact, over 80% of all gender-confused youth grow out of this feeling naturally. Some become gays and lesbians and that’s fine, too. But of the 20% who do not, about half go on to receive medical intervention. Of those, about half transition BACK! The case of Bell in England versus the Tavistock Clinic should be an eye opener for anyone who remains confused on this issue. Informed consent is key, and believing an assumption that replaces reality with an ideology guarantees any consent that follows is not informed.

            Liked by 4 people

          125. You Stated — “Well, if you can even define gender, that would help tremendously in determining this ‘reality’. Good luck with that.”

            My Response — Sure:

            Bigender
            A person who identifies as bigender has two genders. People who are bigender often display cultural masculine and feminine roles.

            Cisgender
            A cisgender person identifies with the sex that they were assigned at birth.

            Genderqueer
            A person who identifies as genderqueer has a gender identity or expression that is not the same as society’s expectations for their assigned sex or assumed gender.

            Nonbinary
            A person who identifies as nonbinary does not experience gender within the gender binary.

            Transgender
            This is an umbrella term that encompasses all people who experience and identify with a different gender than that which their assigned sex at birth would suggest.

            You Stated — “So the problem is immediately apparent: not knowing what ‘gender identity’ means in reality makes “determining this reality” highly problematic, don’t you think?”

            My Response — Yes… That is, until I educated myself on the topic.

            You Stated — “…so whatever this other ‘identity’ is you’re talking about doesn’t align with the biological facts that every human (except for a tiny fraction) is born with”

            My Response — But isn’t that you supporting what I’m saying again. You admit that a fraction of humans have biological designs that identify as other genders. The gender classifications are only for the fractions of people you mentioned. You are agreeing with me so where is the conflict?

            You Stated — “…either male or female gametes. No amount of emotional or psychological confusion about which applies to whom alters this fact.”

            My Response — Agreed but we are talking about a biological system that a human mind has to psychologically deal with.

            In 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), androgen levels are normal but an enzyme necessary for male genital development is missing; these individuals may appear to be female and may be raised as girls, but at puberty they develop masculine secondary sex characteristics.

            A female pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic female but has male external sex organs.

            A male pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic male but with external sex organs that fail to develop properly, resulting in female or male/female physical characteristics.

            Intrauterine hormonal effects. In congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a female fetus (XX) has high levels of adrenal hormone and is born looking like a boy.

            In androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), a male fetus is unresponsive to androgens and is born looking like a girl.

            You Stated — “But please, don’t try to pretend we can substitute slippery words to alter these hard facts of a binary sex model that follows typical human development and intervene with these drugs that only mask their physiological facts to create wiggle room for made up gender shit.”

            My Response — But isn’t the opposite true. We as a society are telling people to ignore their biological reality to conform to the majority gender. We even go as far as to surgically alter them at birth or put them on medication to force them into a gender norm that society claims is the standard model.

            You Stated — “For example, this crap that babies are ‘assigned’ a sex at birth is full on bullshit: their bodies determine their sex in almost every case (sure, there are a few outliers) and they physiologically develop according to this biology. The exceptions are just that: rare exceptions…”

            My Response — It still seems like we are agreeing and the only difference is that you see little to no value in the “outliers” and “rare exceptions”. But those are people and those are the people being abused by gender norms that have strong beliefs on how things should be. You would be more open to it if you were one of the “Rare Exceptions” 😉

            You Stated — “This is the big lie. Sex is established at birth, not this undefinable term called gender, and sometimes there’s a discrepancy between birth sex and the feelings someone has about being that sex”

            My Response — But that isn’t true in the case of a female pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic female but has male external sex organs. This would be a typical person you would take issue with because they would have a ‘gender identity’ claim that doesn’t visually align with your reality. If you alter you perception a bit through gender education you might be able to change that reality.

            Just Saying

            You Stated — In fact, over 80% of all gender-confused youth grow out of this feeling naturally. Some become gays and lesbians and that’s fine, too. But of the 20% who do not, about half go on to receive medical intervention. Of those, about half transition BACK!”

            My Response — This is a very strange argument, you are literally agreeing with me about gender and somehow still opposing the desire for a persons free will to change it as needed. I think people should be able to change gender (if we have the technology) as often as it pleases them. I see no reason to care what they want to be or not to be. It seems to me that it’s their choice and would make sense to me for them to choose as they see fit.

            Why would you be opposed to that?

            Like

          126. You didn’t define ‘gender’ without doing exactly that which I said you could not do: immediately heading into the circular definition that it has something to do with one’s sex but needing to change it. But we know sex is based not on assignment but on one’s gametes and this is not fluid, it’s not some magical spectrum. It’s binary. This remains the same for all these outliers regardless of primary and secondary sex characteristics. This is why I said ‘treatment’ for those who wish to change these characteristics for emotional and psychological reasons (usually related to dysfunction) is something an adult and not children might decide. But these transitions are FROM something TO something… hence the term TRANSITION. From what to what if not sex-based!?

            You see the little circle you’ve adopted by inserting ‘gender’ to be BOTH what you are born with (sex) as well as what as fluid enough to justify transitioning to (characteristics)!? Of course you want it both ways – and it has to be to fit the ideology – but the problem is not the level of my education about ‘gender’; it’s about reality arbitrating the ideology to be rationally incoherent. Your sex is biological. And it’s binary. Gender is the ideology and its meaning is a social construction that is not true.

            Liked by 2 people

          127. You Stated — “…we know sex is based not on assignment but on one’s gametes and this is not fluid, it’s not some magical spectrum.”

            My Response — In nature a hermaphrodite increases the chances of solitary organisms reproducing, because they can both give and receive gametes. This allows them to both share their DNA, while at the same time having the chance to develop an offspring of their own. This can decreased the chance that a random event will wipe out the population.

            In humans we have science and technology that allows us to modify not only our appearance but also our mechanics and genetics. We are already making changes to human offspring pre birth for simple things like eye and hair color, it’s just a matter of time before we have full control over gender at any stage in life.

            You are fighting a future that can’t be stopped, your way of thinking is dated. But above all that, why does it matter what someone else wants for their body or mental well being? What do you loose in your life if someone else gets to choose who or what they want to be?

            You Stated — “Your sex is biological. And it’s binary. Gender is the ideology and its meaning is a social construction that is not true.”

            My Response — How would you know that to be true?

            If a person that looks like a male and has a penis states that they identify as a female how would you be able to say they were wrong?

            A female pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic female but has male external sex organs.

            How would you ever know what a person is other than what they tell you? Are you doing this based on what you think they are when you look at them?

            Like

          128. Lander, the number of people with both gametes are about 1/1000th of 1%. It is a chromosomal anomaly and disorder because it comes with significant physiological problems. It is also astonishingly rare but 96% occur in Africa. This is the only case I can think of where the parents truly do assign one or the other sex. To hold up the incredibly rare exception in order to justify calling all mothers the ‘birth parent’ in all official documentation is not a sign of tolerance. It is linguistically dishonest.

            99.99% (remember me already raising this point several times? Gee, I wonder why?) of all infants are either male or female based on their gametes. There is no ‘assigning’ done. There is a biological recognition of this fact. Introducing the language of ‘gender’ clarifies nothing. And notice you STILL haven’t defined this term so that I still cannot take this definition and apply it to a person’s biology (remember, me already asking you this question several times now and receiving no definition that isn’t based on sex? Gee, I wonder why?).

            You continue to argue that I am somehow ‘denying’ people some choice about what they do to their own bodies. I have already said several times that adults can do whatever they want too their sex characteristics and I’m fine with that so please stop insisting that I think otherwise.

            What I’m not fine with is this linguistic game that tries to make gender the biological fact (oh, but also and magically considered fluid when convenient to suit the confused feeling of some people) and sex the ‘assigned’ ideology. That’s bullshit. And it’s bullshit because each of us develops with the biology we have on board and it is different between females and males REGARDLESS of whatever surgeries are carried out on particular sex characteristics, REGARDLESS of how we might feel about having this biology on board. The biology is real. Not only do these biological differences include the biology of muscles and bone and size but also and most importantly the brain. There really are differences that can be determined quite easily… and ARE used all the time in forensics.

            Pretending we can wave the facts of biology aside is a lie. No amount of waving changing the biology. Try it for yourself! And non-binary gender ideology as a substitute for the biological reality of binary sex for 99.99% of every human on then planet is rationally incoherent when we use reality to arbitrate its fundamental claims. Gender ideology is not true. Sex is not fluid. So going along with this incoherence as if this demonstrates tolerance towards people when it is nothing more than demonstrating tolerance for a linguistic lie is very foolish. Now, Feynman argued we shouldn’t try to fool ourselves because this has costs for everyone. He had a point. Just look at the thousands of teenage girls currently undergoing chemically induced developmental delay and infertility and breast removal surgery because they would prefer not be female. This is insanity. I go one step further: I think we should not LIE to ourselves in order to feel as if we are virtuous doing so. Lying and causing a great deal of harm (please listen to those who have desisted and detransitioned about the medical horrors they’ve had too endure without having informed consent when they were confused teens and went along with the lie) cannot be virtuous. It is actually a vice I think far too many people are committing but have convinced themselves they are being virtuous. That shows you the power of the lie. We shouldn’t be so easily susceptible to fooling ourselves this badly, for calling a lie ‘tolerance’ but respecting reality ‘transphobic’. This is incoherent.

            Liked by 5 people

          129. Fooling people into denying reality and substituting a belief is an age old human foible. Notice that it almost always comes accompanied by threat, intimidation, injustice, and harm because… well, because substituting a belief requires a little more help when reality refuses to go along. So just because the belief seems modern and progressive today doesn’t make it any less foolish or dangerous or harmful. Just seductive. And easier.

            Liked by 1 person

          130. You Stated — “To hold up the incredibly rare exception in order to justify calling all mothers the ‘birth parent’ in all official documentation is not a sign of tolerance. It is linguistically dishonest.”

            My Response – I didn’t say that.

            There may be some confusion on what my position is so let me be clear. We are in the process of ending evolution, mankind will transition from Homo Sapiens to Homo Superior. This is not a possibility; it is a matter of time. As we progress forward with improvements to our technological capabilities, the distance from thought to reality shortens until we reach a point where physical features and capabilities are menu items.

            I’m literally stating that your position is outdated and will be short lived. You can rage against the machine for as long as you draw breath on the earth, but gender fluidity will be a reality in the future for human beings. Every generation of man will improve on how to get there. Your grandchildren will most likely live in a world where they can physically and mentally switch gender roles over a weekend.

            You Stated – “I still cannot take this definition and apply it to a person’s biology (remember, me already asking you this question several times now and receiving no definition that isn’t based on sex”

            My Response – I have answered it, but I fear the answer has not been understood.

            I have stated several times that the model for future archetypes is the hermaphrodite. A being that cannot be characterized by sex since all options are equal and reproduction is not a factor. This literally creates a being of pure gender fluidity that can identify as male, female, or non-binary based on preference of mind. Technology will allow society to replicate this and improve on it.

            You Stated – “You continue to argue that I am somehow ‘denying’ people some choice about what they do to their own bodies.”

            My Response – Close but let me add some nuance.

            I’m saying that your vocal resistance to a change in gender societal norms is an unnecessary obstacle that produces no positive outcome. At its least, it makes someone feel bad who needs support rather than negative feedback. At best it emboldens the hate of others and triggers abusive behavior in uneducated social groups.

            You Stated – “…it’s bullshit because each of us develops with the biology we have on board, and it is different between females and males REGARDLESS of whatever surgeries are carried out on particular sex characteristics…”

            My Response — Incorrect, it’s clearly not bullshit since lives are on the line and money is spent. When people are willing to go under the knife and broke at the same time, I come to the understanding that we have left the bullshit behind (no pun intended)

            This is happening, the rules are changing and our ability to manipulate biology is improving almost daily. It’s time to either get onboard or be left behind. (Complicated pun intended)

            You Stated – “Pretending we can wave the facts of biology aside is a lie.”

            My Response – The first baby was born from a transplanted womb in Sweden in 2014. A lab at Wake Forest University in North Carolina is creating human organs.

            You Stated – “We shouldn’t be so easily susceptible to fooling ourselves this badly, for calling a lie ‘tolerance’ but respecting reality ‘transphobic’. This is incoherent.”

            My Response – The only person fooled is the one who thought they could control the inevitable with words about what can’t be done. Graveyards all over the world are filled with people who said something couldn’t be done and they were wrong. Resistance in nonsensical.

            Like

          131. You seem to assume that there is some way of putting aside the biological facts and developmental consequences of being born either male or female. This is simply not true, Lander7. It is a lie. No amount of therapy, no amount of surgery, no amount of developmental impairment through chemical intervention can alter the fact of biological sex. To believe otherwise is based not on what’s true. It is based on a belief that stands contrary to reality. So if we’re going to then base medical and public policy and procedures and therapies and laws on the assumption that biological sex is not true, what you think the results will be?

            Well, we are starting to see what these results are and they are not good. The inevitable results are coming in and they amount to a hostile takeover of the female reality. In all areas into which transgendered ideology is imposed. Women’s shelters. Rape centers. Prisons. Sports. Fully intact males by virtue of their ‘gender feelings’ are now allowed by law in many states (and in many countries) to dominate women’s spaces and services, allowed to elevate their ‘feelings’ to be of greater concern than the feelings of females whose health and welfare and opportunity they can now push aside as ‘transphobic’.

            Gender ideology is the lie. I can understand why so many men think other men should ‘deserve’ to take over all women’s spaces if they so choose. It used to be called ‘misogyny’, and it’s been around forever. But I cannot understand anyone who pretends to respect equality of the sexes – anti-misogyny, if you will – and then thinks this hostile takeover is right and proper and virtuous when it causes so much harm to so many people who are born female.

            Is it any wonder than the primary reason for transitioning by young girls is that they do not want to be female? Well, golly gee whiz, I wonder why?

            Liked by 2 people

          132. You Stated — “You seem to assume that there is some way of putting aside the biological facts and developmental consequences of being born either male or female.”

            My Response — If those are the two choices then which one is a hermaphrodite?

            You Stated — “It is a lie. No amount of therapy, no amount of surgery, no amount of developmental impairment through chemical intervention can alter the fact of biological sex.”

            My Response — Science doesn’t agree with you. Several medical conditions can result in a sex change in humans, where the appearance at birth is somewhat, mostly, or completely of one sex, but changes over the course of a lifetime to being somewhat, mostly, or completely of the other sex. Overwhelming majority of natural sex changes are from a female appearance at birth to a male appearance after puberty, due to either 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency (17beta-HSD-3). Science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.

