The bible-Is it true?

[beeswax]

The OP question is the bible true or not? And if not, then what can religion offer anyone?

Ditto, the Quran or other religious based text?

Is it reasonable to suggest that without evidence we can use our own brain to work out what is likely to please God if we indeed believe in one or not? Do we need to read religious text from hundreds and thousands of years ago written by men who's ideas mostly are NOT acceptable to most people today even those who with faith, because even most believers don't practice what is supposed to be God's commandments today (fortunately) eg Mosaic Laws and Hamzah asks about the direction of Politics but equal human rights are wholly based on rejecting all this religious dogma written by ignorant men centuries ago. So we must keep banging on about these things until we get equality in the things that matter across all nation states, Secular or Theocratic which is a human rights abuse in itself. Homosexuals are condemned by ALL religious groups, wholly because of ignorant men's ideas thousands of years ago and that has clear social and political consequences for those affected. I have never ever seen one religious person, Christian, Jew or Muslim accept that homosexuality is normal within all species and is not a sin in God's eyes. They just cannot bring themselves to say it all because its in their text. They cannot think for themselves obviously. Well they can think for themselves but the text wins every time.

Religious fundamentalists want Western Nations to return to living by their religious text and will try and bomb us all into submission in the process. They truly believe the West is corrupt and evil and they are God's servants to correct that. 9/11 was part of that campaign. They campaigned for Sharia Law in the UK. There are Sharia Courts in the UK under the radar where women are repressed and find divorce almost impossible. Rape of wives is the norm in Afghanistan and we know how Saudi Arabia treats its women. NO NO NO..We must be on our guard that religion is way past its sell by date and was all part of a pagan past where children and witches were burned. Even today a woman in Afghanistan was beheaded because she went out alone without a male escort. WHY do we tolerate such cruel human abuse?

Its been a long process for me to decide for myself that organised religion is wholly repressive that was and is based on power and control of people and was written by men making stuff up to suit the times. I just cannot believe that ANY intelligent person would not have come to this conclusion and although it took me a long time that is only because I gave such little thought to it. Its time everyone did the same.

The battle of will is not here on a remote message board but in the greater political arena where great nation states REJECT organised religion for what it is and faith schools are rejected too as divisive and teach things we KNOW are not true. But as billions believe in it, its not likely to happen. France did that during its revolution and allowed it all to return at its cost. What price if we allow some of these countries nuclear weapons when they are in the business of doing God's work and one touch of one button is all that is required?

I'm glad I'm at the age I am but worry for the younger generation that religion will play a huge part in what happens next! How depressing!

PS

Hamzah, do YOU think homosexuality is normal in the natural world across all species and is therefore cannot be a 'sin'? If its too intrusive you don't need to answer it?

[hamzahf]

Hamzah, do YOU think homosexuality is normal in the natural world across all species and is therefore cannot be a 'sin'? If its too intrusive you don't need to answer it?

I think you need to justify your statement before asking me my opinion. You have made a very sweeping statement about homosexuality in the natural world that I do not think stands up to scrutiny. Sexual acts are primarily for reproduction in the natural world. You really need to provide some scholarly evidence to convince me otherwise, since I do not think it is biologically 'normal sexual behaviour' across the natural world. By all means focus on primates if that makes your task easier.

I am very aware how attitudes to homosexuality have changed markedly in the UK in my lifetime. Since you are older than me that change must be even more striking. As a practice it spans civilised history, although I tend to think of homosexuality as described in Ancient Greece for example as an abusive practice by older men in a society that was highly misogynistic (perhaps to enforce reproductive control and property rights).

I am rather repelled by any social structure that enforces segregation of the sexes (irrespective whether it is an aspect of religious outlook). Homosexual behaviour may be a consequence even in sexually repressed societies, but I don't have any strong aversion to people who are gay. In the end it is a personal preference; I prefer the company of women to men. I fail the laddish locker room bonhomie test. However, I don't feel the need to be sexually promiscuous, so am rather old fashioned in terms of the attitudes of UK heterosexuals as well it would appear. So Mike, am I normal by your criteria of preferred social and sexual mores?

