What is a religion?

[Myrtonos]

Them goalposts.

What goalposts?

Can God make homosexual sex a virtue?

Why not, if God is the highest authority in the world?

Yes, according to theists, and irrelevant anyway.

In the middle ages, priests, in particular, thought that adultery was very evil and that those who consented would go to hell for it. The didn't believe that any flesh-and-blood beings decided it was evil, they thought it was evil because God said so, people's feelings about it being unimportant.

They changed beliefs, so logically the 'superhuman order' you posit they believe in fundamentally, has itself been changed. Your refusals are completely illogical.

Just because they change their beliefs doesn't mean they believe the order itself has changed.

Secondly, you've already been educated as to what physical laws are, so of course they change having been made up by humans in the first place based on their observations of natural forces. Laws can readily be modified as I've already shown you in this very thread.

Okay, so object A exerting a force on object B means that object B exerts and equal and opposite force on object A. This is beyond debate until an observation falsifies it. In science, 'laws of physics' doesn't mean our current understanding of them but all actual laws, even undiscovered ones, these are indeed unchangeable.

As you've tried to explain from within the paradigm you've postulated, only the paradigm appears to clash with several facts and you seem unwilling to engage in those facts, attempting to brush them aside by repeating your assertions which have already been shown wrong.

In the end, I'm not saying that political ideologies are religions, just that there may be good reasons to count them as such.

Did your mate Dave say that down the pub?

No, I have actually read some comparisons between the two.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Them goalposts.

What goalposts?

The ones that keep getting up and wandering off somewhere else.

Can God make homosexual sex a virtue?

Why not, if God is the highest authority in the world?

I think you need to spend a little more time thinking about how this works. Try and run through a chain of events that would result in this and see if your notion holds water.

Quick synopsis from my perspective: it clearly doesn't.

Yes, according to theists, and irrelevant anyway.

In the middle ages, priests, in particular, thought that adultery was very evil and that those who consented would go to hell for it. The didn't believe that any flesh-and-blood beings decided it was evil, they thought it was evil because God said so, people's feelings about it being unimportant.

And now they don't.

Ergo....?

If you want to argue 'goddidit' and changed this 'superhuman order' then you're obliged to specify when this occurred, when Christians accepted it and acknowledge it as God's intent.

If you fail to do so, then it shows your assertion is empty of content. Merely writing words doesn't lend the resulting sentence any actual validity.

They changed beliefs, so logically the 'superhuman order' you posit they believe in fundamentally, has itself been changed. Your refusals are completely illogical.

Just because they change their beliefs doesn't mean they believe the order itself has changed.

And it doesn't mean they believe the order hasn't changed.

This woolly world of positing what a bunch of people think or don't think isn't really doing anything useful for your argument at all.

Secondly, you've already been educated as to what physical laws are, so of course they change having been made up by humans in the first place based on their observations of natural forces. Laws can readily be modified as I've already shown you in this very thread.

Okay, so object A exerting a force on object B means that object B exerts and equal and opposite force on object A. This is beyond debate until an observation falsifies it. In science, 'laws of physics' doesn't mean our current understanding of them but all actual laws, even undiscovered ones, these are indeed unchangeable.

You're wrong, as you've been told.

I didn't just tell you, I cited several credible sources explaining why you're wrong.

I am not sure whether it's just arrogance and hubris on your part, but refusing to amend your claims when they are shown wrong makes people far less likely to employ the principle of charity when it comes to the rest of your arguments.

You are factually ignorant when it comes to the term 'law' and what it means in science. I and others have taken time to explain to you so that you can stop being ignorant. But no one can force you or oblige you to learn shit. Your failure to do so, though, results in certain effects - you know, like equal reactions!

As you've tried to explain from within the paradigm you've postulated, only the paradigm appears to clash with several facts and you seem unwilling to engage in those facts, attempting to brush them aside by repeating your assertions which have already been shown wrong.

In the end, I'm not saying that political ideologies are religions, just that there may be good reasons to count them as such.

I am not contesting that in the slightest. I am contesting how you keep trying to shoe-horn everything into the dysfunctional paradigm you're propounding.

Did your mate Dave say that down the pub?

No, I have actually read some comparisons between the two.

Written by Dave down the pub?

Note, this is me being sarcastic, but the message is pretty clear: who by? By a legitimate, credible source that you can cite who has spent the due diligence in collating data to make their comparative assessment valid? Or from some dude's blog on the internet whose opinion counts essentially for nothing?