            You Stated — “Well, we are starting to see what these results are and they are not good. The inevitable results are coming in and they amount to a hostile takeover of the female reality.”

            My Response — Your fear here seems to be of what you feel a woman’s role is in society. Each individual must find there own place in the world, regardless of how you view them. Culture changes and the roles people play in them change. You are living in a time of change for the role gender plays in society and what it means to be a man or a woman.

            You may fear this but change is a constant and it will not stop.

            You Stated — “I cannot understand anyone who pretends to respect equality of the sexes”

            My Response — So you don’t understand why a woman would want equal pay for equal work as an example? If you do believe they should have equal pay then you can see opportunities where there is equality of the sexes.

            You Stated — “Is it any wonder than the primary reason for transitioning by young girls is that they do not want to be female? Well, golly gee whiz, I wonder why?”

            My Response — So you are suggesting that all cases of females wanting to change gender cleanly fit under your one assumption of “why”.

            I disagree, I think it’s far more complex and that each individual has personal compelling reasons for why they want to transition.

            I think your are grossly over simplifying a complex issue and then trying to fit it through a narrow understanding of an even more complex biology.

            I’m not convinced by your argument and I think it’s void of compassion for those who are gender abused.

            Like

          133. If a person that looks like a male and has a penis states that they identify as a female how would you be able to say they were wrong?

            ”Oh, look, everyone, it’s Usain Bolt, lining up for the women’s 200 metre Olympic final. Usain, who now identifies as female, is making a comeback in an attempt to win more gold medals, this time as a woman. Yes, we know he still looks like that playful loveable muscular hunk of a man he always was even at his age, but he has assured us he is now female.
            And the starter raises his gun….”
            ”On your marks …”

            Liked by 1 person

          134. You Stated — “Oh, look, everyone, it’s Usain Bolt, lining up for the women’s 200 metre Olympic final”

            My Response — Is you Argument that a female pseudohermaphrodite doesn’t exist because Usain Bolt could potentially be accepted by the Olympic committee as a female runner?

            This is your best argument against me stating that gender minorities should not be judged by appearance and then harassed because they may in fact have male external genitalia but be a fully biologically female on the inside?

            So when a person that looks like a man identifies as female because they have a less than normal biological build your stance is “look, everyone, it’s Usain Bolt, lining up for the women’s 200 meter Olympic final”

            But you want me to take you seriously?

            Like

          135. Would you accept Bolt’s “right” to identify as a woman and compete alongside what you and I would recognise as regular women athletes?

            Like

          136. You Stated — “Would you accept Bolt’s “right” to identify as a woman and compete alongside what you and I would recognise as regular women athletes?”

            My Response — So for this straw man exercise my role is to determine if Usain Bolt should be accepted as a woman in the Olympics to prove I’m wrong or right about gender minorities having the right to make choices about their own bodies and not be abused by others for those choices.

            Sure let’s do this why not:

            My position is this. I will 100% accept the Olympic Committee to decide who they will and will not allow to play in the games since they are the governing body. They can deny or accept without pushback from me.

            My post was about people being harassed and abused so my focus would be more on the media or individual hate crimes.

            This would be a better example of where I may have concerns with the Olympics:

            “The president of the Tokyo Olympics Organizing Committee was replaced this year after he publicly suggested that women speak too much in meetings.”

            Like

          137. Oh Lander, you are SO behind the times, my friend. The offense archeologists have been busy, busy, busy!

            A well known comedian who was the creative director in charge of the opening ceremonies was fired the day before it opened the Games because it was ‘revealed’ that a comedy routine he did years earlier he used a phrase ridiculing the holocaust. The composer of Tokyo’s Olympic theme was then let go because it was ‘revealed’ he had a “history of bullying”. It was also ‘revealed’ that the Creative Chief of the Tokyo Olympics ‘fat-shamed’ an obese comedian earlier in the year. So the sexist remarks by the Organizing Committee president was just as fatal as these other terrible and thoughtless transgressions. Obviously, the man’s career must be destroyed. I mean, come ON. Get with these ‘progressive’ times!

            It’s amazing that only the ideologically pure (just so happens what’s pure aligns with ‘correct’ gender ideology… what were the chances?) and survive such revelations. (Just ask Justin Trudeau.) Against this puritanical but oh-so-virtuous backdrop, do you honestly think anyone is going to question any man claiming to feel he is a woman for the purposes of winning a medal? Or make a joke? Ever? Gotta love this Brave New World, where some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

            Liked by 1 person

          138. You Stated — “Oh Lander, you are SO behind the times, my friend. The offense archeologists have been busy, busy, busy!”

            My Response — I’m aware of other issues with prejudice and abuse (even some you listed) but our focus was on gender so I didn’t speak to those.

            You Stated — “Against this puritanical but oh-so-virtuous backdrop, do you honestly think anyone is going to question any man claiming to feel he is a woman for the purposes of winning a medal?”

            My Response — If they can question skin color for walking down a street then they can question just about anything.

            You Stated — “Gotta love this Brave New World, where some pigs are more equal than other pigs.”

            My Response — It seems that you liked the world when it was the pig pen of your choice dominating. Try this, same pigs differnt hierarchy.

            My suggestion to you is to accept change, since it’s a constant.

            Like

          139. No, it’s not a constant; that’s the point. It is one way to frame the world. And I think a rather malicious way that is toxic to unity, toxic to human rights, toxic to equality and dignity and respect for others. It is descent back into prejudice and misogyny and discrimination and does so because the ideology conveniently forgets that individual people are the real things here and not the groups and hierarchies they merely represent.

            For this toxic ideology to take root and start its social rot requires believers who care more about their feelings of being virtuous following orders than true and honest compassion and respect for others. We have seen where this kind of ‘Just Following Orders’ leads and it’s not a good place.

            Liked by 3 people

          140. You Stated in regard to “Change” — “No, it’s not a constant; that’s the point.”

            My Response — It literally is.

            You Stated — “And I think a rather malicious way that is toxic to unity, toxic to human rights, toxic to equality and dignity and respect for others…the ideology conveniently forgets that individual people are the real things here…”

            My Response — I disagree with you 100% because I believe “Each Individual” should have the right to change gender via technology any time they want.

            I have a question for you tildeb. If a gay couple wanted to adopt a child and they were known to be advocates for teaching gender awareness and transitioning to people of all ages, would you recommend that they not be allowed to adopt?

            Like

          141. You Asked — “Can you be more explicit regarding the term “all ages”?”

            Because I asked Tildeb this question he didn’t answer — “I have a question for you tildeb. If a gay couple wanted to adopt a child and they were known to be advocates for teaching gender awareness and transitioning to people of all ages, would you recommend that they not be allowed to adopt?”

            My Answer — Sure, some LGBTQ goups currently have gender awareness books in Kindergarten classes here in the US. So the question starts at that age and up.

            Like

          142. I didn’t bother to answer because it’s a non sequitur. Gays and lesbians like all people who can provide a nourishing and loving home environment for children have every right to adopt children. That’s what equality rights means. And I’m a big supporter of equality rights. So their beliefs about transgender issues is beside the point.

            But I have certainly have issue with ANY parent who thinks children have the right to prescribe themselves medication, to receive ONLY affirmation about surgical transitioning (in the midst or beginning of sexual developmental maturity) to address recent feelings of discomfort, who are urged to use medicine to change ‘gender’ when questioning it (as if this medical intervention will somehow address the confusion and magically turn people of one sex into the sex of the other and so effectively address gender dysphoria… you know,, addressing the BINARY sex category almost everyone is born into… hence the partial TRANSitioning from one set of sex-based characteristics to some of the sex-based characteristics you argue ‘science’ claims doesn’t exist (?), claiming ‘science’ tells us this binary set of characteristics is actually a ‘spectrum’, in which case what is one TRANSition from and to? This is incoherent.), advocating that children should decide to become infertile if they choose, should become medicalized for the remainder of their lives based on a temporary confused feeling, and so on, and so on. Any parent who thinks this is a GOOD idea, a good ideology to follow, a good idea to empower children to make these life-altering decisions at a time in life where confusion and uncertainty about sex is absolutely normal and then think it’s a good idea to force the entire medial profession to ‘affirm’ this idiocy I think is a terrible parent BECAUSE they are not putting the health and welfare of their child ahead of their own incoherent ideology.

            And I’ve raised this point about same-sex attraction before: equality is based on sexual attraction as biological and not some vague spectrum of feelings. This is important in law BECAUSE denying equal service and consideration on characteristics INHERITED turns the denial into discrimination. You really need to grasp this understanding before you skip ahead and ignore why it’s so damned important. Like skin colour, you can’t change it by deciding to alter some behaviour. That makes discriminating on this basis prohibited. Now along comes gender identity and it argues that sex-based inheritance is magically ASSIGNED and can arbitrarily changed on a whim because it just a social construct. That ideology is is DIRECTLY contrary to what gay and lesbian equality of rights is based on: IMMUTIBILITY. For gays and lesbians to support ‘trans’ rights is like having a bus with gay and lesbian drivers at one end and transactivists at the other end driving in exactly the opposite direction. It’s batshit crazy. Furthermore, with affirmation the only acceptable medical advice possible, the number of young gays and lesbians has fallen off a cliff to the point where one of the most powerful slurs against a girl is to call her a lesbian. That’s the inevitable result we are supporting – intentionally or not – when we go along with the lie that sex is arbitrary but gender is the biology.

            Liked by 1 person

          143. You Stated — “I didn’t bother to answer because it’s a non sequitur.”

            Because I asked this question — “I have a question for you tildeb. If a gay couple wanted to adopt a child and they were known to be advocates for teaching gender awareness and transitioning to people of all ages, would you recommend that they not be allowed to adopt?”

            My Reasoning — Since we have a difference of opinion on why gender minorities are abused and what could end such abuse, I was curious where you line of reasoning ended in real world scenarios. It’s possible that regardless of what we believe in this circumstance we may, in fact, end up in the exact same response, when it comes to peoples rights. If that’s true then my position can become more adjustable since the outcome would be the same. But if in the end your position leads to less opportunities for minority groups then our two positions are rightfully at odds with each other since I support those groups having equal rights as majority groups enjoy.

            So my question is fairly simple to you Tildeb:

            “If a gay couple wanted to adopt a child and they were known to be advocates for teaching gender awareness and transitioning to people of all ages, would you recommend that they not be allowed to adopt?”

            I am also curious about this other unanswered question which I now know you think is a non sequitur. You Stated several times that there are only two genders “Male” and “Female”, since I argued that there are more I was curious how you answer this question.

            “What gender is an hermaphrodite?”

            To be clear, you have the right to continue avoiding these two questions. I am just re-asking them with more context now that I know why you didn’t answer them. I understand that some questions may be seen as, “to personal”, and you have the right to avoid a response to them. I will not push them again past this, if you don’t respond again.

            Like

          144. You Stated several times that there are only two genders “Male” and “Female”.

            Not quite: I have said repeatedly there are only two biological sexes, male and female., I have no clue what this ‘gender’ word means in biological terms, nor have you been able (or ANYONE, for that matter) provide clarification. You keep missing the fact that I fully realize that these two can be mixed on occasion but that these are so rare as to be not worth considering when we’re talking about a 4000% rise in children transitioning between one to the other. Also, this transition is not 100% and cannot be anywhere near this scope because sex differentiation directly affects human development across all biology (meaning the very real sex differential between males and females does not stop at the neck). Transitioning alters or promotes just SOME of the sex characteristics (and suppresses others) in exchange for ongoing medical intervention for life to keep these characteristics from re-expressing themselves. Of course, cutting off one’s breast will ensure they do not re-express, but taking regular shots of testosterone will ensure infertility for whichever gametes one’s biology produces. It also ensures easy retinal detachment. Just one of the perks rarely mentioned by any medical doctor busy as they are affirming some girl’s decision to bind and go on T no matter what any adult in any position might think.

            You also seem to have great difficulty understanding that I am very much against transgendered ideology that put our children at such unnecessary risk AND relegates women into second class citizens who must always yield to the imposition of males who CLAIM to be females. This claim is a lie. It is a biological impossibility even with medical intervention to promote or suppress certain sex-based characteristics.

            You also seem unable to grasp that I think adults can do whatever they want to their bodies. That’s not the issue I am raising. The issue is the IMPOSITION of an incoherent irrational gender ideology onto everyone, pretending that ‘gender’ is a thing and sex is a construct. This is based on the lie that people can change their sex by various kinds of interventions. They can present as female or male (or, in very rare cases, some combination) but their biology has decided for them. This is the fact.

            So changing laws and medical practices and social rules based on an incoherent, irrational ideology that is not true in reality is wrong. And women are paying the price. This, too, is not equality but intentional and intrusive and demeaning discrimination.

            So the gender of a hermaphrodite is a nonsensical question because neither you nor I know what ‘gender’ actually is, and the reason for that is because the word is an empty term in biologically meaning. So a hermaphrodite is a combination of male and female. These are the only two biological states even when they can be genetically mixed and matched!

            I don’t expect you to grasp this fact because I don’t think you are able to understand it when you rely on the incoherent and irrational gender identity framing of sex. It will all be too confusing because the framing is factually wrong.

            Liked by 2 people

          145. tildeb wrote — and I totally agree — So changing laws and medical practices and social rules based on an incoherent, irrational ideology that is not true in reality is wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          146. The late Michael Jackson did some interesting things to his appearance, but as an adult and he justified it on the grounds that he was a performing artist,
            He may have been considered a bit weird but there was no serious controversy in what he did.
            Administering hormonal drugs etc to kids is …
            well, I cant think of a suitable word as this is a family blog!
            You may presume something along the lines of spitting feathers.

            Liked by 2 people

          147. You Stated — “I have said repeatedly there are only two biological sexes, male and female., I have no clue what this ‘gender’ word means in biological terms, nor have you been able (or ANYONE, for that matter) provide clarification.”

            My Response — “Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition. This assigned sex is called a person’s “Natal Sex.” Male, female, and intersex genitalia are different, each body type (5) have distinct hormonal and chromosomal makeups.

            Gender refers to how a person identifies due to a biological makeup. Unlike natal sex, gender is not made up of binary forms. People may identify with genders that are different from their natal sex assignment.