Regards
Hamzah

[seekingbalance]

Hamzah, do YOU think homosexuality is normal in the natural world across all species and is therefore cannot be a 'sin'? If its too intrusive you don't need to answer it?

I think you need to justify your statement before asking me my opinion. You have made a very sweeping statement about homosexuality in the natural world that I do not think stands up to scrutiny. Sexual acts are primarily for reproduction in the natural world. You really need to provide some scholarly evidence to convince me otherwise, since I do not think it is biologically 'normal sexual behaviour' across the natural world. By all means focus on primates if that makes your task easier.

Regards
Hamzah

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

http://listverse.com/2013/04/20/10-animals-that-practice-homosexuality/

I'm more concerned about repression of females, AIDS denial, Condom denial, Evolution denial, killing of apostates, jihad, but here are some sources on the homosexuality in animals question.

[seekingbalance]

My thoughts on the original question.

Yes, the bible has elements of truth in it, and is of itself an interesting read. If you buy the bits about no atonement without a bit of suffering it can even be read as a pretty good moral tale and example of how we should live.

But as you said elsewhere, one of the main problems with it is that is was written by man, and almost certainly almost all of it was written by, and tells stories of, MEN.

To go even further, it was later brought together, and probably edited (this bit not certain, but likely) to fulfil the agendas of men, and used to help keep the masses in line, and not let those pesky women get too much ahead of themselves.

Many of the fables are derived from earlier stories - especially the ones about the original man and woman, the great flood, Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule (do unto others....etc) - though true believers will deny this. But just as Islam used the Bible texts and stories almost word for word as the basis for their own tome, the bible collected stories, folklore, fables, morality tales and wove them into their own work and (hopefull) some original material from Jesus's time and life.

Just like tales of Odin, Zeus, Gilgamesh, Vishnu, and all the other Roman, Greek, Norse, Eastern gods, the bible is heavy on truth and consequence. Challenge the gods and you'll be in deep [expletive deleted], turned into a pillar of salt or stone, drowned in a flood, stoned to death, whatever they can use to keep us all in line. Follow the rules and you are rewarded, maybe even to the point of eternal life, and you can even qualify for the good stuff even if you have been really bad as long as you give repentance (i.e. Stay with the programme, keep up the donations, Toe the line).

But there are lots of good messages and good principles to live by, and thus there is a lot to commend the Bible for also. Love thy neighbour, do not commit adultery, let he is who is without sin.....

If you read it in great detail there is a lesson for everything. If you read it well enough even the "bad" things have a silver lining, or were never bad in the first place. This, for me is where the real problems start. It is the literalists that get me going, the Young Earthers, the ones that turn even the most heinous parts of the bible into the justifiable consequences of disbelief ("Lot was right to offer his virgin daughters in place of the male sinners about to be raped at Sodom") and the ones that spend half the time arguing that everything is literal, but the other half defending the nasty bits as just apocryphal tales that are there to set a moral example. Cake and eat it, what?

Does that make the bible bad? Well, to some degree, maybe, as it has some real nasties in it. But mostly it is not the bible that causes the problems we atheists don't like about religion, it is the system, the churches, and especially the more evangelical and extremist elements that force their own agendas on the masses, most of who love Jesus, like to meet up and have a sing song on the weekend, and do good for their community (and from what I see in documentaries about evangelical Christians in the US I think this is a justifiable concern).

[beeswax]

Hamzah, do YOU think homosexuality is normal in the natural world across all species and is therefore cannot be a 'sin'? If its too intrusive you don't need to answer it?

I think you need to justify your statement before asking me my opinion. You have made a very sweeping statement about homosexuality in the natural world that I do not think stands up to scrutiny.
Regards
Hamzah

Hamzah, Oooch! Touched a raw nerve friend?

The problem I find with most religious people in fact almost all of them I have met is they live too serious a life, have little humour and take things the wrong way and have mentioned these things earlier. So Hamzah my question was a serious one for all believers and not just you as a Muslim. Of course I don't know you and maybe you are different? My point as always is directed at religious text and why it cannot have been inspired by God but the product of ignorant men and there are many examples. Slavery is one and Homosexuality is the other for now. The question is WHY do religious people not accept that and cling to ancient text as though God Almighty has dictated it?

