|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 28, 2024 1:33:21 GMT
My likely reasons are incorrect without even being specified? How does that work then? And how would you prove I was wrong when you have every incentive to just deny every suggestion out of hand (as demonstrated)? Oh yes, and more importantly this latest from you to jimmyboy: That would be a type of question then, asked in order to make a statement, that does not expect or want an answer (not that no answer is possible, here one notes, when quite a few can be offered and were.) So why did you keep asking for one? And why then dismiss my putative answers unseen? Now, that is mysterious lol Meanwhile we still await persuading that your parking choice is not imaginary. Since if it is, then your reasons are too - and any suggestions moot, just as I said. I can also, it hardly needs to be said, offer theoretical answers to a theoretical question (jimmyboy's will do) and, just as theoretically, be correct. Sorry, wrong again. You saying that does not necessarily make it true. Sorry about that. Also just a reminder since you appeared to have forgotten even though it has been carefully explained to you already: you are not a god and so your comparison is false as a category mistake. My original point here was that God is promoted as a necessarily loving and moral being. When it comes to matters which quite obviously contradict that character - when He commands mass killings and genocides for instance - I have found that "no one knows the ways of God" is often used as a convenience to avoid confronting awkward moral contradictions. In your own case plenty of reasonable. moral and sensible reasons can be found why you park on grass, you do not have a firmly prescribed character, nor a whole book asserting it, and moreover there is no suggestion that you working in mysterious ways is an excuse of itself. And so on. It would help if you checked back to some very useful paragraphs about this I wrote from some back. But you won't.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 28, 2024 1:54:50 GMT
FF and I both know that he doesn't know, Don't tell me what I know. You really think there are no very likely or sensible reasons I can think of why you park on grass? I could start at 'pausing on a long drive to urinate in a coke bottle', through things like 'Bible study' and up to 'smooching with your boyfriend'. As already pointed out though you have no reason to admit the truth (especially when you have already dismissed things without knowing what I may suggest) so ultimately unless you can prove the real reason, it is pointless. But then again now it appears that you were not expecting or wanting an answer in the first place! And you are still not God.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2024 2:27:43 GMT
You saying that does not necessarily make it true. Sorry about that. Also just a reminder since you appeared to have forgotten even though it has been carefully explained to you already: you are not a god and so your comparison is false as a category mistake. My original point here was that God is promoted as a necessarily loving and moral being. When it comes to matters which quite obviously contradict that character - when He commands mass killings and genocides for instance - I have found that "no one knows the ways of God" is often used as a convenience to avoid confronting awkward moral contradictions. In your own case plenty of reasonable. moral and sensible reasons can be found why you park on grass, you do not have a firmly prescribed character, nor a whole book asserting it, and moreover there is no suggestion that you working in mysterious ways is an excuse of itself. And so on. It would help if you checked back to some very useful paragraphs about this I wrote from some back. But you won't. FF and I both know that he doesn't know, Don't tell me what I know. You really think there are no very likely or sensible reasons I can think of why you park on grass? I could start at 'pausing on a long drive to urinate in a coke bottle', through things like 'Bible study' and up to 'smooching with your boyfriend'. As already pointed out though you have no reason to admit the truth (especially when you have already dismissed things without knowing what I may suggest) And you are still not God. Sorry, wrong again. New question: Why won't you admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 28, 2024 10:01:27 GMT
Bodily autonomy is a human right and it is about freedom to copulate the way you want the time, the place, the partner you desire. Is that a Ted Bundy quote? Very good question, Admin. I had never hear about the man. I look him up. And I realize how much things are still unequal. I perfectly understand why you ask. No, it is what women are not granted. Because their behavior is set by other’s will and sometimes with the weight of the law on top of moral rules. Edition I’m not sure about the ”because”. Almost sure ”as long as” >”Because”.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 13:27:24 GMT