            At birth, Natal Sex female-assigned people have higher levels of estrogen and progesterone, and while Natal Sex assigned males have higher levels of testosterone. Assigned Natal Sex females typically have two copies of the X chromosome, and Natal Sex assigned males have one X and one Y chromosome. Intersex chromosomal markers vary. Example: Some babies are born with two or three X chromosomes.

            Being intersex can mean different things. For example, a person might have genitals or internal sex organs that fall outside of typical binary categories. Or, a person might have a different combination of chromosomes. Some people do not know that they are intersex until they reach puberty so they change how they identify in gender but no change is made to the Natal Sex assignment.

            Biology drives gender identification. Gender identity is how a person feels internally, while their expression is how they present themselves to the outside world. For example, a person may identify as nonbinary but present as a man to the outside world.

            This is not due to a mental state but rather to a biological directive (many times after puberty).

            Example of Gender Identification:
            A female pseudohermaphrodite – a genetic female but has male external sex organs will be assigned a Natal Sex classification of male but after puberty they will develop Female Sex characteristics due to genetic programming that is different than their Natal Sex assignment. They will then begin to identify as a specific gender given the more complex nature of their biological makeup.

            Does this provide clarification?

            Like

          148. No, Landerr7; rather than clarify anything it demonstrates the problem of trying to impose an ideology contrary to reality on reality.

            You assume the made-up version of what gender is is somehow different than the biology that produces sex. For example, simply using the term ‘assigning at birth’ and then trying to make it sound more sciencey by calling it ‘natal’ ignores the reality that differentiated gametes that create binary sex begins early in the gestation process and directs physiological development across the entire fetus long before birth. This very first differentiation when the two gametes combine is where the ‘assigning’ begins and it’s not at birth. This is just a fact. Smearing this with an imported biology-denying ideology to allow some kind of wiggle room for some weird notion that ‘gender’ comes from biology but that ‘sex’ is assigned shows any reasonable person that ‘gender’ is not “driven” by biology; rather, any ‘gender identity’ to be biologically based must be “driven” by sex! And sex is not assigned! It just is. (But this doesn’t fit with the ideology and so reality must be wrong!) As are the rare cases of mix-matched gametes, all of which as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) yields infertility for just this reason. Fertility requires both gametes – the binary state of sex in biology – even if both are held by a critter capable of self reproduction, in which case they are both sexes. But this, too, doesn’t fit the ideology that tries to make fundamental biology of the sexes wrong and the ideology corrective. This is one reason why transactivist ideology about gender identity is incoherent.

            Like

          149. Good grief, but you are thick. Why do you reject my words that tell you exactly what I think and insert your beliefs about what you think I mean in as negative a light as possible?

            How many times does it take for me to say that sometimes there are anomalies – mixtures – of the binary sex chromosomes? How many times does it take for you to recognize that we’re talking about less than 1 on thousandth of one percent, which is WHY these conditions are considered anomalies?

            Why do you presume that ‘gender identity’ is in any way related to intersex babies or teens who desire chemically and surgically forced transition of secondary sex characteristics? Their chromosomes don’t change, Lander7. People who are XY – the majority now of those wishing to transition and almost the entire population either XX or XY transitioners – don’t magically change by these means into XX. You seem to believe they will or do when in fact they CAN’T. This is why such transitions requires life long medical intervention that I suspect few teens really grasp when they encounter nothing but mandated ‘affirmation’ from EVERY medical, counselling, therapeutic, or social services if they are considering no longer wishing to be a boy or a girl. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with intersex children. Nothing.

            So for you to assume that criticizing the motivating ideology for the wanton harm caused by transitioning to self-diagnosing and self prescribing children means no concern for intersex children is truly bizarre.

            Like

          150. I have noted Lander’s penchant for behaving in this manner. I have asked/suggested he may have some issue with reading comprehension or cognitive disability. He always palms such suggestions aside and replies in what I consider to be an asinine fashion, carefully and deliberately cherry picking words or phrases from comments to further his own position while ignoring the more pertinent parts. It seems he does this with every interlocutor that questions his position on anything.
            Disengenuity is the only other possibility I can come up with.

            Like

          151. I now understand your position.

            You see intersex people as mistakes in nature.

            You Stated — “How many times does it take for me to say that sometimes there are anomalies… we’re talking about less than 1 on thousandth of one percent, … ”

            Your view is the same as Theist in asserting that intersex children are not intended.

            You Asked — “Why do you presume that ‘gender identity’ is in any way related to intersex babies or teens who desire chemically and surgically forced transition of secondary sex characteristics?”

            Interesting — You see no connection between children born as males at birth but then identifying as female later and wanting alterations done. Males that discover they are in fact pseudohermaphrodites – a genetic female but has male external sex organs.

            Your viewpoint is that there is no logical connection between those two regardless of the medical community stating that there is in many cases.

            I think it’s nonsensical to ignore the science of intersex children and I don’t see them as a mistake in nature. They are a variation and may become dominants in the future if the species focuses on that mutation, just like other animals have.

            I think you are ignoring science because you feel that intersex people are mistakes.

            They are logically normal variations in evolution that may lead to a dominant line down the road.

            Either way the point of my original post was focused on the abuse of gender minorities not the science of them.

            I think they should be protected and possibly nourished. Intersex lifeforms are far more resilient to survival of a species.

            You seem to be far more emotional about the topic so I think we can end here or with you providing the last word, either works for me. I don’t see anything that you have provided that convinces me that they are mistakes of nature, and no definition I have provided has convinced you that gender minorities are a real thing outside of their own minds.

            Like

          152. Lander7, you state as if fact:

            “You see intersex people as mistakes in nature.” Show me where I say this. This is how YOU interpret the fact that intersex children are exceptionally rare. And they are JUST as rare in the population currently undergoing transitioning. You simply ignore this fact. Additionally, you continue to believe that transitioning is caused by those people who have chromosomal abnormalities. I point out that these ARE abnormalities and reside outside of 99.99% of all people who are either male or female. I do this to drive home the point that sex IS binary in almost all cases. This fact demonstrates that we’re not dealing with a spectrum for sex (insisting it’s not binary) but very rare exceptions. The rare exceptions should not overwhelm the fact that sex is binary and so our medical knowledge should be responsive to this fact (for example, pain for females and males are quite neurologically different and so require different KINDS of medication based on this fact, which means research based on this fact, which is shut down today because it supposedly is transphobic!). So the fact is that sex is binary and pretending otherwise does not serve respecting reality and gathering knowledge about it.

            But rather than deal with this fact, you import an assumption that leads you to say the most ridiculous things like,

            “Your view is the same as Theist in asserting that intersex children are not intended.” Does any parent intend their child to have a genetic abnormality?

            “You see no connection between children born as males at birth but then identifying as female later and wanting alterations done.” What? Of course there’s a connection between being born male but then identifying as females: what I’m saying is that this identification is not based on sex but on gender ideology. Once upon a time not so long ago, there were transvestites, a long standing minority of men who presented as women. They didn’t try to impose on anyone that they WERE women, but that’s what’s happening today. You’ve heard the ideological lie as a mantra: “A transwoman IS a woman.” That is not true, Lander7. All they can do is try to present this way and undergo various chemical and surgical interventions and ongoing medical aid to keep up the pretense. That’s what I’m pointing out over and over and over. A man by nature of their binary sex classification dictated by their biology cannot be a female. But ADULTS are welcome to present any way they want; just don’t lie about it. Notice this classification of transvestite has all but disappeared. Golly gee whiz, I wonder why?

            “Your viewpoint is that there is no logical connection between those two regardless of the medical community stating that there is in many cases.” No, on rare occasions there really is a connection and I think should be treated in each case as the specialized case it is. But your ongoing assumption that this connection is the main driver behind todays astronomical rise in demand – especially by teen and pre-teen girls – for transgender treatment. It’s not. This is the fact. AND any treatment outside of carte blanche for whatever the child wants is not solving anything but directly increasing the harm this lie-based ideology is imposing on everyone.

            “I think it’s nonsensical to ignore the science of intersex children and I don’t see them as a mistake in nature.”

            See what you’ve done here? You have come up with this replacement opinion very different from my own – but one you’ve assigned as if being from the ‘other side’ as you like to call your substitution creation – and then used this straw man as opposite to your own, what I like to think of as a-mind-so-open-that-your-brains-have-fallen-out position that inserts fictions whenever and wherever it suits you warped notion of ‘tolerance and ‘acceptance’. To me, that kind of classification is going along with a lie. I don’t like to do that. But in your mind, somehow that refusal to support a lie is a vice.

            Like

          153. Lander7, you hypothesize and say, “They (intersex abnormalities) are logically normal variations in evolution that may lead to a dominant line down the road.”

            Wow. This is a laugh-out-loud kind of statement. Obviously you don’t understand what evolution is or how it operates to say such a silly thing. And it is incredibly silly BECAUSE sex remains binary and must be for reproduction! (You know, the small wiggly and mobile gametes meet the large and unmoving gamete and mitosis and all that jazz? You know, basic cellular biology?)

            And since when was a genetic abnormality affecting less than one one thousandth of one percent suddenly ‘normal’? You have completely gutted the meaning of the term ‘normal’ to mean ‘exceptionally rare’. Well done, you.

            “The point of my original post was focused on the abuse of gender minorities not the science of them.”

            Since when was not going along with a lie considered abuse?

            You have a very funny notion of the role of language to convey one meaning here but another and opposite meaning there. Language to be language requires a common understanding. By playing this bait-and-switch meaning game necessary to try to make transactivist ideology seem like something rational – that gender is biological but sex is an assigned social construct – you are undermining the ability to mean what you say and say what you mean. Furthermore, you make it all but impossible for yourself to understand what others mean when you put yourself in the position of assigning meaning to others while rejecting independent information and data if it disagrees with your position.

            The thing is is that reality is not a word game no matter how good one thinks one is playing this game. And make no mistake: gender identity is just a word game but one that when acted upon and then imposed on all of us as if true causes all kinds of harm. You claim that criticizing it for this effect is ‘abuse’ of those who promote these lies! Yet you utterly fail to see the circularity of your position where only support of the ideology regardless of harm is seen as appropriate… in the name of addressing the ‘harm’ done and reducing the ‘abuse’ to those who promote the harmful ideology!

            Heads you win, tails reality loses. How handy!

            And no matter how much evidence from reality demonstrates justification for criticism, it’s all waved away… which is exactly what you are doing. You are promoting the lie that ‘gender identity’ is biological but when faced by reality that shows this to be a lie you change masks and insist gender identity is fluid, that it is based on feelings, that we use reassignment surgeries to align gender with biology! When this is criticized as insufficient reason to really screw up literally tens of thousands of children’s lives who are confused about their gender identity and think so little of a person’s development, infertility, and invite constant medical intervention for life based on life-altering decisions made as a child, you slip back and pretend widespread ‘gender’ is once again biology and that’s the cost if we are to reduce the harm. It’s incoherent.

            Liked by 1 person

          154. Wikipedia: “In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity.” (emphasis added)

            As you yourself said, Lander, biology drives gender identification. Any “confusion” that results originates in the mind.

            Liked by 2 people

          155. Understood but I now see where the divide is and it’s very interesting.

            The intersex children are where the disagreement is rooted. I now see that one side completely ignores intersex as a real thing while the other side is trying to protect them.

            This is good data.

            Like

          156. One side? Notice the term is ‘intersex’, not ‘intergender’, meaning anatomy of the sexual organs can be a combination of the binary sex reality, as I’ve said umpteen times. There is no ‘Z’ chromosome, Lander: there are only Xs and Ys and combinations thereof. As for ‘protecting’ these children, the mandatory ‘affirmation’ policy (what I think will prove to be gross malpractice dwarfing the Thalidomide disaster) does no such thing.

            Like

          157. Still trying too hammer my square answers into your round ideology, I see.

            No, Lander7, I am not saying Thalidomide is related to intersex children; I’m saying affirming children who do not wish to be their biological sex to automatically receive medical intervention is malpractice and that the SCOPE of this medical induced damage to real people in real life is greater than the damage done to fetuses by advising mothers to take Thalidomide for nausea related to pregnancy. In other words, rushing into medical intervention because we can is not a good idea.

            Like

          158. I’m not sure, the LGBTQ community has books in those schools now and the age may vary slightly from state to state.

            Do you think LGBTQ books should be banned from Kindergarten?

            Like

          159. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.
            I see no problem in educating children in this regard.
            Transgender is another kettle of fish altogether.
            On this matter I agree with Tildeb .
            Adults can do what they like. (in context)
            Children are our responsibility.

            Liked by 1 person

          160. So are you agreeing with me that LGBTQ books should not be banned from Kindergarten?

            They have the right to educate them on what the LGBTQ community feels gender is and how it should be perceived?

            I’m curious where we disagree, we may not depending on your answer.

            Like

          161. Sometimes I think you read the words of others then replace them with what sounds right in your head.
            Where in my comment did I write or allude that:

            So are you agreeing with me that LGBTQ books should not be banned from Kindergarten?

            Read my comment again, pause for a moment to actually digest and think then if you feel like it write a follow up comment.
            Off you go ….

            Liked by 1 person

          162. I Asked — “So are you agreeing with me that LGBTQ books should not be banned from Kindergarten?”

            Your Answer is — “if you feel like it write a follow up comment.”

            My Comment — I have no idea if you support books on gender fluidity for Kindergarten or not, you’ve never been clear on it.

            A local shool here just adopted a book on gender pronouns that was introduced by the LGBT community so I thought it would be a real world example to get feedback from you on.

            Like

          163. That was not my answer.
            Read the entire fucking comment and stop being a disingenuous Arsehat.
            Then again, perhaps you truly do have a cognitive disability, which would explain quite a lot.
            If this is the case I apologise for using what could be perceived as inappropriate language.

            Liked by 1 person

          164. You Stated — ” I apologise for using what could be perceived as inappropriate language.”

            My Response — Apology accepted, but bad language really doesn’t mean anything, I wouldn’t worry about it.

            I will have to think about the Arsehat thing and get back to you.

            Like

          165. You actually have to take time toconsider whether your behaviour is indicative of you being an Arsehat?
            Interesting.
            I’ll wager that, based on your interactions with Tildeb, Ron, John Z, Nan the verdict would be unanimous.

            Do you have a time frame you need before you ”get back to me”?

            Like

          166. More than ever, it sure would be handy to know what the hell ‘gender’ is. After all, if one is going to base an ‘identity’ on it, and is advocating surgical interventions, binding, breast removal, infertility, a lifetime of retinal detachments and constant medical interventions for the rest of one’s life based on this fluid transitioning from something to something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biological sex (because that cannot be true via embracing that .001% of the population has an sex abnormality so that means it’s not binary) then finding out what ‘IT’ is we’re talking gains even more importance.