Now some links have been provided that prove my statement by experts in the field unless you think they too have an agenda? I thought as a Scientist you would have known that or done some research which is available before you replied to that question. But why are you so protective of your faith and don't want to engage with its original writings which are clearly a rehash of the OT as Mormons rehashed the bible too and called it the 'Book of Mormon'. I think these things matter more because millions are in denial of what is truth and what is clearly fiction. Even when I was a Christian I had no problem arguing with my Christian friends that lots of the bible was nonsense and especially the claim that Jesus was God..."Jesus said one time "Why call me good, when there is only one that is good and that is God" Translated of course but do Catholics and other Christians read that statement that CLEARLY rules out that Jesus was and is God. Not a bit of it because it goes against the Church's teaching..None of them can justify the atonement act and yet they all cling to that as well and yet its the whole basis of their faith that God was angry with Adam and condemned the whole human race from that day on...Its clearly nonsense and cannot be true at all and just a little thinking is all that is required. WHY is that a problem for religious people?

I would hope that when you meet up with other muslims, you do the same and argue and keep doing it IF you have a difference of opinion about the many things that are clearly wrong with Islam? So why so sensitive when you are asked much the same thing on public forums? Could it be you KNOW what the issues are but don't want to rock the boat as Christians or even Jews don't knowing they reject most Mosaic Laws outright now, today?

Lighten up and think this has been an issue before with you that you take offence very easily when your username is mentioned..I won't do that again and apologies for doing that once again? Me, I couldn't care a less who mentions me and in what context either...

[beeswax]

Hi, Seekingbalance, just to say thanks for providing those links on homosexuality in the natural world. And your very good follow up post too..
Odd that the ten commandments mentioned do not kill and not to commit adultery and yet many of them did both.

Personally, I'm not sure that adultery is that important and having one wife or one husband seems unnatural as well and so polygamy is not a problem for me providing that it goes both ways and that one woman can have many husbands too..I've been married and faithful to one woman and its horrible!

Mike

[hamzahf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

http://listverse.com/2013/04/20/10-animals-that-practice-homosexuality/

Thanks for the links, I am clearly wrong with respect to my stated view so will need to read up on this area further before proffering any further opinion.

Regards
Hamzah

[hamzahf]

Hamzah, Oooch! Touched a raw nerve friend? <snip>

So Hamzah my question was a serious one for all believers and not just you as a Muslim.

I don't have any particular problem with homosexuality in any case and am happy to be pointed in the direction of links that might provide proof for me to consider. Providing a link to back up a claim is the kind of thing you dislike from me, but in this case you could have aided me with the point you were making if you had. I would have posted a different reply in the light of that knowledge.

You asked me a direct question. I responded as such. Since it now appears yours was a general question to all believers it would be helpful to make that clear at the outset. I don't write as a spokesman for all believers and really must stress to any reader who does not know my previous posting history that my views don't always chime with religious dogma.

To return to topic. Is scripture true? Literally true in every detail is pushing it for me when scripture freely uses allegory and metaphor to make a point. Does it offer truth and guidance? Yes, I think it does. The Old Testament may be more framed as an historical account, but the New Testament gospels strike me as far more of a piece of guidance. The Qur'an provides rules for a community, but also using allegory and stories to make points of guidance. Clearly such stories were likely to be familiar to the listener already, but does that deflect from the lesson to be learnt even if we are unfamiliar with the story?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Regards
Hamzah

[beeswax]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Haha...

I love that link....written to completely deceive what actually IS the truth and covers a multitude of deceptive alternatives like truth can be the result of a 'collective' decision...No its either provable to be true or its not....Its a good link for a philosophical debate such as this sub forum though.

No wonder the religious can claim their text makes the claims it does and calls it 'true'.

I would have no problem with the bible or other literary work IF at the outset it declares what it is that is being described and whether that is true, fiction and one good example of that is Pilgrims Progress where the copy I have clearly states its an allegory. So if that was on the front of the bible then fine, believers and others can take it for what it is...

Evolution is also a good example used where the religious say its not 'fact' because its not provable or accepted by 100% of the scientific community and yet believe stuff in their text that has been clearly disproven.

