Social “Homosexuality Caused Noah’s Flood” Says Woman Behind OH Abortion Bill

[Deleted member 539235]

My point exactly. English breakfast is pretty solid, but then I need a nap, only a true fatass could crush a whole English breakfast and shake it off.

low energy

full english brekky gives you a proper boost, perfect for times when you have to work through lunch

 

[Teen Wolf]

My dude, it was a joke. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm the guy who always insults Canada. I was just making fun of Bushman, considering he always follows a harsh insult about liberals with the fact that liberals always insult people.

Haha I did hille. I just read the reply and not the name. You wrote it just a bushman reply. Perfect.

 

[Prutfis]

Religious nutjobs and their sky fairy beliefs have no place in politics. The US does seem to have a lot of them compared to other first world nations though.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Religious nutjobs and their sky fairy beliefs have no place in politics. The US does seem to have a lot of them compared to other first world nations though.

Its a big country

 

[Islam Imamate]

Tikka masala was actually created in Glasgow

Can’t beat a good curry though. I’m a Balti man.

A roast dinner is good if cooked well, and an English breakfast is a good start to the day.

Struggling after that though. Does beans on toast count?

Yeah chicken tikka masala only qualifies as a potential UK national dish because it was created in the UK but it was made by South Asian immigrants.

 

[woodguyatl]

This is what the sane have to deal with on a daily basis. Lunatics, reactionaries, run of the mill knuckleheads and religious kooks.

Imagine using Noah’s Ark as a talking point in 2019. America is doomed

Oddly, many that talk about Biblical events as still relevant are quick to dismiss the Civil Rights movement as old news.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Is this a new theory? In our past discussions IIRC you believed the soul was transcendental and could be bestowed by god on the animate and inanimate.

I still think God could, but for whatever reason, he has chosen to let souls emerge from brains.

 

[luckyshot]

No, I haven't, and Christianity is Iron Age, thank you very much.

Parts of the Old Testament are Bronze Age.

Thou shalt not murder.

And that is the statement under examination.

There is a whole lot of killing and slaughter in the Bible, both attributed directly to YHWH and committed in his name by his tribal followers. Apparently, murder isn't murder if YWWH wills it.

Great ethic there. Can't see what could possibly go wrong.

Punishing the guilty is not murder. That the punishment leaves no way for the children of those wicked to survive means that the best choice there may be is to give them the coup de grace. That said, your link is ridiculous, as if everything described in the Bible was God's will.

What were the Canaanites guilty of? Living in the land that the Hebrews wanted and worshiping a different God.

Seems like great reason to slaughter the men, women, and children to me!

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Religious nutjobs and their sky fairy beliefs have no place in politics.

Now this is an interesting opinion. One which I suspect more people think than say. Would you support a religious test for candidates seeking election to ensure they don't hold any religious beliefs?

 

[Prutfis]

Now this is an interesting opinion. One which I suspect more people think than say. Would you support a religious test for candidates seeking election to ensure they don't hold any religious beliefs?

They can have all the beliefs they want. Just leave them out of the political work and especially legislation. Superstitions shouldn't be any kind of argument for making laws.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They can have all the beliefs they want. Just leave them out of the political work and especially legislation. Superstitions shouldn't be any kind of argument for making laws.

I don't see the advantage of strictly materialist governmental philosophy, particularly not historically.

The best governmental philosophy tolerates both the religious and the irreligious. Intolerant atheism has an extremely poor governmental track record since the 1790s or so.

 

[Prutfis]

I don't see the advantage of strictly materialist governmental philosophy, particularly not historically.

The best governmental philosophy tolerates both the religious and the irreligious. Intolerant atheism has an extremely poor governmental track record since the 1790s or so.

Not the point at all.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Not the point at all.

Not sure I agree, because it sure seemed like the point.

 

[NoDak]

The best governmental philosophy tolerates both the religious and the irreligious. Intolerant atheism has an extremely poor governmental track record since the 1790s or so.

That is secularism. A lot of the more militant atheists can come off just as dogmatic as the most devoutly religious and the state (or its rulers) essentially took the place of the god in countries recognized as officially atheist. Not desirable.

 

[franklinstower]

@luckyshot
You said--

"If you want to have a conversation about what in the Bible is of historical vs. literary vs. spiritual value, I’d be happy to. But my guess is your answers to those questions will be determined by a specific inter-textual narrative that you have decided is there. When I ask you how you’ve decided on this narrative, you’ll most likely point out the passages that your narrative has decided should be taken literally. Which is, of course, circular reasoning."

