I don't think it IS ok to discuss religion on these forums.
However, when people use children as a lever to force an opinion, I DO have an opinion on that and am allowed to air it, unless we all of a sudden live in a dictatorship. Assuming it has offended you, I apologise. However, I simply said I'm an athiest - as such, discussing religion would be a waste of time for me, since I do not need to defend any opinions or see the need to preach and force opinions on other people.
not sure if they come up on everyones computers but the ads by google at the bottom are quite amusing. (especially as one is on the left and one is on the right.)
I happen to have a friend who is a JW and I've never bumped into any of the issues mentioned here. Maybe they have different ways of conducting themselves over in Oorope? I know about the whole blood thing being holy (human blood, not the same with animals) and there are a few other points which have been posted here which I believe are quite wrong but I shall not go into detail because I am not an expert in JW matters.
Death,
my comment was for everyone as it seemed inconsistent with the forum rules, as you noted.
And yes, I do think making comments about children like that was entirely inappropriate.
PS - to mile, I'm not angry either :)
Nor me - I'm quite happy actually, my next shed article is progressing nicely :)
It's just that as soon as somebody starts, you know there's gonna be a war of words. I have learnt to get in first, get in hard, and then let them all fight it out among themselves. Like I said, I don't care who wins, I'm an athiest.
Andrew R got it spot on with his comment, which is why I've quoted and agreed with him.
Mr Beanz - you're funny :) As the sun is out, yeah, I guess I am death warmed up :)
We had a visit from them last week just as Emma was coming back from school - we had to threaten them with the police when we caught them trying to preach to her that her parents were sinners and that's why she has no legs. (This was after we told them we weren't intrested in joining for the upteenth time)
That's not a nice thing to do. You let them off lightly.
I happen to have a friend who is a JW and I've never bumped into any of the issues mentioned here. Maybe they have different ways of conducting themselves over in Oorope? I know about the whole blood thing being holy (human blood, not the same with animals) and there are a few other points which have been posted here which I believe are quite wrong but I shall not go into detail because I am not an expert in JW matters.
Just my couple of pee drops.
Animal blood does have religious significance. I'll even give you the chapter and verse, which is Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Suffice it to say that observance is fairly lax amongst modern christians, but as literalists JWs can't wriggle out of it so easily. Even halal meat has some blood in it, after all.
That said, I've got no beef with JWs in general. Most of them, your friend included, are presumably more into it for the feeling of social inclusion that goes with most religions, rather than being too concerned with the minutae of the dogma. It's just the doorknockers that get my back up; they've obviously got no respect for the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of others, so they deserve scant respect for their own in return.
It's just the doorknockers that get my back up; they've obviously got no respect for the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of others, so they deserve scant respect for their own in return.
Exactly. I think for most people here we dont mind at all the Jehovas who keep themselves to themselves and dont go round knocking on doors trying to convert people. I've never had a problem with anyone going to church. Its just when i start reading signs such as 'i'll go to hell if i dont go to church' kinda of thing that gets my backup and anyone knocking on my door trying to convert me.
Most churchgoers i do know (who dont try to convert me) are very very nice people. I still find a fair few nutters on the motorway who must be religious as they have the 'fish' symbol on the back of their car. Always surprised when some drive like idiots !
I still find a fair few nutters on the motorway who must be religious as they have the 'fish' symbol on the back of their car. Always surprised when some drive like idiots !
When you've got Jesus looking out for you, who needs to indicate or look in the mirror? :lol:
I've just has a vist from the Jehovah's Witnesses (of was it the pastie's grandad). Apparently the end of the system is comming very soon. :o
I just thaught I'd better warn you all to start being more gooder-er. Or alse when the time comes you'll be going down to the the FIREY PITS OF HELL!!! WHERE THERE WILL BE GNASHING OF THEETH EXTEEME PAIN.
So be good or else!! :o :x
Death it looks like you have some serious over time comming up soon. So I'd get well rested.
Andrew.
so...does that mean I can't go to the hookers on my next business trip to Amsterdam???
We had a visit from them last week just as Emma was coming back from school - we had to threaten them with the police when we caught them trying to preach to her that her parents were sinners and that's why she has no legs. (This was after we told them we weren't intrested in joining for the upteenth time)
That's sick and evil, telling a child that. I'm not violent, but that would have sent me over the edge, and I don't think anyone would blame me.