            But I realize the bottom line is that there’s nothing I can say that has any affect on your purely ideologically driven position. It almost sounds like… a religious belief you have: certainty in righteousness and goodness of your fixed position based on the undefinable and ineffable. Hmmm…

            Like

          167. “It is descent back into prejudice and misogyny and discrimination and does so because the ideology conveniently forgets that individual people are the real things here and not the groups and hierarchies they merely represent.”

            This! The smallest minority is the individual. To deny the rights of the individual is to deny the rights of the minority.

            Like

          168. This is the change you are ‘asking’ all of us to make (from The Incoherence of Gender Ideology:

            “In biology, we would have to change the definition of “human,” “male,” and “female,” as well as amend our taxonomy for all sexed organisms. In medicine, we would have to overhaul all theories and practices of what constituted “health” and “function” for human males and females, boys and girls. In law we would have to adjust all legislation that specifically referenced men and women. In language, we would have to overhaul or abolish all languages, to include all romance languages, that had gendered conjugations. With respect to freedom of religion, all religions, especially Abrahamic religions, would have to subordinate or abandon their theological commitments concerning man and woman’s special and divinely created nature. With respect to freedom of association, all previously-exclusive men and women’s groups would have to open their membership to such new magic persons. With respect to women’s sports, biological males would now have to be allowed to compete if they simply believed themselves to be female, effectively ending all women’s sports.

            With respect to feminism, all legal and social progress ostensibly made by and exclusively for women (i.e., protective laws, exclusive spaces, business loans, scholarships, educational opportunities, etc.) would all effectively have to be undone. With respect to penitentiary assignments, men could simply declare themselves to be women and would have to be moved to female jails or, alternatively, have their own personal jails built for them on account of the unique gender. With respect to the military draft, all men of fighting age could opt out of selective service simply by deciding that they are a woman on their 18th birthday. With respect to the nuclear family, the language of “father,” “mother,” “daughter,” “son,” “sister,” “brother,” “uncle,” “aunt,” “grandfather,” “grandmother,” would have to be phased out since they connote offensive biological essentialist categories. And with respect to all recorded history and all social knowledge, any and all truth claims that directly or indirectly reference males or females would have to be placed in a perpetual state of indetermination, contingent exclusively upon the final say the special “trans” speakers.”

            Does that seem ‘reasonable’ to you?

            Consider:

            “(I)n just the past few years we have already begun to see the tragic and unjust fallout of such conceptual incoherence playing out under the illogic baked into Canada’s Bill C-16. From a BC man being held in jail for objecting to his teenage daughter’s gender transition, to a “transgender” female inmate sexually assaulting other inmates at an all-female penitentiary, to “trans” female, Jessica Yaniv, taking more than a dozen esthetician businesses to a Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to Brazilian wax his scrotum, the madness of this incoherent ideology is only just beginning.

            Rest assured, under the logical implications of Bill C-16, the cinching of the rainbow police state will only tighten and the situation in Canada for the average citizens will only worsen in the coming years. And so will be the case in the United States if the Equality Act passes. In essence, the legal implications of such a bill will be nothing less than making it illegal for one to say true things, consistent things, logical things, or even to attempt. Conversely it will make use of hard state power to compel persons to say or believe things that are patently false, incoherent, or conceptually impossible. It will be political correctness on steroids…”

            This is a very good article in its entirety and nicely encapsulates both the incoherence and the reasons we must do our part rejecting the entire gender identity model. It is a lie.

            Liked by 1 person

          169. This is not how you phrased your statement I quoted for my question.
            Re-read your quote and try to answer honestly.

            Like

          170. Have you noticed that it is always one-sided, that no transgendered men participate in men’s sports? Gee, it’s almost as if biology favors men performing in women’s sports. Now, why might that be if biological sex is the social construct?

            Liked by 3 people

          171. You Stated — “Have you noticed that it is always one-sided, that no transgendered men participate in men’s sports?”

            My Response — On January 25, Chris Mosier became the first known openly transgender athlete to compete in an Olympic trial as the gender with which they identify. Mosier, a 39-year-old All-American duathlete and Hall of Fame triathlete, made history by starting the race, a 50 Kilometer race walk, held outside San Diego, California.

            Perhaps just as impressive as Mosier’s barrier-breaking identity is the fact that he’s relatively new to the sport in which he’s already broken barriers. The Chicago-born athlete competed in his first race walk this past September, winning a national championship. In his second race a month later, Mosier finished 12th in the nation, thereby qualifying for the Olympic Trials.

            I’m no convinced by your position and fear it lacks facts.

            Like

          172. You Stated “And, personally, I’m not convinced by yours.”

            My Response — My Position being that gender minorities should not be abused by people who disagree with their desire to change gender.

            My second position that people should have the right to change gender as they see fit.

            This is what you are not convinced of?

            Like

          173. You have offered Much, Much more in your comments than the two sentences you just now posted. I’m not taking a stand based on those two sentences, but I will say this — I do tend to agree with tildeb overall.

            Liked by 2 people

          174. You Asked — “If I may interject, in what way are transgender minorities being abused?”

            My Answer — When they come out to family or friends they are often ridiculed or bullied. In some cases they are physically abused by people who state that they are mentally challenged because there is no such thing as gender choice. Most abuse is verbal, some is violent assault, and a small portion is sexual assault.

            The main argument is very similar to what gay people often report, that all they need is some form of therapy since it’s all in their heads. Although the more aggressive offenders believe you can beat sense into them.

            Like

          175. LOVE this — It’s a circular argument that is trying to replace reality with a belief.

            Why? Because It speaks to far more than just the gender issue, if you get my drift …

            Like

          176. Yet Paul’s words unequivocally indicate that he has made such a judgement call vis-vis same-sex relations. And the Levitical code not only condones such a judgement call but mandates it be followed by the death penalty.

            So why defend a text that promotes discrimination?

            Liked by 4 people

          177. You Stated — “Yet Paul’s words unequivocally indicate that he has made such a judgement call vis-vis same-sex relations. ”

            My Response — Did he? If you view the text in that meaning then why not acknowledge that it does not forbid women to lay down with women?

            If your view is, ” same-sex relations”, are to be hated then why leave out the fact that it has no stance on women being with women?

            Seems like same sex is ok from your arguments perspective when it comes to women.

            If a man lies down with a hermaphrodite is it still same sex? Seems not since there is a vagina…. but wait… what about the penis?

            I’m not convinced by your opinion but maybe if you address those questions I can get closer to your understanding.

            Like

          178. His stance on women was identical. Just one verse earlier he wrote:

            “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.”

            I’m not convinced you’ve actually read the book you purport to follow, or you would know this.

            Liked by 2 people

          179. You Stated — His stance on women was identical. Just one verse earlier he wrote:

            “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.”

            My Response — That verse doesn’t say anything about women laying with women. The author is specific when they have a specific case and that case was not presented for women (but it was for men) and to be clear not any of the others I listed on my post.

            Like

          180. If you are taking a literal understanding of the text in question then you should show consistency in your interpretation and application.
            If this is not the case, however, then your understanding of hermeneutics and exegesis is poor and you should probably read more qualified scholars who are properly skilled in these disciplines.

            Like

          181. No, Paul did not spell it out in graphic detail. But read in context with the verse that follows and his other writings it is crystal clear that he judged any deviation from a monogamous, heterosexual marriage as perverse and immoral. And even then, he advocated for celibacy.

            Liked by 2 people

          182. Who is defining deviation? I don’t define it as a deviation. I’m not convinced that it’s saying that simply because you say it does. Where is the verse that defines it (like the one they point to for men)?

            Like

          183. Who is defining deviation. It is Paul himself who declares any departure from a straight monogamous marriage as immoral. Paul was a prude. Deal with it.

            Liked by 2 people

          184. You Stated — “It is Paul himself who declares any departure from a straight monogamous marriage as immoral. ”

            My Response — I would love to see that verse, please share it with me.

            I wonder what how you will reconcile Solomon with such an incorrect understanding of it.

            Like

          185. You Stated — “Paul’s views on celibacy and marriage and monogamy are fleshed out in detail in 1 Corinthians”

            My Response — I read the verses you provided and they did not mention monogamy even one time.

            However, the verses did fully support the rules for Solomon’s 700 wives.

            It would seem that you fully support my argument.

            Like

          186. So you ignored the part where Paul writes, “But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband” and concluded that because Paul does not specifically use the word “monogamy” it does not apply? Ok, then.

            Liked by 2 people

          187. It doesn’t apply and you should see that clearly with Solomon, which by the way you ignored.

            You can have as many wives as you want, this is not a bible secret, it’s just fact. You are trying to read in your own personal sex issues, the word monogamy isn’t even in the bible.

            Like

          188. You are correct: the word “monogamy” does not appear anywhere in the bible, but it is implied when Paul says “each man should have sexual relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband“. Had he meant otherwise, he would have written “with his own wives” and “with her own husbands” — but he didn’t.

            Similarly, Jesus makes it crystal clear that marriage was a solemn affair between one man and one woman when he says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” in Matthew 19:4-6.

            Liked by 2 people

          189. Oooh, Mister Ron, now your hitting below the belt. You know these Christians don’t like dirty rotten sinners like you to know more about their religion than they do, and especially when you quote the Good Book back at them.

            Go easy on Senor Lander for he knoweth not what he doeth. Or writith or even sayeth, probablyith.

            Liked by 2 people

          190. Lander7 is correct that the Torah is silent on the subject of having multiple wives (though the stories seem to convey that calamity always follows in almost every instance in which it occurs). But it boggles the mind how anyone claiming to be a Christian could read Paul’s epistles or the teachings of Jesus and conclude that the NT condones — much less advocates — polygamy and same-sex relationships.

            Liked by 1 person

          191. I’ve never been able to figure out Lander 7 and his version of Christianity.
            Also, he often goes beyond pedantic and at times is almost anal in his approach. ”It doesn’t say monogamy so therefore it isn’t in the bible.”
            I reckon you are probably correct in your assertion that he indulges in eisegesis, and a very special ”home made” version to boot.

            Liked by 1 person

          192. Yes. Well, that’s the overarching problem — isn’t it? There is no “officially agreed upon” version of Christianity. As George Bernard Shaw observed, “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”

            Like most “liberal” Christians, L7 finds certain passages objectionable to his modern sensibilities; but rather than just admit the ancient authors got it wrong and jettison the whole thing, he attempts to lawyer them into conformity with his own moral code.

            Liked by 2 people

          193. If we believe that he is smart enough to ostensibly cherry pick his faith this still leaves the question of why he ( or anyone) would ditch critical thinking in favour of selective fantasy?
            I have found that, while some individuals are often all too willing to blog and sometimes wax on about their religion, when asked for evidence of claims made or reasons why they converted most, in my experience, become highly defensive and tend to clam up.
            Few are as open as Bruce. (Godsmanforever. Remember him?)

            Like

          194. Popping my head in through the door….

            The question that nags me when we find someone like L7 and his “selective fantasy” (great word choice) version of Christianity is how they manage to function while *knowing* they are lying to themselves.

            We saw it here on full display — He could not bring himself to say the bible was dead wrong DESPITE penning a whole post on… [checks notes]… how the bible is dead wrong when it comes to hating and killing gays.

            Like

          195. He is mild compared to the Catholic crowd I’ve been engaging. In the end they are all pretty much the same and all one has to do to confirm this is ask someone like Kia, or Ben or even Nate.
            Most, even though they might want to see themselves as more enlightened or even ‘liberal minded’, seem unable to recognise the fact they all accept the foundational tenets of their religion which are faith based doctrine/ dogma unsupported with evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          196. By his IP he’s deep inside the US evangelical bible belt, so I’d hazard to say he’s a little like Branyan — doesn’t feel at all comfortable with Christianity, but is surrounded by hardcore Christians, so accepts membership to the club for social reasons, despite the cognitive clusterfuck.

            Liked by 1 person

          197. Why would anyone ditch critical thinking? Because it was never taught to begin with. Cultural programming instructs you to follow and obey, not to think independently. Few escape that programming, and those who do, pay a heavy toll for being non-conformist.

            Other than the name, I don’t remember much about Bruce. But I do remember the preacher from the Foursquare church in Wisconsin who dismissed tough questions with the words “vapid” and “imbecilic”.

            “I’ve looked over Jordan, and I have seen
            Things are not what they seem” (Pink Floyd. “Sheep”)

            Liked by 1 person

          198. preacher from the Foursquare church

            He be Mel — an infuriating interlocutor. Loved to ask the WHY question, but never answer one directed back at him.

            Liked by 1 person

          199. You Stated — “You are correct: the word “monogamy” does not appear anywhere in the bible, but it is implied”

            My Response — It is not implied. There are sentences where a person is talking about someone’s wife or husband so they say “my wife” or “his husband”. There are people in the bible who marry one person and there are people who marry many. It’s a personal choice. You don’t even have to be married you can just sleep with people if you want or have a common bond. We still have that to date in many places around the world (and US)

            Acts 13:22
            22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

            2 Samuel 5:13
            13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

            Think about who gave him this:
            2 Samuel 12:8
            8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

            2 Chronicles 11:21
            21 Rehoboam loved Maakah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines, twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.

            2 Chronicles 13:21
            21 But Abijah grew in strength. He married fourteen wives and had twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters.
            Exodus 21:10

            They all have marital rights:
            10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
            Genesis 4:19

            1 Chronicles 4:5
            5 Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

            19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.
            Genesis 30:4

            Common practice:
            9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife.

            Isaiah 4:1
            1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!”

            Judges 8:30
            30 He had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives.

            There are even rules for multiple wives:
            Deuteronomy 21:15-17
            15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

            Even the priest had multiple wives:
            2 Chronicles 24:1-3
            1 Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. 2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

            You are simply incorrect Ron. You can have 1 or you can have more. Each has it’s own rules and lifestyles.

            Like

          200. You Stated — “You are correct: the word “monogamy” does not appear anywhere in the bible, but it is implied”

            No, that’s incorrect. I stated:

            You are correct: the word “monogamy” does not appear anywhere in the bible, but it is implied when Paul says “each man should have sexual relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband“. Had he meant otherwise, he would have written “with his own wives” and “with her own husbands” — but he didn’t.

            Care to engage that point? Or that both he (Ephesians 5:31) and Jesus said that the “two shall become one flesh” (not “whosoever many as choose to do so shall become one flesh”)? Or have you conceded that point?

