 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Last Christmas I went to a carol service at Durham Cathedral. During one of the readings I got a bit of a revelation - but not really quite how the bishiop probably would have wanted.
The reading was this:
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder,and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore."
Well, did Jesus ever sit on the throne of David? Was the government upon his shoulder? Has there been no end of peace since he was born? Was he called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty god etc, except by people who knew the prophesy so applied this to him?
It seems to me this is about someone else altogether.
Was the carol service any good? We were thinking of going along this year. Not religious but I do like christmas carols...
I've seen The Life of Brian documentary - they did get the wrong guy. He was a very naught boy, but he wasn't the Messiah. Highly controversial documentary that one, the Catholic Church tried to get it banned and has been denying it's findings ever since.
It's all interpretation. A bit like all prophecies, after that fact it goes something like "No, that's what I meant"
footflaps - Member
I've seen The Life of Brian documentary - they did get the wrong guy. He was a very naught boy, but he wasn't the Messiah. Highly controversial documentary that one, the Catholic Church tried to get it banned and has been denying it's findings ever since.
That was a spectacular piece of promotion by the Catholic Church. 🙄
Was the carol service any good? We were thinking of going along this year. Not religious but I do like christmas carols...
Yes, but take a warm coat and get there early if you go on Christmas Eve.
well this depends on your viewpoint.
The gospels did give jesus a genealogy leading back to David. Although obviously they also say Joseph was nt Jesus's father so why bother with a genealogy ? Suppose it was so ingrained in them days you could nt help it. Suppose you could say both David and Jesus's genealogy both eventually lead back to God as the original father but then you could say that for everyone.
Anyway in the gospel Jesus makes it clear that his Kingdom is not of this earth. So presumably you could say the old testament prophets and predictions for
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end,
Hadnt really got the point that these things they were prophesying would be spiritual not physical.
Saint Augustine expanded on this in City of God linking the new testament prophesies to a heavenly jerusalem, rather than a earthy centre of power ie Rome/Real Jerusalem.
The mainstream jewish point of view is that Christians have got the wrong guy and their still waiting for a messiah who will bring earthly peace etc etc
well quite, and I guess they've used exactly the same prophecies that Christians use to identify Jesus as the Messiah, to come to the conclusion that he wasn't.The mainstream jewish point of view is that Christians have got the wrong guy and their still waiting for a messiah who will bring earthly peace etc etc
Seems to me they were looking for a politician - a King, or military leader. Here's another:
"Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." (Micah 5:1-2)
And another:
"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6
scu98rkr is right that Jesus isn't even descended from David as Joseph is not his father.
It's all looking a bit shaky for Jesus.
Anything that is no longer palatable or is patently untrue is allegorical.
Everything else is God's inspired written word and is absolute truth. Until it becomes allegorical.
scu98rkr is right that Jesus isn't even descended from David as Joseph is not his father.
I think you've missed my point, if you want to see it this way Jesus and David are both descended from Adam created by God. So they would still be in the same family ie humanity. Just depends how you see it.
Jesus mother, Mary, was also a descendant of the line of David.
Just to be pedantic - there is/should be a comma between wonderful and counsellor. I had this drummed into me by my headmaster when I was 13 and reading this at a Nine Lessons and Carols service. Only this week, I cringed slightly at the more modern reading of this. Funny how such things stay in your mind!
Isaiah 9:6
Michael Gove Version 😉
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Was the carol service any good? We were thinking of going along this year. Not religious but I do like Christmas carols...
If you're going to go to Nine Lessons and Carols for more than the spiritual/religious element, then Durham has to be the place for it.
Hmm. Might take Toddler North for the children's carols service earlier on the Saturday. Bit of a drive for a 30 minute service, but I haven't been to the North East for 12 months so it would make a nice day out.
Anything that is no longer palatable or is patently untrue is allegorical.Everything else is God's inspired written word and is absolute truth. Until it becomes allegorical.
Wow, it sounds like you really have understood this religion thing brilliantly well.