Obviously they believe in a nasty, conniving vindictive god if they think that is true. Why would a kind god take a child's legs because of the actions of her parents? Perhaps their god is also the devil!
Well, according to the Bible, we (everyone of us) are all in a world of pain, war, disease, natural disasters, famine, etc, because of Adam and Eve. According to the Bible, Adam and Even were given Paradise, but had it revoked from them when they disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Life. And so Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, and they and their descendants (us and all other human beings) now live in this suffering filled world as punishment for Adam and Eve's act of disobedience.
Now if that is true (and I don't accept it at all), then:
1. Why were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden for disobedience? If God's mercy is infinite, as we are told, then there can be NO limits to it, and he would have forgiven Adam and Eve on the spot.
2. Why did God blame Adam and Eve anyway? God is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, so he must have known that Adam and Eve weren't perfect, and that they would commit that sin. Surely the blame must be God's, since he knowingly made them imperfect?
3. Why are Adam and Eve's children, Adam and Eve's grand-children, Adam and Eve's great-grand-children, etc etc up to us (and presumably further generations after us) punished for what Adam and Eve did? That's not fair at all. How can we be responsible for what our great-great-great-etc-grandparents did in the Garden of Eden?
And not exactly connected to Adam and Eve, but why is it that every single religion (and there have been thousands) claims that it alone knows the Truth and follows God's Will, yet no religion can offer even a scrap of proof that it is right? And why are religions always so rich, when they preach that wealth is a sin and that Earthly posessions make you more likely to go to Hell?
May I enquire when it is OK to discuss religion on these forums and when it is not?
A case by case basis, I think. Ideally, we should be free to discuss religion as we wish, as long as we aren't deliberately offensive. But some people are just so closed minded about religion that they will take offense at anything that runs contrary to their beliefs, even if all evidence backs up your point and is against theirs.
I don't think it IS ok to discuss religion on these forums.
Well, ultimately it's up to whoever makes the rules (Martijn? Foggy?)
However, when people use children as a lever to force an opinion, I DO have an opinion on that and am allowed to air it, unless we all of a sudden live in a dictatorship.
Yep.
Assuming it has offended you, I apologise. However, I simply said I'm an athiest - as such, discussing religion would be a waste of time for me, since I do not need to defend any opinions or see the need to preach and force opinions on other people.
It's true that athiests mostly don't force their views on others, and certainly don't start wars over atheism, but I would argue with you about atheism (if you and others don't mind) - I just don't understand the atheist viewpoint. How can you believe, with absolute certainty, that God doesn't exist? There's no proof of that, any more than there's proof that he does exist. I don't mean to sound offensive, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're intelligent and don't take offensive where none is clearly meant, but to me atheism is as blind and closed minded as the insistant belief in a religion.
You could say that God can't exist, as if he did then the world wouldn't be in so bad a state, but I could argue that maybe he does exist, he did create this world, but did it badly because he didn't know how to make it better, or that he just doesn't care. Or maybe he died, or just lost interest. Yes, religious people will (blindly) disagree here, but they can't offer even the slightest evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I'm an agnostic, which means that I don't see how we can know anything about God for definate. Maybe he/she/they exist, and perhaps he/she/they in turn were created by even higher Gods. Maybe the Christian God exists, and was in turn created by a higher God, who was in turn created by a pantheon of gods, and none of the lower gods even suspects the existance of the higher gods. Or maybe we're all part of some universal consciousness. Or maybe there is no God, no after life or anything. I just don't see any firm evidence for one state or the other. So I don't believe in anything about God or the afterlife, but I don't absolutely disbelieve, either.
I didn't choose to be an agnostic, it just seems to me to be the only reasonable viewpoint given the lack of evidence of God or the afterlife.
Two things I do believe, though:
1) Organised religion is wrong. People who cannot know the truth telling others that "this is right, anything else is wrong", and getting rich whilst their followers starve, and fighting wars to force other cultures to worship their "kind and loving" God, that's just plain wrong.
2) If God(s) does exist, then he/she/they/it/them etc are either not all powerful or not all good. There's is no justification for the suffering inflicted upon us by our "heavenly father", even if we do have an eternity of bliss to follow this miserable life that we are subjected to, with no say in our birth or help given when we ask for it. God? Maybe. An all good and all powerful God? No chance.
Jesus never existed. The name Jesus was NEVER used and was not his name (might as well have called him bob). The correct Hebrew name he had was Yeshua/Yahshua (Joshua). Jesus was/is a Greek translation of the pagan name Isus.