"People have been insisting that there is ONE true, valid reading of the Bible that we can arrive at since Luther. And here we are 10,000 sects of Christianity later, lol."

"The point is, you can’t take the whole Bible literally because some of it flatly contradicts itself— which puts everyone who wants to take ANY of it literally with some choices to make. You could tell yourself one narrative to resolve these conflicts in one way, someone else has a different narrative to resolve them in another way."


I found this concept to be so freeing as I was introduced to Christianity. I was lucky enough to be taught by a sort of rebel priest who was an intellectual and who covered all of this kind of information in detail.

I know some people react to textual criticism with fear and others with a desire to impose control. What it did for me is allow people room to look at things differently (within reason and not including fundamentalism).

I am very sincere in my approach to the Bible and deeply reverent but also free from any sort of musts or heavy dogmas, not because dogmas cant be correct but because we just don't know for certain. Approaching the scriptures from this place of humility, of really not knowing for certain, has allowed me to experience way more power from God while reading it, enter deeply into an emerging and unfolding understanding of the overall message, but also remain open minded and good willed towards other perspectives.

 

[Armbars]

She turned a blind eye to the two male lions on the arc rogering each other then?

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is secularism. A lot of the more militant atheists can come off just as dogmatic as the most devoutly religious and the state (or its rulers) essentially took the place of the god in countries recognized as officially atheist. Not desirable.

Not necessarily. French style secularism is incredibly hostile to religion. In France today it is frowned upon to cite religion in public life and you see that in some of their former colonies to this day.

American secularism is the opposite, while we may firmly apply the establishment clause religion still plays a major role in public life.

 

[luckyshot]

@luckyshot
You said--

"If you want to have a conversation about what in the Bible is of historical vs. literary vs. spiritual value, I’d be happy to. But my guess is your answers to those questions will be determined by a specific inter-textual narrative that you have decided is there. When I ask you how you’ve decided on this narrative, you’ll most likely point out the passages that your narrative has decided should be taken literally. Which is, of course, circular reasoning."

"People have been insisting that there is ONE true, valid reading of the Bible that we can arrive at since Luther. And here we are 10,000 sects of Christianity later, lol."

"The point is, you can’t take the whole Bible literally because some of it flatly contradicts itself— which puts everyone who wants to take ANY of it literally with some choices to make. You could tell yourself one narrative to resolve these conflicts in one way, someone else has a different narrative to resolve them in another way."


I found this concept to be so freeing as I was introduced to Christianity. I was lucky enough to be taught by a sort of rebel priest who was an intellectual and who covered all of this kind of information in detail.

I know some people react to textual criticism with fear and others with a desire to impose control. What it did for me is allow people room to look at things differently (within reason and not including fundamentalism).

I am very sincere in my approach to the Bible and deeply reverent but also free from any sort of musts or heavy dogmas, not because dogmas cant be correct but because we just don't know for certain. Approaching the scriptures from this place of humility, of really not knowing for certain, has allowed me to experience way more power from God while reading it, enter deeply into an emerging and unfolding understanding of the overall message, but also remain open minded and good willed towards other perspectives.

Faith is an attitude toward the world; belief is a structure of the mind. Belief has the instability of a yes-or-no. Faith that relies on a belief is conditional; in other words, not faith at all.

 

[Moshy]

What were the Canaanites guilty of? Living in the land that the Hebrews wanted and worshiping a different God.
Seems like great reason to slaughter the men, women, and children to me!

Firstly, God doesn't order people to kill in the way you make it seem. You see that in the person of Jesus when he responds in John 18:36 by saying “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” and there are more. So right then and there, you know that anyone who murders others in the name of Jesus are not obeying his teachings.

The Canaanites were not innocent. They were very aware of God and rejected him - much like our culture today, who want to be the God of their own life and decide what's right or wrong for themselves. Read Joshua 2:10-11 and you will see that they were not ignorant. In addition to rejecting the true God, they also practiced witchcraft, all sorts of sexual immorality with children, animals, and so on. And again, they had a God named Molech to which they sacrificed children (Leviticus 18:21).

When Sodom (Canaan city) was destroyed, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and had children with him - where do you think they picked those practices up from? By the way, they never actually wiped them out completely, see Judges 1:28-33. What was the result? Read Judges 3:5-7. Eventually God punished Isreal for the very same things.

It's very interesting that people like you are upset at the judgement of wicked people. I wonder if you guys would be angry if God were to punish the Nazis, ISIS/Daesh, etc.?

 

[zebby23]

Religious nutjobs and their sky fairy beliefs have no place in politics. The US does seem to have a lot of them compared to other first world nations though.

America has a lot of very stupid people