Jesus and David are both descended from Adam created by God. So they would still be in the same family ie humanity"
Well, that hardly narrows the field does it? So the prophecy says: The Messiah will be ...a person.
Jesus mother, Mary, was also a descendant of the line of David.
I didn't know this, Underhill. Where's the source?
Wow, it sounds like you really have understood this religion thing brilliantly well.
Obviously, this is a simplified version. I missed out the bit where people are tortured for saying the Earth orbits the sun.
[img] 
[/img]
HE HAS GIVEN US A SIGN!
Obviously, this is a simplified version. I missed out the bit where people are tortured for saying the Earth orbits the sun.
Are you deliberately trying to appear feeble-minded, or is it incidental?
Are you deliberately trying to appear feeble-minded, or is it incidental?
Right back at ya.
my name is David and my son has an important biblical name..
make of that what you will, but watch out for him doing great things in the field of popular mythology later in the century
8)
watch out for him doing great things in the field of popular mythology later in the century
Tell him to get a move on: [url= http://news.discovery.com/history/maya-long-count-calendar-end-date-120629.html ]there's only a couple of weeks until the end of the world[/url].
The Alleged Nazarene is a made-up character in a book of fiction.
Mr Woppit - Member
The Alleged Nazarene is a made-up character in a book of fiction.
Far from correct. Plenty of evidence for a character bearing most of the "attributes/background" of Jesus exists. The question of whether that individual was the son of god, a prophet, a holy man, a good bloke, an ordinary bloke etc is the matter for debate and analysis. IMO, of course.
Far from correct. Plenty of evidence for a character bearing most of the "attributes/background" of Jesus exists.
This was my understanding, too. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus ]Wikipedia says[/url]:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
But he almost certainly wasn't born of a virgin, perform miracles or rise from the dead; and even if he did that still wouldn't prove that he was (the son of) an omniscient, omnipresent deity. Which he almost certainly wasn't.
Happy to leave the last bit to individuals to make their own mind up!!
Plenty of evidence for a character bearing most of the "attributes/background" of Jesus exists
Don't be silly. What's his name, Brian?
Right back at ya.
Ah, the old "I don't understand the issue so I just dismiss anyone's attempts to explain it" position.
I just checked on Wikipedia and Tony Blair's Father isn't called David.
Another theory kippered.
Ah, the old "I don't understand the issue so I just dismiss anyone's attempts to explain it" position.
Jesus being or not being the son of god isn't going to be refuted or proven by something someone noticed in the semantics of the wording of a reading in a carol service. If it were, somebody would have noticed by now.
I was pointing out the shifting nature of 'truth' as interpreted from the Bible by Christians over the years. There's a gradual shift from "everything in the bible is the literal, true word of God" through to "everything in the bible is the spirit-inspired word of God as interpreted by humans, and anyway some bits are allegorical and we don't really believe those bits as they have to be interpreted within the historical context in which it was written, selected and translated".
I did it fairly succinctly, admittedly, but as we've been over that ground many times on here it didn't seem to be worth going into more depth.
I did manage to stay above the level of personal insult however, which you seemed to struggle to do.
I have a pretty good understanding of Christianity. My wife is a Christian; in fact, she's an unordained chaplain who has studied some theology to undergraduate level and many people think should go for ordination. And I'm on first name terms with the guy who was a Canon at Durham Cathedral when this reading took place, so it could even have been a personal friend of mine who read it. If you like, I could email the chap in charge of ordinand training for Durham and Northumbria to get his take on this verse?
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder,and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.
Government? David? Hang on, this all sounds familiar.
I did manage to stay above the level of personal insult
I didn't, and I apologise unreservedly. I'm just too used to and to fed up with idiotic religion bashing on here.
I was pointing out the shifting nature of 'truth' as interpreted from the Bible by Christians over the years.
You did seem to be being a little derogatory with it, but perhaps that's STW goggles. It is an interesting point.
However, I take issue with you and others conflating the burning of heretics etc with Christianity.
People are INHERENTLY jingoistic, tribal, ignorant and aggressive. This is not the fault of Christianity. It's just used as an excuse.
fed up with idiotic religion bashing on here.