How about them apples?
Edit: I took great glee in telling a friend of mine..who is training to be a preacher this..he had no idea...oh how I rubbed it in that someone who doesn't believe knew more about his savior than someone training to spread his word.
Sorry beanz, that is completely wrong on multiple counts. Jesus translates out of Iesous, (who is this pagan Isus anyway? edit: Paul knew Greek well enough [or used secretaries] and was a Jew so there is no reason to borrow from pagans for this name)
Josephus and Tacitus both make reference to Jesus (Josephus actually uses that name while Tacitus mentions 'Christus' in reference to the leader of the sect in Judea from whom the Christians got their name, and was executed under Pontius Pilate - and historians are unanimous about the veracity of this quote, while some doubt the Josephus one)
Jesus never existed. The name Jesus was NEVER used and was not his name (might as well have called him bob). The correct Hebrew name he had was Yeshua/Yahshua (Joshua). Jesus was/is a Greek translation of the pagan name Isus.
What is your source for that? Not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you in any way at all - like ewgf, I'm agnostic. I'm just interested in learning a bit more about the "Jesus didn't actually exist" viewpoint.
Sorry beanz, that is completely wrong on multiple counts. Jesus translates out of Iesous, (who is this pagan Isus anyway? edit: Paul knew Greek well enough [or used secretaries] and was a Jew so there is no reason to borrow from pagans for this name)
Josephus and Tacitus both make reference to Jesus (Josephus actually uses that name while Tacitus mentions 'Christus' in reference to the leader of the sect in Judea from whom the Christians got their name, and was executed under Pontius Pilate - and historians are unanimous about the veracity of this quote, while some doubt the Josephus one)
Until beanz provides his evidence, I'm inclined to agree with you. As an agnostic, I will only believe what can be proven / demonstrated - and independent historical sources are good enough for me.
Sorry beanz, that is completely wrong on multiple counts. Jesus translates out of Iesous, (who is this pagan Isus anyway?)
Josephus and Tacitus both make reference to Jesus (Josephus actually uses that name while Tacitus mentions 'Christus' in reference to the leader of the sect in Judea from whom the Christians got their name, and was executed under Pontius Pilate - and historians are unanimous about the veracity of this quote, while some doubt the Josephus one)
Wanna try again? :-P
Maybe Iesous was Isus back in them days huh? :)..looks close!
Do a google on Yeshua....its pretty much all you need to do. hundreds of pages about it...granted its up for debate but seems pretty clear Jesus would not have responded to 'hey Jesus!' if you yelled at him in the street!
Cut and paste example.
"Yeshua is the original Hebrew proper name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish Rabbi (and more) who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) In other words, Yeshua was the name His mother called Him when shall called Him for supper.
Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. (Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the pagan god Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that Emporer Constatine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is another story.
Edit: I originally read of this in a book called 101 myths in the bible. (or something like that). However being intrigued I looked further and as you can see if you do a google on it.....there is a lot of compelling evidence that it is the case.
Nothing can be proven 100%...not even your existance! :)
....Oh Yeshua! (teehee)...Im turning into Cornishpasty!!!!
Comments
I think it's the difference between talking "about" something with no actual vested interest in its success or failure.
I find the whole concept of organized religion very interesting in a "oh my, how can people actually be that gullible" kind of way.
Andrew
Looks like Death warmed up.
Spot on!
don't make me take another week off. :cry:
Need a hug? I'll send one of the Androgynous Andrews along if you do.
my comment was for everyone as it seemed inconsistent with the forum rules, as you noted.
And yes, I do think making comments about children like that was entirely inappropriate.
PS - to mile, I'm not angry either :)
As a prime example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Andrew
not sure if they come up on everyones computers but the ads by google at the bottom are quite amusing. (especially as one is on the left and one is on the right.)
Just my couple of pee drops.
You read the forum rules ?!??! You werent a prefect in a former life were you ? Telling kids off for running ? ;)
Just post what you want and let Lee do his modding if he needs to, we need to keep him busy you see.
Nor me - I'm quite happy actually, my next shed article is progressing nicely :)
It's just that as soon as somebody starts, you know there's gonna be a war of words. I have learnt to get in first, get in hard, and then let them all fight it out among themselves. Like I said, I don't care who wins, I'm an athiest.
Andrew R got it spot on with his comment, which is why I've quoted and agreed with him.