Discussing 'truth' from a philosophical point of view doesn't help when people are taking stuff literally and killing people because of it.

Of course its possible scientists have just made up that homosexuality is not the norm in human and animal species and each person then has to decide whether the evidence they provide is good enough to persuade one that its true. I think the research does give enough credence to say its absolutely true unless they too are trying to deceive us...But why would they?

Religious works and text IS quite easy to discern its obvious authorship which can be proven to be UNTRUE in many parts but also clear that the authors had an agenda not based in ANY kind of truth but by a claim of divine revelation as did Muhammad. I say to Christians that one of the most deceptive text in the whole bible is where Jesus tells his disciples to ask God anything in his name (ie Jesus) and God will do it...and Jesus doesn't put conditions on that statement either. Many Christians have deserted their faith because that was clearly NOT true and not even an allegory either. Also children have died because they refused medical help. Jehova's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on the bible.

So, who then decides what is literal and what is allegorical and even historical? And what are the consequences? Is apostacy true or not? Is Jihad a true command or not? Or just about the time they lived and then why don't ALL Muslims, Jews and Christians make that judgement as clearly most do when they don't obey the commands of God in their text.

In essence its a mess!

And why none of it is needed by us today in order to live a decent compassionate life and even to please God via the golden rule. The problem is there are too many vested interests for them to tell us that. Would the Christian Church survive by instructing us all that Adam and Eve didn't actually exist and therefore no literal garden of Eden and therefore no fall and therefore no need for a human sacrifice to appease God? What other purpose would they serve to their dwindling numbers? If religion did no harm then we can all go to bed at night allowing each of us to believe what we want to with no consequences for anyone else. NOW that is the day when the world will have come of age and put religious belief clearly in its place.

[Stonge]

Realist or anti-realist truth?

[beeswax]

I did add but couldn't amend my post to include this..

Please do consider the research on homosexual behaviour and come back but your initial reply was a defensive one based on your religious pre conception that its wrong at least that is the way it came across. I wasn't surprised by it though.

Now IF you are persuaded that the evidence is compulsive, would you recommend that the next sermon at each Church, Synagogue and YOUR Mosque and across the world be about homosexuality in the natural world and should therefore be accepted as normal and therefore NOT a sin in God's eyes? How would that go down? Do they ever discuss evolution?

IF only???

[beeswax]

To return to topic. Is scripture true? Literally true in every detail is pushing it for me when scripture freely uses allegory and metaphor to make a point. Does it offer truth and guidance? Yes, I think it does. The Old Testament may be more framed as an historical account, but the New Testament gospels strike me as far more of a piece of guidance. The Qur'an provides rules for a community, but also using allegory and stories to make points of guidance. Clearly such stories were likely to be familiar to the listener already, but does that deflect from the lesson to be learnt even if we are unfamiliar with the story?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Regards
Hamzah

I've read and heard that said about the NT and that it framed the basis of Western Civilisation and thus emerging culture but is that true?

If you study the NT its a terrible guidance for society where Paul tells his followers to submit to Roman Authority because God put them there. Be kind to Slaves, women know your place and don't prepare for the future. Its actually about the imminent day of judgement and telling people they must be baptised to go to heaven and Jesus telling his disciples to eat his blood or there is no life in you. Give ALL you have and leave the dead to bury their dead and follow him...etc etc

No thanks...I would rather use my own brain to know what's right and what's wrong. Did Paul OR Jesus ever consider the morality of slavery?

[hamzahf]

Please do consider the research on homosexual behaviour and come back but your initial reply was a defensive one based on your religious pre conception that its wrong at least that is the way it came across.

I was wrong in my initial comments about the extent of homosexual behaviour in animals, but note the many caveats in the link about how investigators interpret such behavior. I was more interested to discover percentages within different species and note figures of 10-15% cited (similar to what is suggested as the percentage for humans by Kinsey).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Hence I may conclude that the majority of animals in any particular species don't display such homosexual behaviour (however investigators classify that). Can we agree on that?

