Theology discussion split from French Massacre thread

[Guest bazzad9]

im going to post this again and then i done responding to retarded accusations ,so if you have anything further to say about me post away ill ignore it

religion is a bad idea it can cause harms the thinking is generally fallacious behind etc ,and they are all as good and as bad in this respect

in these threads ive not argued that at all my argument has been that the vast majority of muslims are no different to the majority of christians ,islam doesnt = terror etc ...thats been my argument nothing about should people believe etc ,i may have touched on parts as it came up but that has far from been my focus

so ive been defending essentially the vast majority of muslims ,,,,thats all ive done ,yet somehow this is still wrong ,or disrespectful,i post a thread not long ago supporting peacefull muslims etc still wrong

so if im damned if i do and damned if i dont i couldnt really care less anymore what anyone thinks ....respect goes both ways if you cant decipher my posts past its about religion then i have no respect for your opinion so telling me is a waste of your time

the threads get derailed by idiots telling me not to post not my posts

use the ignore if this offends i couldnt care less

quick to call me on stuff not so quick to explain why

[LouisLitt]

im going to post this again and then i done responding to retarded accusations ,so if you have anything further to say about me post away ill ignore it

religion is a bad idea it can cause harms the thinking is generally fallacious behind etc ,and they are all as good and as bad in this respect

in these threads ive not argued that at all my argument has been that the vast majority of muslims are no different to the majority of christians ,islam doesnt = terror etc ...thats been my argument nothing about should people believe etc ,i may have touched on parts as it came up but that has far from been my focus

so ive been defending essentially the vast majority of muslims ,,,,thats all ive done ,yet somehow this is still wrong ,or disrespectful,i post a thread not long ago supporting peacefull muslims etc still wrong

so if im damned if i do and damned if i dont i couldnt really care less anymore what anyone thinks ....respect goes both ways if you cant decipher my posts past its about religion then i have no respect for your opinion so telling me is a waste of your time

the threads get derailed by idiots telling me not to post not my posts

use the ignore if this offends i couldnt care less

quick to call me on stuff not so quick to explain why

He loves science and agrees with most of what you post but still doesnt want you to post it??

Very strange

[ratdog]

without the mathematical foundations you can only believe in a very similar way that people believe in their god

Really?

[Guest Theokoles]

son of an old friend of mine had a life threatening motor cycle accident, dad was religious and he prayed for his sons recovery, he talked to god begging him to let his son live, he never came out the coma and died, dad will tell you there aint no god, i never did believe and this confirmed my none belief

My friends son was in a near fatal car crash, she turned to me for solace and support. I stayed by his bedisde as often as i could whilst he was in a coma, they gave me a bed in the hospital, i never left in a month. I went to the Chapel somedays, not being religeous but praying nonetheless. After a month, he was moved to another intensive care unit, for a week..his mum, sister and i went to the chapel and prayed..when we went back up to intensive care and approached his bed..he woke up..ETA to some ear phones i had and bob marley glad to say he made a full recovery.

Fucking parasitic police were there whilst he was in a coma and wanting to speak to him when he woke up. As soon as he did they rang his mum, some copper on a saturday night, i could have sworn he was pissed..i went fucking nuts at him and well that was the last of that..

Even after this incident i didnt find faith..

Edited January 9, 2015 by Theokoles

[Hughie Green]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/08/lbc-call-clegg-islam-charlie-hebdo_n_6436520.html?ir=UK+Politics

Nick Clegg Says Society Should Be 'Free To Offend' On LBC Call-In After Charlie Hebdo Shooting

Cheers

"Nick Clegg: 'Chloe Madeley Twitter trolls should be prosecuted' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/11166409/Nick-Clegg-Twitter-trolls-targeting-Judy-Finnigans-daughter-should-be-prosecuted.html

double standards? not much, on one hand using the out of proportion furore over idiot trolls to police the internet and attempt to cut out dissent and dissemination of information that proves them to be liars then on the next supporting the right to offend because it is directed at the proscribed "enemy", more faces than the town clock and every one bent out of shape from constant lies,

funny how we have the right to offend when it fits their transparent agenda!.

[Guest Theokoles]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/08/lbc-call-clegg-islam-charlie-hebdo_n_6436520.html?ir=UK+Politics

Nick Clegg Says Society Should Be 'Free To Offend' On LBC Call-In After Charlie Hebdo Shooting

Cheers

"Here’s the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended.

Its not as simple as that though, whats offensive differes from city to city, country to country, minority to minority ect ect.

From my earlier post..

The ECtHR disagreed, however. Its reasoning centred on the right to freedom of religion, which, like all human rights, is principally a right against the state rather than against other private persons. The ECtHR noted that believers “must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith,” but at the same time found that states may be justified, even required, to protect religions against the harshest attacks:

[T]he manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the State, notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right [to freedom of religion] … The respect for the religious feelings of believers ... can legitimately be thought to have been violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration; and such portrayals can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Theokoles

[LouisLitt]

We have the right to offend and the right to be offended..

Unless your names bazzard talking about religon or homeopathy then YOU BETTER SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH

[Guest Theokoles]

I think bazzad has explained his stance about religion..he doesnt attack the people just challenges their belief system..which is a legitimate right (athiesm) equal to many other human rights.

It is however quite contradictory as the state has a responsibility to ensure the peacful enjoyment of that right. Respecting religious feelings of believers...