            Liked by 1 person

          201. You Asked — “Care to engage that point? ”

            My Response — Sure. Some people have 1 wife and some people have multiple wives. The rules for one wife are different than the rules for two wives. This practice still goes on today in the same land that the bible originated from.

            Note the number of wives and the direct statement of doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord.

            2 Chronicles 24:1-3
            1 Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. 2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

            Note who gives wives:

            2 Samuel 12:8
            8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

            Note one of the rules for multiple wives:

            10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
            Genesis 4:19

            Note the needs for multiple wives:

            9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife.

            Note how women could request becoming an additional wife:

            Isaiah 4:1
            1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!”

            More rules for having multiple wives:

            Deuteronomy 21:15-17
            15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

            Like

          202. That’s nice, but we were discussing the opinions of Paul — not the OT authors — and Paul’s writings show he advocated in favor of marital fidelity and against sex outside of marriage.

            Liked by 1 person

          203. You Stated — “That’s nice, but we were discussing the opinions of Paul — not the OT authors — and Paul’s writings show he advocated in favor of marital fidelity and against sex outside of marriage.”

            My Response — But he didn’t and he said so, he didn’t support marriage so you are still incorrect.

            1 Corinthians 7:8
            8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

            He also stated openly that people have their own desires and ways that were gifts to them for how they choose to satisfy those desires.

            1 Corinthians 7:6-7
            6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

            After he spoke on this he clearly stated that he had his own ideas on how things should work that were not from god and then went in detail about them.:

            1 Corinthians 7:12-
            12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)….

            The bible still clearly states they can have multiple wives or even just multiple sexual relationships, with rules to support both.

            Like

          204. Oh my. I cannot resist asking … And do you, Lander 7, follow what “the bible clearly states”?

            Or is this one of those things that you and other believers tend to filter out because it doesn’t fit society’s mores?

            Liked by 1 person

          205. Far be it for me to speak for Nan, however, my understanding of her question would probably be along the lines of: Does your Christian Worldview encompass all that is written in the bible or do you cherry pick to suit?
            Would you need specific examples or are you able to figure this one out without having to engage in more long – winded pedantic back and forth?

            Liked by 1 person

          206. Actually, I find it to be somewhat hypocritical that he quotes scripture, then turns around and says he doesn’t follow anything. Further, he states quite clearly in a previous comment: Since I am a theist ,,,, And in another comment: My position is also based on the bible.

            I think most would agree … you either are or you aren’t. And trying to play both sides of the fence will trip a person up every time.

            Liked by 2 people

          207. This reminds me so much of the highly touted agnostic position… as in, “I don’t know if I believe or not but I do know I’m much more open minded and tolerant than those other strident atheists!” In this case, it’s the reverse, as in, “I can quote scripture as if a source of authority other than me but damned if I’m going to be labeled as its follower and held to account so I’ll take the ‘middle’ position of doing both and denying either when it’s convenient and claim I’m much more open-minded and tolerant than those other strident fundamentalists!”

            Too funny.

            Liked by 4 people

          208. As a politician once remarked:if you consider yourself middle of the road there is a strong liklihood of being run over by traffic in both lanes…. Or something along ng those lines.

            Liked by 3 people

          209. You Asked — “Does your Christian Worldview encompass all that is written in the bible or do you cherry pick to suit? Would you need specific examples or are you able to figure this one out without having to engage in more long – winded pedantic back and forth?”

            My Response — Let me think about your question to see if I can figure out a way to not be pedantic.

            Like

          210. How am I incorrect given what I wrote — i.e., that Paul advocated for celibacy, but reluctantly recommended marriage for those who could not keep their sexual urges in check?

            And yes, the OT patriarchs had multiple wives; but it was strictly a one-way affair (pun intended) because the OT law did not permit women to have multiple husbands or sexual partners outside of marriage. So your claim is not supported by the scriptures.

            Moreover, sodomy (to get back to your original topic) is deemed strictly off limits in both the old and new testament tracts.

            Liked by 1 person

          211. You Stated — “How am I incorrect given what I wrote — i.e., that Paul advocated for celibacy, but reluctantly recommended marriage for those who could not keep their sexual urges in check?”

            My Response — Because you didn’t state that, you stated this ” and Paul’s writings show he advocated in favor of marital fidelity and against sex outside of marriage.”

            So you are incorrect since he advocated against marriage and against any sex in it’s entirety. He didn’t state people could not have sex outside of marriage (not even once), if I’m wrong just show me the verse that states a person cannot have sex outside of marriage.

            1 Corinthians 7:1
            7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

            1 Corinthians 7:8
            8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

            He also stated openly that people have their own desires and ways that were gifts to them for how they choose to satisfy those desires.

            1 Corinthians 7:6-7
            6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

            Like

          212. “Because you didn’t state that…”

            But I did state it right here: https://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2021/06/21/telling-god-how-you-feel/comment-page-1/#comment-218534

            “He didn’t state people could not have sex outside of marriage (not even once), if I’m wrong just show me the verse that states a person cannot have sex outside of marriage.”

            I already did. You can continue to pretend otherwise, but Paul’s teachings do not permit having sexual relations outside of marriage. And homosexual relations are right out, in both the old and new testaments.

            Liked by 2 people

          213. I clicked the link but it didn’t take me to any verse. I genuinely do not know what verse you are saying that proves the bible is against sexual relations outside of marriage. Once I see it I will admit I was wrong I just need to see it first.

            Like

          214. I have no doubt it will be disputed. Maybe the word ‘Context’ will be thrown in the mix?
            Perhaps it will be that I am misinterpreting.
            Or my exegesis is in conflict with my hermeneutics which are ontologically unsound based on an atheistic POV that life comes from goop and a whirlwind blowing through junkyard will spontaneously create a 747 … Amen?

            Liked by 1 person

          215. The link wasn’t meant to take you to a verse; it was meant to refresh your memory on what I actually wrote. The verses you seek have already been provided upthread.

            Liked by 1 person

          216. Odd that he gets all bent out of shape on the subject of prayer, expressing what seemed like indignation and demanded that I should not stray from the topic yet, Tell God How you Feel was an integral part of his solution for theists who had issues with gays and was included in his post
            Seems like the usual case of, ”Now, let the dance begin!”

            Like

        3. I made a Typo:

          Typo — Since I am a theist, and the post was made to atheist about how being born gay is not a choice then I would expect there to be bible verses for the discussion.

          Should read:

          Correction — Since I am a theist, and the post was made to theist about how being born gay is not a choice then I would expect there to be bible verses for the discussion.

          Just for clarity

          Like

        4. Oh, and I consider it important to mention that, when I said I deleted many more to reclaim space, I was referring to deleting old posts rather than Your comments, or posts that you had commented on specifically, as you seemed to be alluding.
          Your remark was bordering on disenguinity.
          While I will confess at one point holding in moderation comments from Colorstorm for a while this was solely because he moderated me all the time on his blog. The moment he stopped doing this I reciprocated.
          Unlike you, I do not censor, and cannot see the need. If dialogue is cordial and people want to discuss particular aspects of a post or take their conversation off onto something of their choice there is no harm.
          Censorship over such mundane issues strikes me as rather petty.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You Stated — “I was referring to deleting old posts rather than Your comments, or posts that you had commented on”

            My Response — Then you spoke about something out of context since we were talking about deleting posts from our conversation. I will mark that up as more off topic comments about nothing relevant to our conversation. Moving forward don’t comment on anything out of context so we don’t have to waste time talking about it.

            You Stated — “Your remark was bordering on disenguinity.”

            My Response — That ‘nonsensical, it either is or is not, pick a side so I can take you seriously.

            You Stated — “While I will confess at one point holding in moderation comments from Colorstorm for a while this was solely because he moderated me all the time on his blog.”

            My Response — This has nothing to do with me and your post (that is dedicated to me), I don’t care what other people do or don’t do with your posts.

            You Stated — “Unlike you, I do not censor”

            My Response — Again I don’t care, if you are on my blog you follow my rules. My rule for you is always the same, if you ignore my topic (from any of my posts) and create your own topic (always the same) then I delete your topic so mine can be focused on. I post topics so I can get feedback on them not to address side topics that I don’t care about.

            You Stated — “Censorship over such mundane issues strikes me as rather petty.”

            My Response — Says the person who dedicated that same “mundane issue” to an entire post in honor of me lol. It’s starting to feel more important since you took the time to dedicate it to me.

            I’m looking forward to something new today, so let’s move on. So far you haven’t asked anything that you haven’t already asked me repeatedly in the past. I have some side bets going that you are going to finally ask me something new today. An Ark bingo if you would.

            Next question please

            Like

          2. 1.

            My Response — Then you spoke about something out of context since we were talking about deleting posts from our conversation.

            Wrong. I don’t delete ”posts” (comments) from conversations between us on my blog, and when I talk about ”deleting posts” I mean the entire post, NOT comments by visitors, and I delete posts to reclaim space, as I explained and which you have obviously misunderstood.,
            Perhaps if you were to reinstate the comments you deleted or repost them here you would see the context and realise your error?

            2.

            I will mark that up as more off topic comments about nothing relevant to our conversation. Moving forward don’t comment on anything out of context so we don’t have to waste time talking about it.

            I will remind you that within the body of the post you wrote: ”…..instead be bold and tell God directly how you feel.”
            A statement directed at fellow believers that you obviously felt strong enough about to include in the post, thus it is directly on topic and perfectly in context.
            3.

            My Response — That ‘nonsensical, it either is or is not, pick a side so I can take you seriously.

            Fair enough. In future I will refrain from trying to maintain civility and simply state what I consider to be fact.

            4.

            My Response — Again I don’t care, if you are on my blog you follow my rules. My rule for you is always the same, if you ignore my topic (from any of my posts) and create your own topic (always the same) then I delete your topic so mine can be focused on.

            See reply #2

            5.

            My Response — Says the person who dedicated that same “mundane issue” to an entire post in honor of me lol.

            Honour? You think so? I consider you are flattering yourself a little too much.
            I posted on the topic of prayer and Telling (your) god how you feel at your suggestion as you stated that my comments
            on your blog post were off topic.

            6.

            Next question please

            Questions already posted – Look up the post, please

            Ark 23 Jun 2021 at 15:37

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Ok… How do you know there was/is a creator other than surmising/inferring that all of the Natural world/universe was created?

            Like

          2. You Asked — “Ok… How do you know there was/is a creator other than surmising/inferring that all of the Natural world/universe was created?”

            My Response — I became convinced over a period of about 25 years through personal data collection.

            Outside of my own data I have concluded that arguments for and against a creator to be unprovable.

            At this point I have not been convinced that there is not one by any argument presented to me.

            Like

          3. You Asked — “Do you consider the universe required/s a creator?”

            My Response — I don’t know the full structure of the universe before foundation particles so it is impossible to know it if it did or did not.

            This is to say that the complexity of a particle can be arrived at by chance but wave form collapse relies on observation. The argument is compelling either way from an origin perspective.

            Everyone is a creationist they just disagree on who or what by one factor.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. You Asked — “When you use the term creationist, you mean …?”

            Because I Stated — “Everyone is a creationist they just disagree on who or what by one factor.”

            My Answer — In context: A person that believes the act of making or producing something that did not exist before from something known or unknown. “Making” implying agency and “Producing” implying by chance.

            Like

          5. You consider I am a creationist?
            Do you not subscribe to the something from ‘nothing’ argument?

            Like

          6. You Asked — “You consider I am a creationist?”

            My Response — In the same sense that you consider me to be an atheist and only in the context of the definition I provided.

            You Asked — “Do you not subscribe to the something from ‘nothing’ argument?”

            My Response — I do not. There is no proof of the exitance of “Nothing”. We have no reference point for it nor are there any indicators that it is even probable.

            Like

          7. I have no idea, that would be up to your conclusions.

            I may be convinced of a creator but I have no concepts of the aspects of such a being or what would or would not be like it.

            Like

          8. If you are asking me than I would say it doesn’t matter which idea you apply it all points to the same thing.

            Like

          9. You Asked — “In plain speak, do you consider Jesus of Nazareth to be your god?”

            My Response — Jesus is what the bible describes him to be. I have no thoughts outside of that about Jesus.

            Like

          10. I don’t think anything, it literally says this:

            Revelation 19:16
            John 10:30
            John 1:14
            John 1:1
            Colossians 1:15-17

            Like

          11. As I have stated many times in the past, Jesus is what the bible says that Jesus is. There is no other definition for Jesus other than what the bible states in the world.

            Like

          12. Yes, I am using the verse from John you posted. ;Father/Son the same/are one. So, you consider Jesus to be Yahweh/ God ( incarnate),yes?

            Like

          13. You misread/misunderstood my question.
            On what basis do you accept the veracity of this claim. i.e.
            John 10:30

            Like

          14. I accept that the bible defines the people within itself. There would be no reason for me to disagree with a description of how the bible describes things in the bible.

            On what basis do you accept the veracity of the claim that god does not exist?

            Like

          15. I have never claimed that your god does not exist. That you continue to assert this tells me you are being disengenious.
            If you find no reason to disagree with these specific biblical descriptions it would be fair to presume you are prepared to accept any biblical description for which there is zero evidence to support such a claim.
            Do you consider faith plays a strong part in this?

            Like

          16. You have claimed when you answered my question on if god exists.

            You yourself stated to me many times that answering a question counts as a claim if you do not produce evidence proving your position of belief or understanding.

            So I ask you again where is your proof?

            Like

          17. Proof?
            Surely you mean evidence?
            Once again, I have never claimed your god ”does not exist”. Only that, based on the lack of evidence claims for your god can be dismissed.
            On this basis – lack of evidence – am I an atheist.
            If you have evidence for your god, please present it.

            There is also the outstanding issue regarding how you see the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, specifically the reference “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
            Jesus stated he was God’s son and that Yahweh(God) was his father.
            Do you agree with this?.
            Also, John 1:1 explicitly notes that Jesus was both with God in the beginning and was God.
            Do you agree with this ?

            Like

          18. You yourself stated clearly that any answer to a question is a claim.

            So where is the “evidence” that god does not exist?

            You either answer the question or allow me the same privilege since I too have not made a claim and just answered your questions.

            Either works for me since I find talking about this to be a waste of time.

            Like

          19. You yourself stated clearly that any answer to a question is a claim.

            On the face of it I will reject your statement. You’ll have to link to a comment where I have asserted this, please..

            So where is the “evidence” that god does not exist?

