Weston Super Saint

To be fair, that was the question I was asking. The argument seems to have been that 200 miles is unacceptable but 'local' is no problem at all - I'm just after a definition of 'local' which appears to be about 48 miles!

According to turkish, just one line like 'thou shalt not kill' is meaningless..... Besides, doesn't that relate to 'mankind' rather than god himself to whom the rules don't apply - as MLG has been pointing out for days now....

He was the guy that was known for his wider actions wasn't he - jew killing, war, slavery, genocide, rape, etc etc. Odd that you would think him to be not a 'great guy' when the god of the bible you are defending did very similar things

You challenged him to provide evidence and he provided it. The fact that you don't like the way it was provided doesn't make it any less valid as evidence within the book.

Forgive me, I haven't been in a church since I was forced to nearly 30 years ago. Do the old men in cloaks no longer quote from the bible? Do they no longer teach the parables? Do they no longer quote psalms? Or do they do this selectively so that they fit the 'context' that they are looking for, ignoring the less savoury elements of the book - that would be pretty weird if that's the case, what with turkish extoling the virtues of taking the 'whole context' of the book....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 'point' that MLG stated that the bible promoted rape, violence, bigamy, servitude etc. You then asked him to prove the 'point', to which he posted the 'scriptures' from the bible containing these. You then denied this was acceptable evidence because that was only one part of the book and not the whole 'context'. Unless I'm missing the 'point' in which case, enlighten me.

Why are my posts including all those quotes

And if Netley Park has lots of people in it - hence social distancing isn't possible - what about a quick dash to the vast expanses of the New Forest?

No, that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that right here, right now, people still read and believe in a book written thousands of years ago which promotes all those and more. Christianity could renounce the teachings of the bible but not sure where that would leave Christianity!

Ah, I see how this argument works!! So, by your standards, if Jeremy Corbyn was recorded in a private meeting saying "I ****ing hate those ****ing Jew ****s!" then there is no way he could be classed as anti-semitic unless he repeated it more than once - you've not stated how many times something needs to be repeated so enlighten us....

A bit melodramatic! I have no figures for the rest of the world but in England and Wales : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783 Is the answer that the overwhelming majority of them had existing health issues?

It's been a lively debate I think everyone agrees they're idiots for travelling so far. The issue seems to be around the fine and whether they should have been told to go home, then fined if they refused, or straight up fined for being idiots. On this matter there seems to be some disagreement about how far someone can travel - again, there is no limit stated in the legislation so it is open to interpretation. So, how far should people be allowed to travel before they are fined? - it seems that the consensus is that 200 miles is definitely out of the question. 47.8 miles or 95.6 miles round trip (Lewisham to Ockham Common) has been mooted as 'tolerable', as has 26.6 miles or 53.2 miles round trip (Croydon to Ockham Common), so how what sort of distance is acceptable?

Catholic priests have got a cracking track record in this area.....

Maybe you dozed off when this was discussed yesterday, but from your own link : Technically the family considered themselves to be going for their one form of exercise a day, with members of their household. There is nothing in the legislation that limits the distance a person can travel to achieve this.

Selective quoting doesn't prove your point. I've already posted earlier in the thread the full regulation regarding people "away from home" and how they should be treated.

Regulations never make anything a judgement call.

Not sure you can use the 'moral and cultural' differences. As it clearly states on page 1, god created everything. Before that, there was nothing (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting), ergo god created both the culture and morals.

And yet, somehow, you claim that exact same story book is relevant today

But the 'rules' / legislation state that the police should ask them to leave the place where they are and return home in the first instance. The police have therefore NOT followed the rules by going straight to issuing a fine.

Will you not come in to contact with anyone or touch anything on a 2 mile trip?

People who attend church / other formal places of worship tend to have only one concept of 'God'. I doubt people who believe in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza are attending Raging Bull's Sunday services.

It does indeed. However, his 'God' could also be interpreted as 'mother nature', not a singular all knowing being.

What, this Albert Einstein? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Again, not entirely sure Isaac Newton fortifies your point! During his lifetime it was LAW that you had to be religious / subscribe to religion, LAW, not choice!

Not entirely sure what your point is? It is estimated that just 5% of the UK population attend church on a regular basis. Statistically that means that the overwhelming majority of 'rational thinkers' - and indeed 'irrational thinkers' - DON'T attend your or anyone else's church.