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.

 


213 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. 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

          18. 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

          19. 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

          20. 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

          21. 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

          22. 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

          23. 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

          24. 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

          25. 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

          26. 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

          27. 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

          28. 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

          29. 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

          30. 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

          31. 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

          32. 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

          33. 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

          34. 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

          35. 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

          36. 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

          37. 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

          38. 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

          39. 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

          40. 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

          41. 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

          42. 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

          43. 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

          44. 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

          45. 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

          46. 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

          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

            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

          48. 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

          49. 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

          50. 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

          51. 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

          52. ” 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

          53. “So you are saying . . . ”

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

            Liked by 3 people

          54. 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

          55. 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

          56. 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

          57. 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

          58. 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

          59. 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

          60. 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

          61. 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

          62. “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

          63. 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

          64. . . . 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

          65. 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

          66. 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

          67. 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

          68. 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

          69. 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

          70. 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

          71. 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

          72. 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

          73. 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

          74. 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

          75. 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

          76. 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

          77. 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

          78. 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

          79. 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

          80. 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

          81. 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

          82. 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

          83. 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

          84. 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

          85. 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

          86. 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

          87. 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

          88. 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

          89. 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

          90. 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

          91. 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

          92. 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

          93. 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

          94. 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

          95. 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

          96. 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

          97. 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

          98. 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

          99. 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

          100. 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

          101. 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

          102. 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

          103. 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

          104. 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

          105. 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

          106. 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

          107. 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 1 person

          108. 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 3 people

          109. 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 2 people

          110. 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

          111. 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. 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.

            Like

  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

          1. Absolutamente! Golazo! Canárias pequenas para vencer por dois! Sim? 🇧🇷

            Is that who you are pulling for with me, even when we COULD meet in Qatar 2022? Surely if that happens we can be somewhat civil with each other, yes? 😉 😛

            Liked by 1 person

          2. 😄 Then while you do that I will spend some quality time in silence while sitting on the Loo thinking of you (poetry there) my fine footballing Friend. 😉 😛

            Well, and maybe NOT so much “silence,” but you get the aroma of what I mean, right?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. I realized today that IF the U.S. men’s national team do indeed qualify for Qatar 2022—cuz that is still never a given like it is for Mexico—there would be the chance that the U.S. could meet England in Group play or following, right? So if that were to happen, then Ark, all bets are OFF my footballing Friend at that point. 🤭

            Liked by 1 person

          4. If one remembers Iceland against England there is no reason to think that the US team might not Yank … oops, my bad, yank the rug from under ”our” feet.

            One thing we do know is that most teams will be wearing Factor 1 Million sunscreen.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s