... and "bashing" religion (by which I take it you mean - being against it and presenting the argument) is making you fed up why, exactly?
Cos the arguments are a) tediously obvious and b) unpleasant in tone.
by which I take it you mean - being against it and presenting the argument)
No - people usually don't present intelligent reasoned debate, they just queue up to insult believers.
There's just no point in pointing out the holes in bible stories of God and creation, for a few reasons.
1) It's too easy, which puts it on the same level as teasing nerds or shooting buffalo herds from a train. Ie not sport, and not worthwhile
2) It ignores the real reasons many people believe. Christianity is absolutely not just a theory of how the world was created. This makes you look every bit as ignorant as bible bashing types.
3) It's offensive to those people who do believe for valid reasons, when they come on and try to explain and you just ignore them.
It's offensive to those people who do believe for valid reasons, when they come on and try to explain and you just ignore them.
Do I really? Good heavens! (Joke). I thought I always dealt with the specific claims directly.
What might be a valid reason for believing in unevidenced claims and unproven fantasies, then? In your opinion.
I thought I always dealt with the specific claims directly.
I've tried a thousand times and we come back to the same base argument every time.
What might be a valid reason for believing in unevidenced claims and unproven fantasies, then? In your opinion
Because it makes people happy.
I think we're getting away from the point, friends. I was interested to hear how people who use the prophesies of the OT as part of their support for their view that Jesus was the Messiah, square my quotes in the original post with the character they believe to be The One. The prophesies appear to be about someone else - a strong military leader/politician who is going to free Israel and rule in peace etc. Jesus never did that. So the Jews (whose views also need to be given respect) might have a point, no??
@ neil_the_wheel
I didn't know this, Underhill. Where's the source?
From the Bible. Matthew's genealogy refers to Joseph's line back to David, going through David's son Solomon. In Luke 3 there is another line which traces the link to David through another son, Nathan. Although both genealogies name Joseph as the father, they differ in that Matthew's account names Jacob as father of Joseph and Luke's names Heli. So Heli then was most like Mary's father, as the line of descent was not passed through the mother, which also explains why she is not named.
The importance of Joseph's line is that he was in an adoptive role, which would give Jesus a legal right to claim descent from the line of David.
molgrips - Member
Because it makes people happy.
[img] 
[/img]
Not everything that makes you happy is good for you.
Hmmm - so are there still people around who claim to be able to trace their line back to David? If not, the Jews are going to struggle to find anyone to fulfil the prophesies.
When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70ad they destroyed the temple & pretty much all records of who begat who. So yes, very difficult for Judaism to definitively state anyone is a direct descendant of David.
However, I take issue with you and others conflating the burning of heretics etc with Christianity.People are INHERENTLY jingoistic, tribal, ignorant and aggressive. This is not the fault of Christianity. It's just used as an excuse.
"With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
The Old Testament is jingoistic, tribal, ignorant and aggressive. There's nothing in the Ten Commandments about genocide or slavery, because that's what God tell the Jewish tribe to do through most of the OT.
Jesus was reportedly a lot more peace and love, though it's the NT that invents hell and damnation. The Catholics in particular were fond of burning and torturing, but the CofE was essentially founded upon it, with Elizabeth I being very fond of bonfires, even though it's all tea and biscuits now and they restrict themselves to institutionalism sexism and homophobia.
I think we're getting away from the point, friends. I was interested to hear how people who use the prophesies of the OT as part of their support for their view that Jesus was the Messiah, square my quotes in the original post with the character they believe to be The One. The prophesies appear to be about someone else - a strong military leader/politician who is going to free Israel and rule in peace etc. Jesus never did that. So the Jews (whose views also need to be given respect) might have a point, no??
There was a lot of tension at the time over what kind of messiah Jesus was going to be; Matthew (IIRC) was very much in the shouty-stabby camp and cut off someone's ear in Gethsemane.
The nice thing about writing the gospels after-the-fact is that you can make sure Jesus fulfils the prophesies, regardless of whether or not he did in reality. Make sure some kings visit to cover that base, make sure he's born in the correct town to cover that base...