            I will certainly try to comply with your request but I face a conundrum. Namely:
            How does one provide evidence for gods that seemingly do not exist when no evidence has been presented that gods do exist?

            You have stated you are Christian.

            Being a Christian means that you believe a god – in your case Yahweh – exists.
            Do you agree with this statement?

            You seemed to have missed this …

            There is also the outstanding issue regarding how you see the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, specifically the reference “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
            Jesus stated he was God’s son and that Yahweh(God) was his father.
            Do you agree with this?.
            Also, John 1:1 explicitly notes that Jesus was both with God in the beginning and was God.
            Do you agree with this ?

            Like

          20. There is no other reference point.

            Which reduces it to simply an unsupported claim.
            Would you agree then that your acceptance of the verse/s in gJohn regarding the nature of Jesus in relation to God (Yahweh) are based solely on your belief in their veracity?

            Like

          21. If you have a convincing argument for no god I’m ready to hear it. Or you could just present why you don’t believe in the bible.

            Let’s here your best argument and see if it convinces me.

            Like

          22. If you are looking for a detailed breakdown of the gospels, their content, history, hermeneutics and exegesis, there are far more qualified individuals than me. Ehrman, is the ‘popular’ go-to guy.

            My interest is on what grounds you believe /accept the claims of your religion.
            You have already asserted that you consider your beliefs regarding Jesus/Yahweh are from what you read in the bible.
            These texts, however, are unsupported with evidence, and in numerous places texts have been demonstrated to be interpolation/forgery.

            This is a crucial factor in establishing veracity.

            Therefore, do you acknowledge your beliefs are based/influenced primarily on interpretation of such texts which itself is based/influenced by cultural circumstances?
            To avoid further drawn out comments I would be content with either a Yes or No reply.

            Like

          23. I agree with your approach, if you are looking for a more detailed breakdown of belief systems then there are more qualified individuals than me.

            My interest is on what grounds you disbelieve in the existence of god.

            You have already asserted that you consider your understanding to be that there is no god but you have only sited religious text as a reason why you don’t believe.

            This is a crucial factor in establishing veracity.

            Therefore, do you acknowledge your disbeliefs are based/influenced primarily on religious text, such as those you grew up with in your early childhood rather than exploring other means such as science or other religions?

            To avoid further drawn out comments I would be content with either a Yes or No reply.

            Like

          24. Good. Perhaps we may finally be able to make progress in understanding each other.
            Let’s take this in small chunks so as to avoid the side-tracking we so often end up doing.

            My interest is on what grounds you disbelieve in the existence of god.

            The complete lack of evidence.

            My turn:
            Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

            I will tackle the second part in the next round.

            Like

          25. I’m like you the shear lack of evidence disproving god is lacking on my end.

            Do you have any convincing evidence to suggest otherwise?

            Like

          26. ‘Proof’ is a mathematical term. ‘Evidence’ is the scientific term, enough of which tilts the model explanation to be on a ‘likely’ scale.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Thank you! I find it a source of immense annoyance and frustration when theists use the term proof when discussing anything to do with their god, even more so when they demand of me to prove or show proof that ”God does not exist,” or (something like) ”Prove that evolution is true.”
            And yet, when one asks for evidence of their own (religious/god) claims they often/usually balk and launch into a tirade of why atheism is meaningless etc. I know you understand what I mean!

            Like

          28. I understand because when one studies metaphysics and its origins, one finds this vocabulary that relies wholly and solely on ideas. The problem then arises about this method applied to reality as if descriptive of it. We know the form is deductive and so the premises are essential to arrive at the conclusion. Where metaphysicians go astray is PRESUMING the premises are true in fact, in reality and then deducing through logic a conclusion that meets all the requirements of a ‘proof’. The problem is that this method is exactly backwards when it comes to exporting the method into reality. IFF (If and only if) the premises are in fact, in reality, true is this method useful. So the question (raised by Galileo) is how do we know if the premises are starting out true (I would put in a question mark here but my keyboard isn’t allowing me to do that!).

            This is where religious people get all twisted around assuming ‘proof’ is the same as ‘evidence’ and honestly think they have arrived at insight into reality. This metaphysical method is what was used by all the Church fathers, for example, all the big brained people who have written about this unseen realm and first causes and all this good metaphysical stuff set down by the Greeks. We see the same method for all kinds of woo, as if a logical form produces proof about reality. But we also know it doesn’t. That’s why Galileo’s thought experiment really did crack the foundation of all metaphysical thinking when applied to reality; it’s a broken method. It doesn’t work. The order has to be reversed in that reality through a preponderance of evidence and not word games of proofs has to arbitrate our beliefs about reality.

            Like

          29. Exactly! Another reason why theists who just happen to be philosophers drive me to distraction. They too, always seem to claim ‘evidence’ when in fact they have bugger all!

            Like

          30. You Stated — “‘Proof’ is a mathematical term. ‘Evidence’ is the scientific term, enough of which tilts the model explanation to be on a ‘likely’ scale.”

            My Response — Which is why it’s a part of the subset because the universe is simply math at a quantum level not the other way around. We are the persistent illusion based on a foundation of complex math.

            Like

          31. Particles don’t appear when a “wave form” collapses; the wave function is a mathematical expression (looks like a large, thin italicized ‘f’) for a PROBABILITY calculation. In other words, we cannot know the exact location of particles in motion unless we eliminate their velocity first and we can’t exactly know their velocity if we ‘trap’ a particle at an exact moment in time to find its location. So the wave function is way to plug in various values and come up with a probability of either where something is or how fast it’s travelling.

            Like

          32. You Stated — “Particles don’t appear when a “wave form” collapses; ”

            My Response — I never said it did so that’s nonsensical. The wave form is the particle and that’s why we can’t know for certain it’s exact location. But we can predict it’s function through direct observation and that’s what makes it convincing.

            You Stated — “we cannot know the exact location of particles in motion unless we eliminate their velocity first and we can’t exactly know their velocity if we ‘trap’ a particle at an exact moment in time to find its location”

            My Response — Not True, the Large Hadron Collider does just that after it fires.

            We know the particles location in the chamber before collision while it is in motion.

            Like

          33. No, Lander 7. When you talk about the Observer Effect you are talking about ‘capturing’ the location, which means you cannot include its velocity. The wave function is a probability calculation.

            Like

          34. Well, there are limits sure, almost nothing is perfectly exact, but we are within practical means at this point.

            We will only get better at this as we move forward.

            Like

          35. This is why we say a photon is BOTH a wave and a particle, meaning it is a particle that behaves like a wave. It’s still a particle.

            Like

          36. You Stated — “This is why we say a photon is BOTH a wave and a particle, meaning it is a particle that behaves like a wave. It’s still a particle.”

            My Response — The wave is the particle, they are one in the same (not separate). The waveform is the true nature of the particle.

            Like

          37. You are confused and that’s okay. Physics is hard and QM is even harder.

            So Lander7, think of people in a stadium where each of us takes turns in a timed manner to stand and raise our arms. This is a wave. So although a wave looks like a ‘thing’ when standing out here looking at the stadium’s population as a whole, and seems to be a thing in the sense of a moving force that looks like it ’causes’ effect, it is actually defined as a disturbance BECAUSE it involves 2 field quantities. In other words, the properties of particles interacting cause the emergence of the wave (like the stadium wave requires 1) people, and 2) alternately standing and sitting in a timed manner. This creates the disturbance that looks like a wave.

            This important to grasp because people in the stadium aren’t ‘created’ by the wave, don’t ’emerge’ from the wave as people so to speak. The people – like particles – exhibit wave-like properties!

            Like

          38. You Stated — “You are confused and that’s okay. Physics is hard and QM is even harder.”

            My Response — I will try to keep up with this hard topic don’t worry so much.

            You Stated — “So Lander7, think of people in a stadium where each of us takes turns in a timed manner to stand and raise our arms. This is a wave.”

            My Response — It may be a wave in a crowd at a game but it’s not a quantum wave form and it’s not a good analogy.

            Try this:

            An infinite stadium (always there with no known beginning or end) but no crowd (empty).

            Now let’s come to one point in observable space/time within the stadium. You are quickly sitting down, getting up, and then sitting back down in each seat, within a select few rows, going around the stadium (wave form). We don’t know your exact location or speed, but we do know it’s you from your ID (mass and charge).

            If we interact with you the wave motion, we observed ends because you have taken a definite position (wave function collapse). We can now clearly see you (particle).

            You are both a particle and a wave, but you have more potential as a wave and far less as a particle (energy/radiation). But as a particle you have more practical use (matter/atomic structure)

            But since we have infinity and it’s just you in an empty stadium, let’s have you have you sit in all the other seats at least one time each. Now let’s use the anti you (positron) which moves backward in time. This allows you to be in two locations at the same time without adding mass to the universe (nothing can be created). It even allows for the combining of waves to increase amplitude or cause wave cancelation (no two particles occupying the same exact location at the same exact time). In this case they are the same particle so there is no true loss (nothing can be destroyed).

            With the anti you continually going back in time we show a low number of anti you in the stadium at any one given point (where is all the anti-matter) but an equal amount of anti you when viewed over all of time.

            With a full stadium of just you and each moving quickly from seat to seat we have a strange reality where all the people in the stadium are exactly the same (AKA the fundamental particle known as the electron).

            Like

          39. Yeah, no. This is not how one uses the wave function theorem. You are not in all places at once except hypothetically… you could be anywhere so how can we calculate where you are at any one particular time? This is how the wave function is used.

            But the point I raise remains the same; you – like particles – are not some floating wave from which you magically emerge by being observed, which is how you presented the mechanics earlier. You are very real at all times; the wave function is used to PREDICT by PROBABILITY where you are at any given time.

            Like

          40. You Stated — “…you could be anywhere so how can we calculate where you are at any one particular time?”

            Your statement only addresses a particle in a one-dimensional frame of reference. From this perspective you are correct.

            But…

            In a two- or three-dimensional frame of reference we do know where the particle is, and we can know it’s trajectory. We can say the particle is in the firing chamber of the large hadron collider (very specific to 3D space) but we cannot know exactly, with 100% certainty, it’s absolute location at any given time within the same collider (or it’s one dimensional reference point).

            You Stated – “You are not in all places at once except hypothetically…”

            My Response – Your statement is correct but lacks nuance. We cannot know for sure that one electron is not the exact same electron in other locations because all electrons have the same mass and charge.

            The electron in the example I provided earlier is in fact just one single electron moving quickly from one location in space to another, but this is only true within a reference point of the first three dimensions.

            If we view the electron from a fourth dimensional reference point, then we can easily have the exact same election in more than one location. This is only because of the anti-form of the electron (positron). A positron travels against the arrow of time allowing for the exact same electron to exists in a different location within the original three-dimensional reference point (Same particle in two different locations of space at the same time).
            So, when we observer electrons we do not know if they are different electrons or the same electron. This is only complicated more given the age of the universe and the potential for interference having caused an untold number of positron movements.

            You Stated – “But the point I raise remains the same; you – like particles – are not some floating wave from which you magically emerge by being observed, which is how you presented the mechanics earlier. You are very real at all times; the wave function is used to PREDICT by PROBABILITY where you are at any given time.”

            My Response – I never said there was any magic involved and waves don’t float they oscillate. A particle is a wave (they are always the exact same thing), but you have more potential as a wave and far less as a particle (energy/radiation). But as a particle you have more practical use (matter/atomic structure). More “potential” means more real but less probable, where more “practical” means less real but more probable. This may seem strange from a matter perspective (as in we are solid matter beings and that would seem more real), but it’s based on quantum entropy.

            Take the stadium scenario instance: As a wave… more seats are occupied for the game. The players are happy to see the stadium at full capacity. More potential

            BUT

            As a particle there is only one fan to cheer them on. The players are not happy. Less potential

            The moment a player interacts with the large wave of fans the seats instantly empty into a single fan. This is not magic, it’s the end of potential (wave form collapse). The one fan is no longer able to rise, move over, and sit down in seat after seat so quickly that it looks like he is in many seats at the same time. He can now only be in one seat.

            The double slit experiment shows us two things at face value. The first being the greater potential of the wave to have a direct impact when not observed (no collision or interference). The wave can pass through both slits, even though it is only one electron. Once we interfere it looses that greater potential and collapses into a single point of reference only passing through one slit with literally less impact.

            The observable universe is proof of interference on a large scale predating the existence of humanity. So, my interest is in the first collision when it comes to the fundamental particle named electron.

            Like

          41. One dimensional? What on earth are you talking about?

            Your explanation is typical of the gobbledygook surrounding QM by people who wish to extend the weirdness of very small interactions as if indicative of the same weirdness applied to some kind of woo. The two are very much connected by people motivated to connect them as if the former excuses the latter. All I can say without going into great detail is that you demonstrate that your understanding of particle physics through QM is poor, Lander7. The wave function is about probability and the Observer effect in a nutshell is meant to explain the capturing of a particle or field or interaction at a moment in time, that before this capture takes place, particles cannot be ‘known’ but that certain properties must be ignored (‘disappear’) in order to do this.

            Like

          42. You Asked — “One dimensional? What on earth are you talking about?” and also stated in respect to dimensions (gobbledygook surrounding QM … indicative of the same weirdness applied to some kind of woo”

            My Response – lol… I wasn’t aware that you didn’t know that the probability factor decreases as you get closer to an absolute point, I didn’t go into more detail since that’s basic knowledge.

            You may be thinking of dimensions like a tv movie since you used the word “woo” but I’m talking about the “reference point”

            A dimension is simply a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.

            When we deal with objects within a single dimension we are talking about the most specific and exact point of reference possible. This is to say that we are 100% certain of the exact position of an object.
            With an electron we cannot know with absolute certainty the exact location of the particle. This is what I was referring to when I was talking about dimensions. We do know the exact 3 dimensional location, EX: we can say with 100% certainty that the electron is in the firing chamber of the collider because we have a 3 dimensional reference point. We know the dimensions of the collider in length, width, and height. This is critically important with how we deal with particles today because we do need to know the location.

            When we use quantum computing and quantum entangled technology, we use 2 dimensions of space.

            You Stated – “The wave function is about probability and the Observer effect in a nutshell is meant to explain the capturing of a particle or field or interaction at a moment in time, that before this capture takes place, particles cannot be ‘known’ but that certain properties must be ignored (‘disappear’) in order to do this.”