You saying that does not necessarily make it true. Sorry about that. Also just a reminder since you appeared to have forgotten even though it has been carefully explained to you already: you are not a god and so your comparison is false as a category mistake. My original point here was that God is promoted as a necessarily loving and moral being. When it comes to matters which quite obviously contradict that character - when He commands mass killings and genocides for instance - I have found that "no one knows the ways of God" is often used as a convenience to avoid confronting awkward moral contradictions. In your own case plenty of reasonable. moral and sensible reasons can be found why you park on grass, you do not have a firmly prescribed character, nor a whole book asserting it, and moreover there is no suggestion that you working in mysterious ways is an excuse of itself. And so on. It would help if you checked back to some very useful paragraphs about this I wrote from some back. But you won't. Don't tell me what I know. You really think there are no very likely or sensible reasons I can think of why you park on grass? I could start at 'pausing on a long drive to urinate in a coke bottle', through things like 'Bible study' and up to 'smooching with your boyfriend'. As already pointed out though you have no reason to admit the truth (especially when you have already dismissed things without knowing what I may suggest) And you are still not God. Sorry, wrong again. New question: Why won't you admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass? Obvious answer: you said the question was rhetorical. As already said, more widely, you are really are not so 'mysterious' as you think, when always plenty of reasonable and obvious answers are to be had for mundane human actions. God may claim to be inscrutable when it suits His followers but, overall, typically we are not. Remember how I've said that humans working in mysterious ways is not an excuse of itself as when it can be tried on for the Almighty? Try shooting someone and claiming that you 'work in mysterious ways' and you will still be convicted, notwithstanding. But hey, stick with these false comparisons with yourself as a diversion while trying to score minor points, though. After all, it has kept you going this far ..,. Genocide by a supposedly moral God sometimes requires special pleading from an embarrassed some. That is still the observation. Sorry, right again.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 20:50:07 GMT
Sorry, wrong again. New question: Why won't you admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass? Obvious answer: you said the question was rhetorical. As already said, more widely, you are really are not so 'mysterious' as you think, when always plenty of reasonable and obvious answers are to be had for mundane human actions. God may claim to be inscrutable when it suits His followers but, overall, typically we are not. Remember how I've said that humans working in mysterious ways is not an excuse of itself as when it can be tried on for the Almighty? Try shooting someone and claiming that you 'work in mysterious ways' and you will still be convicted, notwithstanding. But hey, stick with these false comparisons with yourself as a diversion while trying to score minor points, though. After all, it has kept you going this far ..,. Genocide by a supposedly moral God sometimes requires special pleading from an embarrassed some. That is still the observation. Sorry, right again. The new question is not rhetorical. I know that you don't know why I parked on the grass because I didn't tell you. I can only speculate why you won't admit it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 21:08:52 GMT
Obvious answer: you said the question was rhetorical. As already said, more widely, you are really are not so 'mysterious' as you think, when always plenty of reasonable and obvious answers are to be had for mundane human actions. God may claim to be inscrutable when it suits His followers but, overall, typically we are not. Remember how I've said that humans working in mysterious ways is not an excuse of itself as when it can be tried on for the Almighty? Try shooting someone and claiming that you 'work in mysterious ways' and you will still be convicted, notwithstanding. But hey, stick with these false comparisons with yourself as a diversion while trying to score minor points, though. After all, it has kept you going this far ..,. Genocide by a supposedly moral God sometimes requires special pleading from an embarrassed some. That is still the observation. Sorry, right again. The new question is not rhetorical. I know that you don't know why I parked on the grass because I didn't tell you. I can only speculate why you won't admit it. Oh, so its the same question but now not rhetorical then, lol? Prove I wouldn't know all the most likely reasons for mundane human behaviour. Also please see above, where I carefully explain yet again why you are not a god hence rendering the comparison invalid in any case. But still you persist. It still is just a way of diverting the fact that believers can often hide behind "God works in mysterious ways" when His actions are otherwise obvious but morally inconvenient: "In our minds, the way God weaves remarkable events [including, one notes genocide and ordering massacres] in and through our lives may seem illogical and beyond our understanding. However, we walk by faith, not by sight. Christians know that God’s thoughts are above our thoughts and God’s ways are higher than ours." They might have added to make the special pleading clear: "so we can't explain cruelty and murder by an, er, cruel, jealous and angry god" www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-does-it-mean-that-god-works-in-mysterious-ways.html Except when it suits to know them of course. Which is still my experience. edited to add link and quote.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 21:29:15 GMT
The new question is not rhetorical. I know that you don't know why I parked on the grass because I didn't tell you. I can only speculate why you won't admit it. Oh, so its the same question but now not rhetorical then lol? Prove I wouldn't know all the most likely reasons. Also please see above where I carefully explain why you are not a god hence rendering the comparison invalid. Very little attention is required to know that it's not the same question. It's not a comparison between me and God; it's an exposure of your double standard standards.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 21:43:25 GMT
