Religions of peace? A thread for sober discussion.

[fork me]

Why have muslims been expelled from more countries/regions in the last 70 odd years than jews have in the last few Thousand?

I doubt very much that they have. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this bizarre claim?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

well you would. as i say, im amazed how people of faith cannot conceive that the opposite of belief, non-belief, can exist. i see here how you've construed that not believing in unicorns is a belief itself, so i cant even appeal to logic. i simply do not believe in god(s) existing, strongly or otherwise. if asked i can venture there is no evidence, or mention the problem of evil which should settle the matter (it doesnt of course, despite being highlighted ~2300 years ago).

I understand your non-belief, so it it not true to suggest that I cannot conceive that non-belief can exist. Your non-belief is, in my opinion, lack of belief in God. This can translate as a belief, a belief in nothing.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

A good question, and one that can equally be asked of any religion.

Why are many Christians so anti gay (because it tells them to be in Leviticus) and yet not follow Kosher dietary requirements (that are in the same book)?

There are biblical reasons for that, not least that the new testament, for Christians, be they Jew or gentile, did away with the concept of forbidden food. St Paul, on the other hand clearly instructs that homosexual activity is wrong.

 

[BigGully]

Does it? Did I mention any specific religion? You're jumping to a massive (and incorrect) assumption there.



Where did I say they didn't? However, the Charlie Hebdo pictures werren't about "challenge and criticism", they were about being deliberately provocative to gain publicity, which is a totally different thing. It'd make no difference to me if it was Moses, Jesus, Buddha or Krishna they did it to.



I didn't suggest that.

If you wish to debate with me, might I respectfully suggest that in future you respond to what I actually write, rather than just responding to something you made up.

C'mon you have been watching far too much Broadchurch.

Your original post in which I responed too was ...

There's no such thing as freedom of speech and there never has been. Nor should there be. We have, for example, libel and slander laws to protect peoople and organisations from incorrect defamatory remarks.

I am not Charlie. I do not for one second support those that would (and did) use violence against them, but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith.

For the record I am an agnostic. I have no idea whether or not God exists, and don't care either way.

So my point quite accurately offers my view on the publication of provocative images, something you have stated ''but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith''

That was in reference to Islam no doubt and for that it seems wholly accurate to post my response.

 

[fork me]

There are biblical reasons for that, not least that the new testament, for Christians, be they Jew or gentile, did away with the concept of forbidden food. St Paul, on the other hand clearly instructs that homosexual activity is wrong.

That was just one example, there are numerous other where Christians pick and choose.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Deaths in the name of Religion BILLIONS !!!
Deaths in the name of Atheism ZERO !!!!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

That was just one example, there are numerous other where Christians pick and choose.

Perhaps, but in this instance, the argument was invalid.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Deaths in the name of Religion BILLIONS !!!
Deaths in the name of Atheism ZERO !!!!

Complete and utter nonsense. Chairman Mao and Stalin persecuted millions of Christians. People will always find an excuse to hurt or oppress, sometimes religion is given as an excuse, sometimes not.

 

[Buzzer]

Deaths in the name of Religion BILLIONS !!!
Deaths in the name of Atheism ZERO !!!!

Oh really?

a century of violence in soviet russia the Russian Orthodox clergy

Chinese Christians suffer for their faith

Khmer Rouge murder religious minorities

French revolutionaries murder catholics

You might find this article of especial interest: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder. (I know the website is an American libertarian one but forgetting the politics for one minute the references and notes in that article are extremely rock-solid.)

Whatever measure and whatever weasel words are used to try to downplay the hugely significant role of atheism in Communist orthodoxy there can be no doubt that millions upon millions of people have died at the hands of communists because of their faith.

Oh, and your comment about 'billions'. I don't suppose you've got anything to back up that ludicrous claim apart from lots of exclamation marks, have you?

 

[symyjym]

Complete and utter nonsense. Chairman Mao and Stalin persecuted millions of Christians. People will always find an excuse to hurt or oppress, sometimes religion is given as an excuse, sometimes not.

Have to agree, we just have to look at Russia and the Ukraine. Religion is just another powerful weapon to use in a war.

 

[fork me]

C'mon you have been watching far too much Broadchurch.

I've neither watched it nor heard of it.

Your original post in which I responed too was ...

There's no such thing as freedom of speech and there never has been. Nor should there be. We have, for example, libel and slander laws to protect peoople and organisations from incorrect defamatory remarks.

I am not Charlie. I do not for one second support those that would (and did) use violence against them, but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith.

For the record I am an agnostic. I have no idea whether or not God exists, and don't care either way.

Yes, I am well aware of what I posted...

So my point quite accurately offers my view on the publication of provocative images, something you have stated ''but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith''

That was in reference to Islam no doubt and for that it seems wholly accurate to post my response.