            My Response – Somewhat true but not really. We don’t capture anything we interfere and cause collisions (for the slit experiment). An electron particle is never known because it is identical to all other electron particles. Probability is the only measurement of an electron as a wave or as a particle. Even after the wave form collapses, we can only guarantee within a range of probability that we have the correct electron. How the electron was interfered with could also produce positrons that would further decrease our probability predictions. Also nothing “disappears”, once you interfere with a particle it simply is no longer moving from location to location (the wave). Your use of “moment in time” is correct but misleading since we also don’t know for certain when something happens (just saying).

            Like

          43. Now it also occurs to me that I should explain the 4th dimensional reference I made, since this may also seem like magic to you or “woo”.

            Particles have anti particles that perfectly match them with opposing charges. Since we were talking about electrons, the anti particle is positron (anti-electron).

            Positrons can go against the “arrow of time” (travel backwards in time). This is not magic or woo lol, it’s just another reference point using 4 dimensions of space rather than the 3 we are used to dealing with.

            Like

          44. The woo I’m referring to is not in the physics. It is the kind of Deepak Chopra woo that when questioned automatically refers to the weirdness of QM, as if that opens the door to any and all woo. The woo does not refer to QM.

            What you are talking about is highly complex field interactions with particles, much of which is theoretical. The simplest particle used in early experiments was the photon, a particle of light made up of energy, understood to be an electron – a negatively charged unit of energy. This energy in the form of an electron demonstrated properties of matter AND properties of a wave when accelerated. This is what the double slit experiment showed, photons shot at two separated sets of backboards with slits in the first backboard. Rather than have photons strike and mark the second backboard only where the slits allowed them straight-line passage did not occur but presented an accumulated fan-like assortment, demonstrating that these particles of light travelled both in straight lines as well as waves. And that was mind-blowing because how could a particle behave in two very different ways? Much physics went into understanding this and it took a new school of physics called quantum physics to begin to peel back the mysteries. How particles operate at the tiniest measurable environment – the ‘sub-atomic’ level – is what we call quantum mechanics. Mechanics refers to how particle operate. The models to explain what might be goin on is called quantum physics. And at this level, the physics requires a lot of sophisticated math, not least of which is the math or probability. This is called the wave function.

            So in regards to your comments here, the dots appearing in the backboards of the double slit experiment after each photon was fired were not ‘one dimensional’. They were particles of light energy occupying space and time so by definition they cannot be one dimensional. These particles exist in multi-dimensional space. But they can also exist in fewer or more dimensions depending on how and in what dimensional framework they are observed. The Observer effect refers to this framing and can capture only those properties that are demonstrated in side that framing. The particles still have independent existence across many dimensions. This is not woo but highly complex field interactions, many of which make no sense in reference to classical physics in our normal dimensions but do when we begin to glean the physics operating in these other dimensions. This is why we smash things together, to try to break what we think of as fundamental atomic units into their constituent multi-dimensional subatomic parts where switching dimensional levels requires or expends vast amounts of energy.

            You misunderstand what a positron is: an electron with a positive charge and opposite spin, otherwise known as ‘anti-matter’ or ‘anti-electron’! Even that concept is difficult to really understand. The reason why you talk about ‘reversing’ the arrow of time and the positron, for example, is because the math still works when time is given a negative value in the equation. You can do that in math because the math is not subject to entropy. But in our dimension it is a constant! It cannot be avoided. And so this notion about the role of math to reveal stuff by means of prediction is an important concept in QM: the math and its astounding ability to accurately predict indicates ‘levels’ of what we consider reality right down to bedrock subatomic fields from which and into all energy takes form.

            None of this is woo but it is really difficult if not impossible to wrap one’s head around how, for example a particle like a photon with physical properties can be two things at the same time. Yet it is.

            So none of this helps explain or grant wiggle room to any woo like religious beliefs. As soon as you encounter the reference from a faith-based perspective, you know you’re being peddled bullshit.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. You Stated — “The woo I’m referring to is not in the physics. It is the kind of Deepak Chopra woo that when questioned automatically refers to the weirdness of QM, as if that opens the door to any and all woo.”

            My Response — You brought up “woo” after I talked about dimensions not in relation to religion. You stated, “One dimensional? What on earth are you talking about? Your explanation is typical of the gobbledygook surrounding QM by people who wish to extend the weirdness of very small interactions as if indicative of the same weirdness applied to some kind of woo.”

            I don’t think you understood dimensional frames of reference, but it’s no big deal.

            You Stated – “What you are talking about is highly complex field interactions with particles, much of which is theoretical.”

            My Response – This is not a complex discussion and most of what we are talking about are proven theories at this point, with just some aspects being theoretical and that’s just due to the nature of electrons. The positron was proven recently, so it’s no longer theoretical.

            You Stated – “And that was mind-blowing because how could a particle behave in two very different ways?”

            My Response – Maybe from a public understanding and only because it was explained in a way that indicated a lie. The public wasn’t told what wave form is, so they didn’t know it was the same particle. Scientist were focused on the unknown cause of the collapse (which still shouldn’t happen). The wave form was already known and understood but the collapse is the puzzle. The public is looking at the wrong aspect of why it’s so amazing.

            We should also note that photon generation does not impact electron mass and that’s ridiculous and should be impossible.

            You Stated – “it took a new school of physics called quantum physics to begin to peel back the mysteries.”

            My Response – We were already studying subatomic particles; the new branch of physics was needed because classical physics was useless for any form of common measurement or reference point. EX: There is no arrow of time at the quantum level, there is no gravity, entropy works in reverse, mass suffers no loss, etc.

            You Stated – “So in regards to your comments here, the dots appearing in the backboards of the double slit experiment after each photon was fired were not ‘one dimensional’. They were particles of light energy occupying space and time so by definition they cannot be one dimensional. These particles exist in multi-dimensional space.”

            My Response – I never referenced any dots. I only referenced the location of a particle in space and why we cannot know for a certainty it’s absolute single dimensional location, I stated this because you made a broad statement that was misleading when you indicated that we don’t really know where particles are. We do in 2-3 dimensions, we don’t in 1 dimension otherwise known as it’s exact location. We will most likely never know given the fact that we have no way to know exactly where something is as a single point of reference. It’s the exact same reason we can never know the exact moment in time since they are the same.

            You Stated – “You misunderstand what a positron is: an electron with a positive charge and opposite spin, otherwise known as ‘anti-matter’ or ‘anti-electron’! Even that concept is difficult to really understand.”

            My Response – Positrons are easy to understand with one correction in your definition that could be misleading to people. Positrons don’t actually spin; they do have angular momentum, but they do not rotate.
            Just Saying

            You Stated – “The reason why you talk about ‘reversing’ the arrow of time and the positron, for example, is because the math still works when time is given a negative value in the equation. You can do that in math because the math is not subject to entropy. But in our dimension, it is a constant! “

            My Response – Close but not true. The reason I talked about the arrow of time is because of reference points. Electrons can only follow the arrow of time; they are limited in how they interact with 4th dimensional reference points.
            When you say, “But in our dimension it is a constant”, your statement lacks nuance. We, as human beings, perceive 3 dimensions but we are always within all dimensions at the same time. This is to say that a single particle is in a one-dimensional space in a room that we can perceive the 2nd and 3rd dimensional space around it (or better understood as a collection of one-dimensional reference points that most likely are endless).
            A positron can access four-dimensional reference points that we cannot. This is greatly due to our negative charge which dictates movement along the linear arrow of time. I am obviously saying that we also access four-dimensional reference points but only in one direction. It’s the positive charge that allows the positron to access the opposite reference points.

            You Stated – “None of this is woo but it is really difficult if not impossible to wrap one’s head around how, for example a particle like a photon with physical properties can be two things at the same time. Yet it is.”

            My Response – I’m not going into photons since that would make this conversation go on forever. I would agree that a photon is remarkable given its production mechanism from orbital reduction of electrons but they are too unreal to discuss. (they literally may not be real given what we know about them and yet they interact). I don’t want this to become a holographic universe discussion.

            Like

          46. You Stated — “But it’s a particle we cannot locate until we look. (Schrodinger’s cat)”

            My Response — Incorrect, we know where the cat is (in the box), we don’t know the state (wave function) until we observe it directly (then a dead cat).

            The box allows us to know location and observation allows us to control outcome. Just like a quantum computer allows for the extra bit until we provide input.

            Like

          47. Aside from your last statement being utter bs… ie. Nothing is provisionally True until “disproved”… How were you able to trace back the mere existence of the Natural world to a Supernatural origin/agency? Wouldn’t you have to demonstrate that one actually exists first in order to be a possible option for consideration as to the origination or “creation” of Nature?
            I’ll explain briefly. I would have to actually HAVE and be able to demonstrate to have an sister named Jane to say she was the one who gave me the book that sits on my desk, to actually say and demonstrate that is how the book got there.
            How did you first demonstrate the existence of God outside of and before the Natural world in order for Him/It to be an option for consideration as to the origination or “creation” of the Natural world?

            Liked by 1 person

          48. You Stated — “True until “disproved”

            My Response — You are incorrect, nothing is true until proven true nor is it not true until proven true.

            One is either convinced or not convinced based on arguments provided and for this topic niter can a creator be proven or disproven.

            Like

          49. Convinced doesn’t mean that the evidence exists, only that yiiu were convinced. How did you establish first the existence of a Supernatural being outside of nature?

            Like

          50. You Asked — Convinced doesn’t mean that the evidence exists, only that yiiu were convinced.

            My Response — It also doesn’t mean that it does not. I also never stated anything beyond me being convinced so that is nonsensical.

            You Asked — “How did you establish first the existence of a Supernatural being outside of nature?”

            My Response — I became convinced over a period of about 25 years through personal data collection.

            One example of this would be that it seems more likely that wave form collapse in the absence of direct human observation is more evident of a creator than there not being one. That is one example of a small subset of information from a very large pool.

            Like

          51. Something happening without human observation doesnt give evidence to a god being the one who did it. For you, i guess it shored up your “being convinced” by other arguments. But it’s not Evidence in itself of a Supernatural beings actual existence outside of nature.

            Like

          52. You Stated — “Something happening without human observation doesnt give evidence to a god being the one who did it.”

            My Response — It also doesn’t give evidence that a creator did not.

            The argument works either way.

            You Stated — For you, i guess it shored up your “being convinced” by other arguments.

            My Response — It’s a small part of a larger data block and doesn’t shore up anything. No one piece shores a puzzle it just defines the picture.

            If someone has a more convincing argument against I am open to hear it.

            Like

          53. Nah buddy. This isn’t about “more convincing” arguments. And you’re not gonna switch the table on me. You said you collected “data” and “evidence” to the existence of God. You offer arguments and inferences that convinced you. These are not Evidence and data. So again.. What data have you collected on the actual existence of a Supernatural being outside of Nature, and how have you collected it?

            Like

          54. I provided you with one subset of data that convinced me. I’m open to any you have that could convince me otherwise.

            I am even open to you convincing me that the subset I provided should not convince me but I have no reason to convince you of anything.

            Like

          55. That was not data as to the existence of a god. But of a natural occurrence that you chose to infer one. I’m not sure you realize what I’m asking. Either way, it’s not about me convincing you differently, or you convincing me. I’m trying to help you understand that being “convinced” by arguments or inferences from nature doesn’t mean you’ve actually collected data on the existence of a Supernatural being outside of Nature. You just believe, or have been convinced by the arguments or inferences. And frankly I’m ok with that. You have freedom to be and I won’t try to “convince” you otherwise. My point being… stop saying you’ve actually collected data and have evidence when all you have are arguments and inferences. It’s dishonest with yourself and those you interact with. Trying to demonstrate you are not a fool makes apologists for god look foolish. And with that, and understanding that you either don’t or won’t understand what no mean by that… I’ll bid adieu for the night. Gotta get to work.

            Liked by 1 person

          56. That’s your opion but it’s not a fact. Your conclusion on what constitutes reasonable convincing is just your opinion from your perspective and accumulated understanding.

            Since we both agree that we have no reason to convince the other then statements about why I should not believe something are nonsensical. In the future leave out personal recommendations since they are not needed unless you are trying to convince someone of your argument, it comes across as dishonest.

            Just saying

            Like

          57. Now I’m sure you have no idea what I’m asking for. Or more likely “redefining” what you mean of what I’m asking for. Either way, it’s clear you have no intention of trying to either understand or supply us with the answer to what I am actually asking for. Willfully ignorant, you show yourself to be foolish and incapable to honest discussion. Have a great day.

            Like

          58. You Stated — “Now I’m sure you have no idea what I’m asking for.”

            My Response — That sounds like a you problem. Find a better question for topics that have no certain conclusion.

            Like

          59. It sounds like Mike is asking how you determined the data from research etc was evidence for your god?
            I stand under correction if this is not the case.

            Like

          60. You Stated — “It sounds like Mike is asking how you determined the data from research etc was evidence for your god?”

            My Response — It doesn’t matter how it sounds to you. I never stated I had any evidence for or against the existence of god.

            I stated that I have been convinced by the data I collected.

            Consider yourself corrected.

            Like

          61. Therefore it would be fair to assert you have no evidence and the conclusions you drew from the collected data are your personal interpretation.

            Liked by 1 person

          62. You Stated — “Therefore it would be fair to assert you have no evidence ”

            My Response — As stated at the beginning of the debate, there is no evidence proving or disproving god.

            That was true then and it is still true every time you realize it at the end of another god debate.

            Ecclesiastes 1:9
            9 What has been will be again,
            what has been done will be done again;
            there is nothing new under the sun.

            Like

          63. I am not disagreeing with you only affirming that what you have deduced from the data you have collected over 25 years still amounts to nothing but your personal interpretation – or in other words – your opinion.

            Like

          64. You Stated — “I am not disagreeing with you”

            My Response — I never said you did.

            You Stated — “only affirming that what you have deduced from the data… amounts to nothing but your personal interpretation”

            My Response — That seems obvious since every person on earth has also used data to come to a personal conclusion.

            No one can prove god exists and no one can prove that god does not exist.

            Unless you have proof that god does not exist which I would be interested in hearing.

            Like

          65. No evidence has ever been produced for the existence of any gods, not your god or any other.
            I just needed you to clarify that your belief in the Christian god is simply based on your opinion, which is, of course, rooted in faith.

            Like

          66. No evidence has ever been produced for non existence of god.

            I just needed you to clarify that you understood that as an atheist based on your opinion, which is, of course, rooted in disbelief.

            Unless you have not be convinced like I have not been convinced.