I believe in a higher being, some call it Mother Nature however I dont believe in mans manipulation and control what is called organised religious group...
Follow us like sheep and do as well tell you hocom
Michael Moorcock wrote an interesting short story called Behold the Man that goes into some of that stuff, Mike - how much of the story got filled in afterwards.
Something else that I noticed recently is that nowhere in the NT does it mention anything about 3 kings. Matthew mentions "wise men from the east" - he doesn't say how many. I guess we've all come to assume there were 3 because they brought 3 gifts but one of them could easily have carried the myrrh and the Frankincense. I don't think they are very heavy. The rest of the gospels don't mention them at all. Then suddenly they have names - Balthazar, Melchior and Caspar. So somebody made that up!
Just a point, but Underhill mentioned that the line of female descent did not count. However, i was under the (possibly erroneous) belief that 'Jewishness' (corrct term?) is passed down through the female line?
EDIT: For some reason i was also under the idea that Jesus was of the Cohenim class, i.e. the priestly caste.
Not everything that makes you happy is good for you.
Quite. But if you are going to insinuate that you know what's best for everyone then.. well.. you are on thin ice!
I guess we've all come to assume there were 3 because they brought 3 gifts but one of them could easily have carried the myrrh and the Frankincense
Yeah but one of them would only have one gift compared to the other's two, and that would have been *very* awkward.
Not everything that makes you happy is good for you.
Quite. But if you are going to insinuate that you know what's best for everyone then.. well.. you are on thin ice!
Which is why every individual should be free to believe in whatever they like, so long as it doesn't impact on others or give them special privileges.
If anyone want to believe that 96000 years after humans evolved, the creator of the universe suddenly decided to send some rules in the form of stone tablets and then a couple of thousand years later decided to come to Earth so that he could be nailed to a tree in return for his own forgiveness? Great!
The problem only comes when those people or organisations want special privileges.
Which is why every individual should be free to believe in whatever they like, so long as it doesn't impact on others or give them special privileges
And it'd be nice if Woppit didn't randomly attack them for it, no? Or anyone else. That includes constant belittling btw.
And it'd be nice if Woppit didn't randomly attack them for it, no? Or anyone else. That includes constant belittling btw.
Anybody should expect to have their beliefs questioned, within the bounds of politeness and social convention. If I posted about my deeply-held belief in the tooth fairy, it would be questioned. Or my belief that women should only hold subservient roles or that interracial marriages are wrong.
If I truly and deeply believed that the ghost of Genghis Khan was sending me instructions on how to live my life, because he was descended from Shiva, it'd be queried.
Anybody should expect to have their beliefs questioned
Back to this again eh. AGAIN.
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
So we're agreed? Excellent.
Well we live in hope that one day you'll understand that they way that [i]you[/i] think that people should act isn't actually of any significance and that they are free to say whatever they want in whatever way they want, no matter what you think. You are of course also free to reply in whatever manner you see fit.
God botherers at it again-- have you no ironing to do ?
We shouldn't belittle anyone with religious beliefs, [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/cars-engines-that-turn-off-when-in-stationary-traffic#post-4440318 ]but it's fine if they ask an engineering question[/url].
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/
🙄
To get back to the OP: I have to laugh when people think they've uncovered a major flaw in something that teams of theologists have been working on for years after a few moments idle pondering in a carol service.
Hmmm - so are there still people around who claim to be able to trace their line back to David? If not, the Jews are going to struggle to find anyone to fulfil the prophesies.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 ]This from the BBC[/url] a couple of months ago suggests there would have been loads of people around at the time who could trace their line back to David, so presumably there are even more now.
If Paul Daniels was alive back in ancient times they would have wrote the bible about him, Jesus may have turned water in to wine but Paul Daniels can cut the lovely Debbie McGee in half and put her back together!
If I posted about my deeply-held belief in the tooth fairy, it would be questioned.
If I truly and deeply believed that the ghost of Genghis Khan was sending me instructions on how to live my life, because he was descended from Shiva, it'd be queried.
I don't think you get molgrips point.