No, it's in reference to ANY religion. This specific example is about Islam because that is what this thread s about, but the assumptions you made were ludicrous and wrong.

 

[fork me]

Perhaps, but in this instance, the argument was invalid.

I don't believe it is. Paul was one of the worst cherry pickers of them all. It was Peter that Jesus said all that "whatsoever you loose..." stuff to, not Paul, and yet many modern churches seem to value Paul's teachings above those of Jesus.

Why is that?

 

[BigGully]

I've neither watched it nor heard of it.



Yes, I am well aware of what I posted...



No, it's in reference to ANY religion. This specific example is about Islam because that is what this thread s about, but the assumptions you made were ludicrous and wrong.

You are spinning like a top.

You have now said that your specific example was about Islam, but earlier you asked 'where did I mention any specific religion ?'

You then say 'where did I say they ( religion ) shouldn't be criticised' after you had posted but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith. its hardly a prerequisite for challenge and critique is it, whatever religion.

On Broadchurch, 'I have neither watched it nor heard of it' .................... I commend you.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

So could you provide a lik to the Paladins/Fraks butchering heathen Saxons and why?

To go slightly off the soberness of this thread...

If you follow this link it will perhaps be the best 4 minutes of your life ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY

Christopher Lee in the most fantastic music video ever created, bar none.

 

[fork me]

You are spinning like a top.

You have now said that your specific example was about Islam, but earlier you asked 'where did I mention any specific religion ?'

You then say 'where did I say they ( religion ) shouldn't be criticised' after you had posted but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith. its hardly a prerequisite for challenge and critique is it, whatever religion.

On Broadchurch, 'I have neither watched it nor heard of it' .................... I commend you.

I see, your problem is with not understanding the English language.

Deliberately provoking a group is a completely different thing to criticising them.

If you can't understand the difference, then the problem is yours, not mine.

 

[symyjym]

To go slightly off the soberness of this thread...

If you follow this link it will perhaps be the best 4 minutes of your life ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY

Christopher Lee in the most fantastic music video ever created, bar none.

I have just lost 4 minutes of my life.

Christopher Lee is great, but an operatic heavy metal song disguised as a history lesson doesn't really work for me.

 

[BigGully]

I see, your problem is with not understanding the English language.

Deliberately provoking a group is a completely different thing to criticising them.

If you can't understand the difference, then the problem is yours, not mine.

Now dont be stupid.

If a cartoon is seen as provocation to any group, which then prompts acts of unmitigated violence, then I think it is the recipient of that offense that holds the problem.

Now could you care to explain beyond a cartoon, what else deserves your censorship, written words maybe ??

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I don't believe it is. Paul was one of the worst cherry pickers of them all. It was Peter that Jesus said all that "whatsoever you loose..." stuff to, not Paul, and yet many modern churches seem to value Paul's teachings above those of Jesus.

Why is that?

No, I reiterate, in the example YOU chose, your point was invalid as it did not take into account the advent of grace relating to the meal and the advice of Paul.

As to cherry picking. Please explain any instance of any belief system or set of laws where there is absolutely no room for interpretation. You mention Paul, he states his opposition to homosexual acts (amongst a myriad of other heterosexual practises) but then ask why so many Christians are 'anti gay'. I do hope you are not guilty of 'cherry picking', if, as I assume, you think Christians should be promoting homosexual acts?

I wish it to be known that I am not anti gay and have close gay friends but I am merely illustrating the problem with the i premise of the argument. I.e. that Christians cherry pick from the bible to suit their own purposes. This same method should not then be used as a weapon itself.

 

[fork me]

Now dont be stupid.

If a cartoon is seen as provocation to any group, which then prompts acts of unmitigated violence, then I think it is the recipient of that offense that holds the problem.

Now could you care to explain beyond a cartoon, what else deserves your censorship, written words maybe ??

Let me turn that back around.

Can you think of nothing that deserves censorship?

 

[fork me]

No, I reiterate, in the example YOU chose, your point was invalid as it did not take into account the advent of grace relating to the meal and the advice of Paul.

As to cherry picking. Please explain any instance of any belief system or set of laws where there is absolutely no room for interpretation. You mention Paul, he states his opposition to homosexual acts (amongst a myriad of other heterosexual practises) but then ask why so many Christians are 'anti gay'. I do hope you are not guilty of 'cherry picking', if, as I assume, you think Christians should be promoting homosexual acts?

I wish it to be known that I am not anti gay and have close gay friends but I am merely illustrating the problem with the i premise of the argument. I.e. that Christians cherry pick from the bible to suit their own purposes. This same method should not then be used as a weapon itself.

I don't think Christians should do anything, I'm not one.

However, Christians DO claim to believe in one all powerful God. This same God is supposed to have guided the hands that wrote Leviticus, who is Paul to change His word? And if Paul was guided by this all powerful being, what made Him change His mind?