            Like

          67. It’s true “No evidence has ever been produced for non existence of god.” Same is the case for pixies et al. In fact, this list is infinite. But what should be of concern is the absence of evidence for where it should be… like in the genetic code to indicate a creation event for humans. Add up all the places where some evidence should be and it becomes obvious there’s a good reason for no evidence; it’s based on non existence!

            Liked by 1 person


          68. …no convincing evidence being presented to you?

            Can’t speak for Tildeb, but this is an assertion I often encounter and it is erroneous.

            The reality is no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the claim that gods exist, the Christian god and (as far as I am aware) every other god so far mentioned.
            To date, all that has ever been presented are claims; arguments based on unsubstantiated claims at that.
            Gary Habermas is a good example of this.

            Like

          69. The reality is no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the claim that god does not exist.

            To date, all that has ever been presented are claims; arguments based on unsubstantiated claims at that.

            Like

          70. This is probably correct, but it is Not a claim I ever make.

            While you have made no overt claim that Yahweh does exist you are a Christian and this comes with the implicit condition that Yahweh (God) does exist.
            One could hardly claim to be a Christian while rejecting the Christian god, now could one? Be this as a Trinitarian or not; Christadelphian for example.
            Therefore you are, tacitly making a claim that your god – Yahweh /Jesus of Nazareth exists. To date there has been no evidence to suggest the veracity of this claim.
            It is reasonable, therefore, to state that your claim of veracity is not based on evidence but on faith/your opinion.
            As with all global religions it would be reasonable for one to conclude that such specific religious beliefs as you have are primarily because of certain specific cultural influences.

            Like

          71. I have not claimed that god exist. That you continue to assert this tells me you are being disingenuous.

            If you find no reason to disagree with these specific statements it would be fair to presume you are prepared to accept that god does not exist as you position for which there is zero evidence to support such a claim.
            Do you consider that your understanding of nature plays a strong part in this?

            Like

          72. I have not claimed that god exist.

            And I explicitly said that you had not claimed that your god exists. It is right there in the comment.
            Let me post it again for you.

            While you have made no overt claim that Yahweh does exist

            Must we presume you missed it, did you not bother to read it, or are you being disingenuous?

            However, you are a Christian and a belief that god exists is implicit in being a Christian. I also said this.
            Did you also fail to read this? Let me post it again for you …

            you are a Christian and this comes with the implicit condition that Yahweh (God) does exist

            I have no belief in gods, based on the lack of evidence. This is my position.
            Is there anything about this statement you do not understand? If so I will try to be more explicit for you.

            My understanding of nature precludes the necessity of a creator deity or any god that I am aware of.
            However, on the other hand, as it is unlikely I am aware of every claim of veracity for gods, if you are aware of a god that is responsible for nature – perhaps the god you beleive in for example -.please present the relevant evidence.

            Like

          73. However, you are an Atheist and a belief that god does not exist is implicit in being a an Atheist.

            Just as you stated since I’m a theist you stated I must provide evidence for my belief because you say so even in the absence of me making a claim.

            So again how to you back your claim?

            If you don’t provide an answer then don’t expect one from me.

            Like

          74. However, you are an Atheist and a belief that god does not exist is implicit in being a an Atheist.

            Not. For. Me. As I have explained numerous times.
            I consider that, to date, no evidence for gods has been presented.
            This is the sole reason for my lack of belief.
            I cannot possibly say ”No god/s exist” as I am unable to demonstrate such a claim. I can only evaluate claims based on the evidence of such claims.
            You, on the other hand while also not asserting that your god exists, you do believe/ accept that the god you worship – Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth does exist.
            However, such belief is not based on evidence but solely faith / culture.

            Like

          75. This is a typical example of metaphysical thinking in action and applied to reality as if descriptive of it; imposing a premise on reality and presuming it’s true… and THEN going on from there. That’s why I keep insisting it’s a methodological error in HOW to think about reality, how to think about what it contains, how to use reality to arbitrate beliefs about because when we don’t, we end up with over a thousand years of remaining in the dark, of curtailing the acquisition of knowledge, of making ignorance the judge of knowledge, of promoting superstitious nonsense to be equivalent to knowledge. We still see vestiges of this today in all the woo being peddled and excused and tolerated as if equivalent, as if astrology is equivalent to astronomy, as if ‘ancient’ wisdom is equivalent to double blind studies, as if vaccination does as much harm as good, and list goes on and on. It is a broken method of thinking that produces vast amounts of harm.

            The premise in this case is by Lander7 assuming that not believing in some god is “implicit” – a condition for the premise he wants to hold – and excusing this premise that reverses what’s true in fact; assuming you have imported this ‘not-something’ rather than pull this from reality and CONCLUDE there’s no reason for the positive claim being made by believers, a positive claim being imported and THEN imposed on reality as if true that there IS a god and going from there. This is the thinking that then informs that believing and not believing are both similar kinds of claims, equivalent claims, when they are actually opposite claims using an opposite method of informing the premises. In Lander7’s case, he assumes; in your case, you conclude. There is a WORLD of difference right there. In Lander7’s case, he imports this belief and imposes it ON reality; in your case, you export the belief FROM reality. The former is ignorance in action; the latter informed by reality.

            Notice the word game that is being played but one that ignores the actual words; theist and a-theist. Theist is a positive claim about a BELIEF in gods or a god; a-theist is the negation of that BELIEF in gods or a god played by the theist to be the negation of the object, god or gods. Again and again, we see very poor thinking skills being used by believers who must rely on metaphysical arguments because reality does not support their beliefs. Notice the tactics that are not informed by reality but belief that something MUST be so because the believer imports this certainty and then plays all kinds of games to avoid owning up to the belief by point out the object is worthy of unquestioning loyalty. (Golly, where have we seen this in action lately? Oh right: this DEFINES the Trump presidency and his followers – belief imposed on reality that ignores all evidence from it.) And by ‘owning up to the belief’ I mean understanding that belief imposed on reality is sourced at the believer and then transferred to reality versus the atheist pointing this out but being told they are doing the same thing – that non belief is sourced at the non believer and then transferred to reality to venerate a not-something, Obviously, the opposite is in fact and method the case: one cannot believe in a non-something. One cannot believe in an object that is a, say, non-fish because the list is infinite and so no veneration of this ‘non-object’ is even possible. That’s how we know the method of using metaphysics to inform belief is a broken method that has not, does not, and probably never shall produce one jot or tittle of knowledge about reality. That’s why religious belief that uses metaphysical thinking to justify it produces no insight into reality.

            Liked by 1 person

          76. It baffles me why, on the face of it, rational individuals like Lander are so defensive about their religious beliefs.
            If they are convinced that their religious beliefs are valid then why not simply present the evidence for them?
            Well, that’s unfair as it was rhetorical, as there is no evidence.
            But why hide behind a smokescreen of obfuscation and word salads that amount to little more than ”Nyah, nyah, nyah!

            It simply makes no sense.,
            On saying this, De Grasse Tyson once mentioned in a 2011 presentation that 7% of elite scientists believe in and pray to a personal god.
            He asserts that it is pointless trying to discuss anything with the average believer, such as Lander7, but the far more interesting question is why does that 7% of elite scientists believe?
            Personally, I think he was playing the audience as the answer is the same as for the plebs and run of the mill pew-warmers: cultural indoctrination / death anxiety.

            Like

          77. Well, Ark, I think this is why one has to be taught (relying heavily on emotions) to accept this kind of thinking because it doesn’t work for anything else relevant to accumulating knowledge about reality. That’s why faith-based beliefs are entirely different from evidence-adduced beliefs and we recognize them by not by what is believed about something but how they are believed. When compelling evidence from reality is not used but is implied or assumed or imposed as if true, we know we’re dealing with the kind of belief informed by faith. And this goes well beyond religion; it is a method of thinking that is imposed on reality as if true and the defenses used for this tactic usually are not relevant to compelling evidence from reality for the claim but rely on emotional carrots and sticks (Oh yeah? You don’t agree? Well, you’re ugly, or a -phobe or bigot or socialist or capitalist, or are immoral, mean, intolerant, strident, angry, white, and so on).

            Liked by 1 person

          78. Ahh

            Then Not for me either. As I have explained numerous times.

            I consider that, to date, no evidence for the non existence of god has been presented.

            Like

          79. So your belief is based on acceptance of the veracity of (some, all?) the biblical text and also faith .
            Fair enough.
            I am still trying to figure out why someone with the obvious level of knowledge/intelligence you have would accept the patently unfounded claims of Christianity.
            Would you be prepared to discuss why?

            Like

          80. So your disbelief is based on the non-acceptance of the veracity of (some, all?) the biblical text and also faith .

            Fair enough.
            I am still trying to figure out why someone with access to so much data would not believe in god.

            Would you be prepared to tell why but in much greater detail?

            Like

          81. We now seem to be doubling up so I’ll repeat the question /response here and we can stick to this thread.

            As far as I am aware there is no data. Only claims
            That is the point.
            Yet you claim there is data. What data are you referring to that convinced you?

            Like

          82. I agree that we are doubling up so I’ll repeat the my question here and we can stick to this thread.

            You stated that you don’t believe god exists so I would like to see what convinced you of that.

            That is the point.
            You based this on the bible being incorrect. How does that disprove god exists?

            Like

          83. You based this on the bible being incorrect. How does that disprove god exists?

            The bible. The data point you are referring to.

            The Christian claim is that Jesus is God/Yahweh.
            This (the bible) is the reference Christians use.
            The bible has no evidence to support the claims it makes about Jesus/God.

            This tells us that belief in Jesus/God is based on acceptance of the biblical claims but without evidence to support such belief.

            In other words: Faith.
            Therefore we can assert with confidence that:
            There is no evidence to support the foundational tenets of Christianity.
            The religious beliefs of those that self-identify as Christian are based on faith.

            You self-identify as Christian.

            Like

          84. I understand that but your claim is that god does not exists, how does you not believing the bible disprove god?

            Like

          85. I understand that but your claim is that god does not exists,

            Incorrect. This point has been explained multiple times . I see no reason to repeat myself if you lack the integrity to address my position correctly.

            how does you not believing the bible disprove god

            The claims made in the bible for the Christian god – your data point – have no evidence to support them.
            Do you have any other data points to support your claims?

            Like

          86. I agree with you on this, I also explained multiple times . I see no reason to repeat myself if you lack the integrity to address my position correctly.

            Do you have any other arguments to support your claims?

            Like

          87. Your data point for your religious belief is the bible.

            I have addressed your position correctly.

            Do you have any other arguments to support your claims?

            The fact that you have acknowledged your Christian beliefs are based solely on the bible/ ergo faith, and cultural influence?
            What other evidence does one need?

            Like

          88. Your disbelief is based on the bible.

            I have addressed your position correctly.

            Do you have any other arguments to support your claims?

            The fact that you have acknowledged your disbelief in Christianity as a basis for not believing god exists is easy to understand.

            Why does that mean god does not exist?

            Like

          89. So your disbelief in invisible fire-breathing dragons living right now in your bathtub is based on the non-acceptance of the veracity of (some, all?) the texts?

            Fair enough.

            I am still trying to figure out why someone with access to so much data would not believe in an invisible fire-breathing dragon living in your bathtub.

            Would you be prepared to tell why but in much greater detail?

            Do you see why your framing of the negation reveals the uselessness of this response? There is an infinite amount of reasons for disbelief for the non-acceptance of any infinite number of claims. That is why this argument is absolutely fruitless. Arguing the negation is never-ending. It’s a diversionary tactic only. This is why only positive claims have any reasonable merit that can actually be determined by reality. Your approach relegates reality to be of no consequence.

            Like

          90. I already stated that a conversation about something that can not be proven or disproven is a waste of time, but I’m not the one keeping this line of questioning going and I still don’t have any claims.

            Unless you have something that can convince me otherwise.

            Like

          91. The extra part is the important part; yes, there is no convincing evidence for even the general proposition about there being a god of any kind BUT – and more importantly – there is no evidence where it should be present to even start the process of ‘convincing’. This is the ‘likelihood’ scale at work here, where there is absolutely nothing whatsoever from reality to put on one end of the likelihood teeter totter for this specific god. There’s just nothing there other than metaphysical words games. And maybe the word games might work so we look at these logical claims and then turn to reality to see if any of them demonstrate insight into it. And AGAIN, nothing. This matters because if we are using a method that has not and does not demonstrate any value knowledge whatsoever, then the likelihood of it doing so at some future date is vanishingly low. That’s why we have a saying defining ‘crazy’ to be doing the same thing and expecting a different result. This is EXACTLY what religious belief is in action.

            Liked by 1 person

          92. I hear your opinion of what you feel people should or shouldn’t be convinced of but I will need more that feelings from you.

            Do you have something more convincing to prove the claim that god does not exist?

            Like

    1. They are somewhat quiet. You could always pop over to CS’s spot and ask him? 🙂

      Hope you and yours are keeping safe and as healthy as one can hope for under the circumstances?

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Ark:

    Prayer is a benefit just by virtue of stabilizing the mind. Of course it ‘works.’

    Do you see thieves and murderers stabilizing their minds???

    As to the lunacy that you try to attach to good people when they pray, your case is lost ere it enter the courtroom.

    Here’s something mundane for you to laugh at. When I was a lad of ten, I wanted this rocket squirt gun that sat in the window of a drug store. It was 29 cents. I didn’t have the money.

    3 days later while walking to school, on the curb on the ground under a leaf laid….. 29 cents. Guess what I bought?

    Imagine now if I would have prayed……. point being, there is One who knows all things, and dispenses according to His good will.
    (Hi sir pink/ Tks for the mention)

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Just going on your past history/description of believers/ by giving homage to the Creator of the moon.

        Certainly meditation calms the mind: some however choose to meditate on the known. God knows all things: so it’s a good idea to connect with source of all knowledge.

        However, to comprehend how: why/ prayers are heard/answered: requires a treatise on the dispensational nature of God and scripture.

        I have not the time to engage that, as good as it is.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I have no use for that magic. My needs are more practical: directions from point A to point B and answers to specific questions — all of which get answered promptly within in milliseconds, which is the direct opposite of a god who never answers.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. Hey Ark. Read over all the comments after reading your post. You have much more time and energy to deal with these Blind-Faithers than I do my Friend. Kudos and Bravo to you Sir. 👏

    Hey, are you enjoying the Euros 2020 (in 2021 – lol) and England’s performances so far?

    Like

    1. Ah, England, the one goal specialists of terminal boredom.
      Watching the Portugal game at the moment. Knife edge stuff – love it. My wife can’t watch!

      Liked by 1 person