At best, you're comparing apples with pears. You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparison to other peoples genuine beliefs. Those are not the same, closer to opposites, and it would be easy to perceive this as [i]insinuating stupidity and feeble-mindedness - yes.[/i]
However, your other post contains a quote from the Physics Nobel prize winner, Steven Weinberg. Unfortunately, it's not related to his area of expertise but to his political beliefs.
But I'll assume this time you quoted him in "good faith" through actually sharing those political beliefs, and I'd happily challenge that rather than a mock belief in a tooth fairy.
And he's wrong.
A bit of background on these politics (from Wiki):
Weinberg is also known for his support of Israel. He wrote an essay titled "Zionism and Its Cultural Adversaries" to explain his views on the issue.
Weinberg has cancelled trips to universities in the United Kingdom because of British boycotts directed towards Israel. He has explained:
"Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than antisemitism.
And a great post stolen from chakaping on the the other thread:
I don't think you get molgrips point.
At best, you're comparing apples with pears. You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparrison to other peoples genuine beliefs. Those are not the same, and it would be easy to percieve this as insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - yes.
Whilst I don't wan to be seen to speak for mike (he's more than capable of speaking for himself) I feel it is you who is missing the point. No belief no matter what it is is boeyond criticism. It doesn't matter whether that belief is racist, mysoginistic, xenophobic, or involves invisible pink unicorns no belief deserves special treatment or privilidge. In our society where free speach is an improtant thing, that cricism can take many forms some of which the criticised won't like and quite frankly people just need to get over it as that is a consequnce of free speach. I've been on the recieving end of some quite insulting criticism for my non belief in any sort of deity, but I accept that as part of the price for free speach.
http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/
Considering the article uses IQ as the measure of intelligence.
I know some [i]very[/i] intelligent (high IQ) people but they have much lower than average common sense.
Therefore, using a similarly flimsy arguement as Mr Freethinker, that must mean that religious people choose religion as the obvious choice because they have more common sense.
😀
Questioning belifs - yes
Insintuating stupidity and feeblemindedness - no
Well they all claim to be the one true and real god so it stand to reason that the majority of those who commune with their diety of choice are wrong and are imagining it's presence in their lifes.
What would you prefer we describe this delusion ?
Strong? Wise? Based on reality?
Its just culturally accepted but it is not real.
Should we treat all delusions with the same respect or just ones that are religious in nature and have enough members?
You raise examples of things that you most definitely do not believe in yourself as something you'd expect to be challenged on, in direct comparrison to other peoples genuine beliefs.
What difference does it matter how much I believe ?
Does the stregth of my faith alter whether it is right or wrong?
It cannot,in any way I can see, make any difference to the truth of my claim.
See the reaction when folk set up religions and we point and laugh but th elong running ones we have to show respect
Its as credible a world view as is David Ickes but we are meant to respect it despite the non eveidence
I understand Molly thinks its special and we should tolerate/respect it but being wrong is not something I think we should tolerate
Whilst the degree educated physicts may wish to discuss proof with me here I would ask him to use his standards from science to this issue and see which side we would hvae "faith" in being correct
If you wish to respct someone who communes with and feels the presence of a non existent diety then that is your choice but please dont ask me to do the same.
One day mankind will be free from religion and all the false gods - see we can all have faith 😉
I know some very intelligent (high IQ) people but they have much lower than average common sense.
I'm not really sure what common sense is - can't really measure it can we?
Anyway, some of the brightest people I know are Christians - I don't know their IQs or level of common sense but they are highly articulate. They also earn lots of cash so must be bright right?!
One day mankind will be free from religion and all the false gods - see we can all have faith
aye + 1
Its nice that this thread (at least started as) a reasoned debate over a bible passage. Just to try and bring things back to the point, I have a list of prophecies about Jesus in the back of my bible, a bit like this one...
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm
The fact that he would be of the line of David (which he was as stated above) is just one of many details contained within the OT.
I understand Molly thinks its special and we should tolerate/respect it
No, that is not what I believe at all.
You should not be nasty to people at all, regardless of what their private beliefs might be. It does not matter what that belief is.