So my comment is modified but not essentially changed - it may be natural but it isn't the primary sexual behavior in animal species. The religious objections to homosexuality do not frame my view and I am becoming repetitive by emphasing that I don't have any objection to homosexuality or homosexuals. I am at odds with more zealous religionists who stick to scripture, but who am I to say they are wrong if we look at the percentage data for our species? My quibble would be that not discriminating against minorities seems to me an important aspect of religious teachings, so a 10% natural diversity really requires a significant reappraisal of attitudes.

I am a little uncertain how far to extrapolate this idea, but I recall that a number of African tribes are quite heterosexually promiscuous. What of homosexual practice in such tribes? An interesting article about two tribes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... st/265849/

I have nothing further to add to this aspect of the thread.

Regards
Hamzah

[Voxvoci]

Beeswax said

"So the answer is that we carry on allowing these faiths to 'teach' their religious text, especially to children, KNOWING it is false because of the powerful religious lobby and we are almost forced to respect their 'deeply held' views or somebody takes a stand and tells the truth]?"

The title of this thread is: The Bible-Is it true?

Do you believe that people know for a fact that religious text known as the Bible is false but teach it to their children anyway?

Do you believe all of the Bible to be a false document or some of it to be false?

For example Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

So the Bible teaches the universe had a beginning. Is that false? Now the fact that "God created" may be considered false by an atheist but that same athiest may well believe that the universe had a beginning which the Bible teaches.

Which bit of the Bible do you believe we are "knowing" to be false?

[beeswax]

Beeswax said

"So the answer is that we carry on allowing these faiths to 'teach' their religious text, especially to children, KNOWING it is false because of the powerful religious lobby and we are almost forced to respect their 'deeply held' views or somebody takes a stand and tells the truth]?"

The title of this thread is: The Bible-Is it true?

Do you believe that people know for a fact that religious text known as the Bible is false but teach it to their children anyway?

Do you believe all of the Bible to be a false document or some of it to be false?

For example Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

So the Bible teaches the universe had a beginning. Is that false? Now the fact that "God created" may be considered false by an atheist but that same athiest may well believe that the universe had a beginning which the Bible teaches.

Which bit of the Bible do you believe we are "knowing" to be false?

Of course its a fact that the church and parents teach children AND adults that the Universe was created in 6 days. That Adam and Eve were created by God as we are now and in his image. And that snake talked and we are all sinners because of Adam's disobedience. That God destroyed the whole of mankind except Noah and his family. The list goes on and on. That was taught to me and to others in Churches I went to. None has ever been denied by the Church as false or untrue. They start to call it allegorical when caught out. Its possible that 'some' parts of the bible is true ie the towns and cities were there and Paul travelled to such places but biblical historians question whether Moses even lived and a whole host of claims which may or may not be true and so if some parts are obviously not true. Should the bible be called the word of God and infallible as it by many believers? And my ex Churches, 99% believed that too..Not a scientific sample but is a good indicator.

God created the heavens and the earth? Well is that true or false? Is not really such a profound idea that the Creator created us as even me as a Deist or a tribe in deepest Asia or Africa could have come up with that statement and so its not that revealing. imo at least. And so the big bang does not convince atheists that it was God that caused it and so does not cause them to believe the bible is true.

I've been to a Catholic Church Service where all the children of the parents attending were all marched off to be brainwashed into Catholic Dogma and beliefs. That is an abuse of young minds in ANY religion.

[beeswax]

Please do consider the research on homosexual behaviour and come back but your initial reply was a defensive one based on your religious pre conception that its wrong at least that is the way it came across.

I was wrong in my initial comments about the extent of homosexual behaviour in animals, but note the many caveats in the link about how investigators interpret such behavior. I was more interested to discover percentages within different species and note figures of 10-15% cited (similar to what is suggested as the percentage for humans by Kinsey).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Hence I may conclude that the majority of animals in any particular species don't display such homosexual behaviour (however investigators classify that). Can we agree on that?

So my comment is modified but not essentially changed - it may be natural but it isn't the primary sexual behavior in animal species. The religious objections to homosexuality do not frame my view and I am becoming repetitive by emphasing that I don't have any objection to homosexuality or homosexuals. I am at odds with more zealous religionists who stick to scripture, but who am I to say they are wrong if we look at the percentage data for our species? My quibble would be that not discriminating against minorities seems to me an important aspect of religious teachings, so a 10% natural diversity really requires a significant reappraisal of attitudes.