Oh, so its the same question but now not rhetorical then lol? Prove I wouldn't know all the most likely reasons. Also please see above where I carefully explain why you are not a god hence rendering the comparison invalid. Very little attention is required to know that it's not the same question. Oh yes, in the first question you asked why I did not answer what it turned out to be a theoretical question, then you asked why I do not admit to not answering a theoretical question. My mistake. You didn't answer why I would not know all the likely reasons for mundane behaviour. I seem to remember that we were back in the day discussing that common excuse of God "working in mysterious ways" - which was when you had to admit that you did not know His mind according to scripture at least, since you are not the Holy Spirit, a truism which must have stung. It was you then who shortly after came up with this direct reference to yourself. But if it really is not at all a comparison with God then it has always been irrelevant to the subject of the deity which was in hand. A confirmed diversion then.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 22:43:37 GMT
Very little attention is required to know that it's not the same question. Oh yes, in the first question you asked why I did not answer what it turned out to be a theoretical question, then you asked why I do not admit to not answering a theoretical question. My mistake. You didn't answer why I would not know all the likely reasons for mundane behaviour. I seem to remember that we were back in the day discussing that common excuse of God "working in mysterious ways" - which was when you had to admit that you did not know His mind according to scripture at least, since you are not the Holy Spirit, a truism which must have stung. It was you then who shortly after came up with this direct reference to yourself. But if it really is not at all a comparison with God then it has always been irrelevant to the subject of the deity which was in hand. A confirmed diversion then. Given that this thread is about abortion, I'd say this whole thing is a diversion. But I also remember you confirming your right to go off the rails as if I give a rat's ass. And so here you are, displaying yet another double standard, this time with a twist of irony considering that your waffling about diversion is a diversion itself. Rhetorical question: Why did I park on the grass? Not a rhetorical question: Why won't you admit that you don't know why I parked on the grass? Hope that helps. When I don't know why someone does something, I'll just say I don't know. But you only translate that into the "mysterious ways" thing when it's about something God does. If this was merely about me parking on the grass, I doubt you'd have any squabbles with saying you don't know. After all, why would you? If you don't know, you don't know, and so what? Oh, that's right, I almost forgot... You've already labeled it a copout, so you're dancing around it as if you're the only one who sees the contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 30, 2024 11:35:02 GMT
And yet, now admitting that, here you are, with it taking up nearly all your answers lol
u ok, hun?
Because I don't need to. Usually one would know all the likely reasons for mundane behaviour, a fact you have not denied (or even addressed). And you are still discussing something which you have agreed was an irrelevant comparison.
Hope that helps.
That is because is most germane to the discussion, duh. After all you are still not God, right?
You've admitted the comparison was irrelevant, again right at the start here. (The 'cop-out' was actually in connection with those believers who sometimes use it to avoid confronting a moral god's genocides, my point back in the day, but never mind) And now as you persist with an admitted irrelevance, on and on, you have nothing fresh to add. I think I will leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2024 21:33:46 GMT
And yet, now admitting that, here you are, with it taking up nearly all your answers lol u ok, hun? Because I don't need to. Usually one would know all the likely reasons for mundane behaviour, a fact you have not denied (or even addressed). And you are still discussing something which you have agreed was an irrelevant comparison. Hope that helps. That is because is most germane to the discussion, duh. After all you are still not God, right? You've admitted the comparison was irrelevant, again right at the start here. (The 'cop-out' was actually in connection with those believers who sometimes use it to avoid confronting a moral god's genocides, my point back in the day, but never mind) And now as you persist with an admitted irrelevance, on and on, you have nothing fresh to add. I think I will leave you to it. I don't need to add anything. Everything I've said in this thread still stands. Surely it doesn't need repeating again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 3, 2024 10:48:55 GMT