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
Is this so difficult to understand? Is it somehow controversial?
If you wish to respct someone who communes with and feels the presence of a non existent diety then that is your choice but please dont ask me to do the same.
I'll ask you to respect every human being as such. You may not respect each belief however.
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
The problem with that is that religion DOES get special treatment and all sorts of unwarranted priveleges.
Suggesting that these be removed often causes "offence" to the religious.
Although, you think THAT'S offensive? Just ask me what I think about your actual religion...
That's your religion, by the way, not [i]you[/i].
You should not be nasty to people at all, regardless of what their private beliefs might be. It does not matter what that belief is
Nazis?
BNP
Those who think its ok to beat up gays for giving us the gay plague
When exactly was religion a private belief- they only do it private and dont try and impose their beliefs on me - is this really your claim?
I could not disagree more what if their belief is really nasty?
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
This is nothing like religion 😕
What of they tell you you have to wear leggings and your children and everyone else and then a certian colour etc.
The fat legging wearer has no impact on your life - the religious do and they try to put their beliefs on you.
What if I tell you i hear voices and you all need to ride Orange 5 lest the voices will be angry - still ok to respect my belief now it impacts on yout life
Perhaps I could get a sacred book written buy Guy Martin and we could all honour and respect it ?
I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other.
Well I am not telling them they are going to burn in the eternity of hell for disagreeing with me- Its not me who need to RespectTFU
Is this so difficult to understand? Is it somehow controversial?
No its just wrong 😀
"I am not arguing for special treatment for religion. I am arguing for being nice to each other".
Spot on molgrips! We could all do with a little of that.
Although, you think THAT'S offensive? Just ask me what I think about your actual religion...That's your religion, by the way, not you.
What's my religion again?
I'm not in favour of religions having special privileges btw.
What of they tell you you have to wear leggings and your children and everyone else and then a certian colour etc
That would be bad.
the religious do and they try to put their beliefs on you
Meh. Red Dragon FM try to get me to listen to their radio station too. I don't let that bother me 🙂
Nazis?
BNP
Those who think its ok to beat up gays for giving us the gay plague
Yes, be nice to everyone. We are adults, this is not the school playground.
I am surprised you and woppit are having so much trouble understanding what is an incredibly simple concept.
I am surprised you and woppit are having so much trouble understanding what is an incredibly simple concept.
I understand it. It's the domain of those who prefer simple answers to complex problems.
Here's an example of some religious people that you want me to be "simply" nice to...
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/12/05/we-wish-you-a-merry-hatefest/?
Rtheir history of be nice to you includes killing folk who "blaspheme" and the treatment of Galileo for saying the world was heliocentric as it was aginst scriptures - they are still doing this today re gay marriage though they dont quite threaten to torture us or put ius under house arrest for disagreeing.
Currently i would look at their treatment of gay people and their treatment of women as further reaons why I should not respect them.
I can think of non religous views I dont respect either such as racism and homophobia if that helps
If you want to respect folk with a 2000 + year old antiguated view of reality with little basis in fact and no proof of their deity then that is your choice
Dont expect me to respect that choice either. 😉
Here's an example of some religious people that you want me to be "simply" nice to
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
You don't have to respect the choice or the views, you don't have to give them special privileges, but I do believe you have to be nice to them. Everyone needs to be nice to everyone else. You don't have to like them or let them do bad things, but you always have to be nice.
Always nice. Even when you are prosecuting the law or fighting a war. That's why soliders get into trouble for beating up prisoners of war and suchlike.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
So now you're trying to convince an atheist, with a quote from a religious book?
Oh dear. And for that unreason, I'm out...
It's from a religious book, yes, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
Arrogant to assume you have nothing to learn from.. actually wait - do you even know what's IN the bible?
I believe leggings don't look good on fat people but I don't go around telling them that. Why? Cos it's pointless, it'd upset them and it's none of my business what they wear.
What if there was a thread on a discussion forum, asking whether red or black leggings are the bast way of covering the legs of fat people? Would it them be okay to say that you don't think any fat people should wear leggings?