This the brings into question levels of offensiveness and how is jow bloggs supposed to determine this level?

Edited January 10, 2015 by Theokoles

[Guest bazzad9]

It is however quite contradictory as the state has a responsibility to ensure the peacful enjoyment of that right

commenting on religion doesnt prevent this at all

and as ive stated a religious site is the place for it unchallenged not a public forum ,you cant demand it in public

if your a christian on a christian site then yes you get that ....and if thats what you want thats the place for it ,if you want to hear all views you go public

i note that both accusations are still not backed with anything ...funny how we speak of rights being fair etc ,twice ive been accused in this thread and asked for it to be backed up ,the first accuser just decided we should drop it when asked to back it up the other i think just popped in to tell me off and as yet hasnt backed it up

imagine i called someone a racist and refused to back it up ? ...when you challenged them they said "oh lets just move on " and what about if when they accused you you had been arguing the opposite ?

[Guest bazzad9]

We have the right to offend and the right to be offended..

Unless your names bazzard talking about religon or homeopathy then YOU BETTER SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH

whilst spouting about freedom of speech

[Guest Theokoles]

commenting on religion doesnt prevent this at all

and as ive stated a religious site is the place for it unchallenged not a public forum ,you cant demand it in public

if your a christian on a christian site then yes you get that ....and if thats what you want thats the place for it ,if you want to hear all views you go public

i note that both accusations are still not backed with anything ...funny how we speak of rights being fair etc ,twice ive been accused in this thread and asked for it to be backed up ,the first accuser just decided we should drop it when asked to back it up the other i think just popped in to tell me off and as yet hasnt backed it up

imagine i called someone a racist and refused to back it up ? ...when you challenged them they said "oh lets just move on " and what about if when they accused you you had been arguing the opposite ?

I wasnt accusing you of being contradictory mate, maybe weve missed the point here.

Its the Law thats contradictory, as the case law seems to switch back and forth between conflicting principles.

I e we can ridicule beliefs but at thye same time have to respect the feelings of those believers..

Im not sure wher or when the right time is..my point being that whats offensive in terms of ridicule..isnt a static concept.

And trying to define whats offensive because of this is extremly difficult.

Ie what may be considered a malicious violation of spiritual tolerance is no easy challenge..no matter what forums your on.

[Guest bazzad9]

@

i think i did sort of miss your point a bit mate ,not been up long

but heres the thing all this talk of ridicule etc isnt what i do anyway ,i dont call people stupid or take the piss ,far from it ,there are often posts like this that never get noted but when i dont do it i get called on it

for me the law is simple you have every right to beleive what you want and others have every right to criticize it .....its seems simple to me

as for the right time i would say when it comes up ....i dont seek it out if it comes up on the public boards of a discussion forum i think you would be hard pushed to find a good argument as to why thats not the place

this thread for example where is the pisstaking ,ridicule etc i havent seen it

so i guess the main objection is me calling it a myth ....there are plenty of sound arguments for this from my side ,but lets use the other side ....what i found christian biblical scholars that call these things myths ? where are we at then ?

becuase i get accused of not understanding it enough when in fact its those that get butthurt over the myth thing that dont understand it or have not read up on it

if they want biblical scholars calling it myth there are plenty ...in fact more than plenty and this goes back as far as christianity itself ......so who is it that is not reading about it or not understanding it ?

[Guest bazzad9]

A number of modern Christian writers such as C.S. Lewis have described elements of Christianity, particularly the story of Christ, as "myth" which is also "true" ("true myth").^[6][7][8] Opposition to the term "myth" stems from a variety of sources: the association of the term "myth" with polytheism,^[9][10][11] the use of the term "myth" to indicate falsehood or non-historicity,^{[9][10][12][13][14]} and the lack of an agreed-upon definition of "myth".^[9][10][14]

George Every claims that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants".^[15] As examples of Biblical myths, Every cites the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and the story of Eve's temptation.^[15] It should be noted, however, that many Christians believe parts of the Bible to be symbolic or metaphorical (such as the Creation in Genesis).^[16]

^wiki

[Guest Theokoles]

@bazzad i agree with you mate. When i first joined this forum and read some of your posts in a religious thread, i though you were being discriminatory. However ive since learned its your right to ridicule, ie pink sparkly ponies ect..thats fair enough and isnt a direct critisism on the believer themselves just their belief or its credibility. Thats your right.

But im really talking about the images that have spurred these fanatic extremists into murder, a completley disproportinate reponse to the images that the Fernch Magazine published.

But what kind of images, provocative portrayals of religious venerations could be deemed - violations of the spirit of tolerance? This is my question and theres no easy answer.

Its pretty easy for me now to distingush between what you or others say when it comes to simple criticism..as oppose to a racist bigot blantantly spouting hate propoganda. But others as i first did when i joined this forum may struggle to distinguish between the two.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Theokoles

[Guest bazzad9]

@

another good point mate i also expressed my concern over these recent images and how they will be used ,i made a point of that a couple of times

will they add to this hate didvide etc ?

so im wondering exactly what it is ive done wrong ,i defend the majority of muslims and am then told im disrespecting religion (not aimed at you )so as you can imagine that pisses me off slightly

i thought in that thread we where having a good conversation no one was piss taking calling names etc ........think it says more about my commenters than me (again not aimed at you )