I am a little uncertain how far to extrapolate this idea, but I recall that a number of African tribes are quite heterosexually promiscuous. What of homosexual practice in such tribes? An interesting article about two tribes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... st/265849/

I have nothing further to add to this aspect of the thread.

Regards
Hamzah

You have nothing further to add?

Well that that then init! You have entrenched ideas and when given some empirical evidence you even doubt that wholly because it clashes with your religious views.....Nothing changes and why we are in the mess we are in...Maybe we could start a thread is the Koran true but that would be a waste of time too..

[beeswax]

Please do consider the research on homosexual behaviour and come back but your initial reply was a defensive one based on your religious pre conception that its wrong at least that is the way it came across.

I was wrong in my initial comments about the extent of homosexual behaviour in animals, but note the many caveats in the link about how investigators interpret such behavior. I was more interested to discover percentages within different species and note figures of 10-15% cited (similar to what is suggested as the percentage for humans by Kinsey).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Hence I may conclude that the majority of animals in any particular species don't display such homosexual behaviour (however investigators classify that). Can we agree on that?

So my comment is modified but not essentially changed - it may be natural but it isn't the primary sexual behavior in animal species. The religious objections to homosexuality do not frame my view and I am becoming repetitive by emphasing that I don't have any objection to homosexuality or homosexuals. I am at odds with more zealous religionists who stick to scripture, but who am I to say they are wrong if we look at the percentage data for our species? My quibble would be that not discriminating against minorities seems to me an important aspect of religious teachings, so a 10% natural diversity really requires a significant reappraisal of attitudes.

I am a little uncertain how far to extrapolate this idea, but I recall that a number of African tribes are quite heterosexually promiscuous. What of homosexual practice in such tribes? An interesting article about two tribes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... st/265849/

I have nothing further to add to this aspect of the thread.

Regards
Hamzah

You have nothing further to add?

Well that that then init! You have entrenched ideas and when given some empirical evidence you even doubt that wholly because it clashes with your religious views.....Nothing changes and why we are in the mess we are in...Maybe we could start a thread is the Koran true but that would be a waste of time too..Should we not discriminate against suicide bombers because they are in a minority and almost exclusively muslim?

[redsturgeon]

Of course its a fact that the church and parents teach children AND adults that the Universe was created in 6 days. That Adam and Eve were created by God as we are now and in his image

Is it...which church?

I went to a cathedral school in the 1960s and was never taught that as the literal truth.

I think you will find that it is not the current thinking in the mainstream C of E.

John

[Clariman]

You have nothing further to add?

Well that that then init! You have entrenched ideas and when given some empirical evidence you even doubt that wholly because it clashes with your religious views.....Nothing changes and why we are in the mess we are in...Maybe we could start a thread is the Koran true but that would be a waste of time too..

Moderator Message:
Please be more respectful of the other poster - you are close to bating him which is against the Rules (see top of page).

I for one have found his answers have been very honest and far from entrenched, based on his posting here.

Clariman

[hamzahf]

You have nothing further to add?

Well that that then init! You have entrenched ideas and when given some empirical evidence you even doubt that wholly because it clashes with your religious views.....Nothing changes and why we are in the mess we are in...Maybe we could start a thread is the Koran true but that would be a waste of time too..

Hi Mike,

I don't think you actually read my post that you quoted. I am not obsessed by the subject of homosexuality, am not driven by any religious opinion on homosexuality nor conversant with the detailed religious arguments for or against it. I am corrected on my view about the extent of homosexual behaviours in animals which is a useful outcome of this thread, but other than giraffes and bonobos I suggest to you that my conclusions about percentages of populations are valid. I don't wish to research the matter further than I did this morning, as I have already said the subject does not obsess me and I have already ceded the point that I was mistaken to those who have provided me with some evidence (which I have confirmed to my satisfaction).

As I said, I have nothing further to add and speculating about my position beyond what I have written is ignoring the empirical evidence offered to you about my position. Pot and kettle.

Regards
Hamzah