And yet, now admitting that, here you are, with it taking up nearly all your answers lol u ok, hun? Because I don't need to. Usually one would know all the likely reasons for mundane behaviour, a fact you have not denied (or even addressed). And you are still discussing something which you have agreed was an irrelevant comparison. Hope that helps. That is because is most germane to the discussion, duh. After all you are still not God, right? You've admitted the comparison was irrelevant, again right at the start here. (The 'cop-out' was actually in connection with those believers who sometimes use it to avoid confronting a moral god's genocides, my point back in the day, but never mind) And now as you persist with an admitted irrelevance, on and on, you have nothing fresh to add. I think I will leave you to it. I don't need to add anything. Everything I've said in this thread still stands. Surely it doesn't need repeating again. OK then, let's break fresh ground. Suppose we say that, although I am likely to have a very good idea why most mundane actions happen, I will accept that I do not know exactly why you chose to park on the grass. But let us say further that you have long been famous for condemning those who park on the grass in the loudest and strongest possible terms. Is the claim that you 'work in mysterious ways' enough to justify your actions and counter the claim of moral hypocrisy? And would it persuade the officer who gives you a ticket for bad parking? That's the point.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 3, 2024 20:50:01 GMT
I don't need to add anything. Everything I've said in this thread still stands. Surely it doesn't need repeating again. OK then, let's break fresh ground. Suppose we say that, although I am likely to have a very good idea why most mundane actions happen, I will accept that I do not know exactly why you chose to park on the grass. But let us say further that you have long been famous for condemning those who park on the grass in the widest and strongest possible terms. Is the claim that you 'work in mysterious ways' enough to justify your actions and counter the claim of moral hypocrisy? And would it persuade the officer who gives you a ticket for bad parking? That isn't fresh ground. ps. Wrong again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 4, 2024 20:11:29 GMT
OK then, let's break fresh ground. Suppose we say that, although I am likely to have a very good idea why most mundane actions happen, I will accept that I do not know exactly why you chose to park on the grass. But let us say further that you have long been famous for condemning those who park on the grass in the widest and strongest possible terms. Is the claim that you 'work in mysterious ways' enough to justify your actions and counter the claim of moral hypocrisy? And would it persuade the officer who gives you a ticket for bad parking? That isn't fresh ground. ps. Wrong again. Saying that I do not know exactly why you chose to park on the grass is not new? You've been on about it for several messages! lol And.. aww, you didn't answer my questions. Hey, don't let the grass grow around your feet...
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 4, 2024 20:46:27 GMT
Someone used to imply that there was no problem about sex intercourse taking place in monogamic couples. Someone else would not understand how church would not accept intercourse between same gender partners... Actually, thoughout history there has been only one thing church could stand in the matter. Producing children. Stricly between married partners, without pleasure, or ”love”. I think that the common euphemism is ”biology”. Welcome ages of torments for ”bastards” children, and well, exit same genders who can’t obviously produce children. I’d say that notion of coupling is problematic, flawed, insane, but I am sweet, so, well, when there’s no problem what all the divorces are about ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 4, 2024 22:25:50 GMT
That isn't fresh ground. ps. Wrong again. Saying that I do not know exactly why you chose to park on the grass is not new? You've been on about it for several messages! lol And.. aww, you didn't answer my questions. Hey, don't let the grass grow around your feet... Several pages ago, you speculated that I parked on the grass to deliberately kill. So, no, saying you don't know exactly why I parked on the grass is nothing new. You want fresh ground? Stop the silly guessing game and just admit that you simply do not know.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 6, 2024 6:49:17 GMT
So we have a woman here who is training to be a doctor, who doesn't say women NEED full term abortions, says they should be able to get them any time, even full term, just because they WANT them, and boo hoo if this obstetrician in training, whose job is to deliver babies, can't kill babies, she ain't gonna be a doctor. Yeah, it's ALL about women's healthcare, women's CHOICE, isn't it? If they CHOOSE to have babies, the 'choice' side cares JUST as much about supporting their choice and helping them, don't they?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 6, 2024 7:20:28 GMT
This is going far from the op, novastar. Moreover, no one can kill anyone without breaking criminal laws, babies included. Police forces sometimes, with bad luck, get out of it, but that is not a religious debate. As long as you want to talk about murder, maybe you should post it on the historical board. War is murder on a large scale after all. Hugs, T
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 6, 2024 15:38:47 GMT
If they CHOOSE to have babies, the 'choice' side cares JUST as much about supporting their choice and helping them, don't they? They could perhaps care more but I think they certainly care more than the pro-life crowd. Generally (though admittedly not always) pro-choice advocates also argue for childcare programmes, higher minimum wage, child benefit etc, all of which make it easier for women to choose to have a baby. Whereas the pro-life crowd generally (and again to be fair, not always) are against such programmes. The US having such a high abortion rate compared to some much more pro-choice countries I think hammers this point home. The more pro-life approach is not an abortion crackdown, but making parenthood less of a burden.
|
|