Mr Beanz - you're funny :) As the sun is out, yeah, I guess I am death warmed up :)
Failing that then I'll hug him to bits ... so there ... I'll hug ya ... you betcha, dont'cha know ... so ... there.
Hugs, not thugs.
Skarpo
:-)
That's not a nice thing to do. You let them off lightly.
You big (or small) old softie Mile. Thats not angry.... you wana see angry...???
GGGRRAAAGhhhh!
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
Thats angry!!
and if thats not angry enough then go and have a chat with SpinnyF*ck on youtube.
Andrew.
Animal blood does have religious significance. I'll even give you the chapter and verse, which is Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Suffice it to say that observance is fairly lax amongst modern christians, but as literalists JWs can't wriggle out of it so easily. Even halal meat has some blood in it, after all.
That said, I've got no beef with JWs in general. Most of them, your friend included, are presumably more into it for the feeling of social inclusion that goes with most religions, rather than being too concerned with the minutae of the dogma. It's just the doorknockers that get my back up; they've obviously got no respect for the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of others, so they deserve scant respect for their own in return.
Exactly. I think for most people here we dont mind at all the Jehovas who keep themselves to themselves and dont go round knocking on doors trying to convert people. I've never had a problem with anyone going to church. Its just when i start reading signs such as 'i'll go to hell if i dont go to church' kinda of thing that gets my backup and anyone knocking on my door trying to convert me.
Most churchgoers i do know (who dont try to convert me) are very very nice people. I still find a fair few nutters on the motorway who must be religious as they have the 'fish' symbol on the back of their car. Always surprised when some drive like idiots !
When you've got Jesus looking out for you, who needs to indicate or look in the mirror? :lol:
The 'drive slowly - young child on board' sticker things make me laugh specially when the 4x4 is overtaking you are 90mph on the motorway !
and neither should they as has been pointed out :-)
so...does that mean I can't go to the hookers on my next business trip to Amsterdam???
certainly not! unless you're a pimp it wouldn't be business would it!? :p
I bet your expense claims are fun ;-)
Haa haa, yes it does make you wonder sometimes if the only baby/child on board is the one behind the wheel.
Andrew.
This is one of my favourites... About 10 miles north of Montgomery Alabama...
I used to drive past it a lot :)
Andrew
That's sick and evil, telling a child that. I'm not violent, but that would have sent me over the edge, and I don't think anyone would blame me.
Well, according to the Bible, we (everyone of us) are all in a world of pain, war, disease, natural disasters, famine, etc, because of Adam and Eve. According to the Bible, Adam and Even were given Paradise, but had it revoked from them when they disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Life. And so Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, and they and their descendants (us and all other human beings) now live in this suffering filled world as punishment for Adam and Eve's act of disobedience.
Now if that is true (and I don't accept it at all), then:
1. Why were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden for disobedience? If God's mercy is infinite, as we are told, then there can be NO limits to it, and he would have forgiven Adam and Eve on the spot.
2. Why did God blame Adam and Eve anyway? God is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, so he must have known that Adam and Eve weren't perfect, and that they would commit that sin. Surely the blame must be God's, since he knowingly made them imperfect?
3. Why are Adam and Eve's children, Adam and Eve's grand-children, Adam and Eve's great-grand-children, etc etc up to us (and presumably further generations after us) punished for what Adam and Eve did? That's not fair at all. How can we be responsible for what our great-great-great-etc-grandparents did in the Garden of Eden?
And not exactly connected to Adam and Eve, but why is it that every single religion (and there have been thousands) claims that it alone knows the Truth and follows God's Will, yet no religion can offer even a scrap of proof that it is right? And why are religions always so rich, when they preach that wealth is a sin and that Earthly posessions make you more likely to go to Hell?
A case by case basis, I think. Ideally, we should be free to discuss religion as we wish, as long as we aren't deliberately offensive. But some people are just so closed minded about religion that they will take offense at anything that runs contrary to their beliefs, even if all evidence backs up your point and is against theirs.
Well, ultimately it's up to whoever makes the rules (Martijn? Foggy?)
Yep.
It's true that athiests mostly don't force their views on others, and certainly don't start wars over atheism, but I would argue with you about atheism (if you and others don't mind) - I just don't understand the atheist viewpoint. How can you believe, with absolute certainty, that God doesn't exist? There's no proof of that, any more than there's proof that he does exist. I don't mean to sound offensive, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're intelligent and don't take offensive where none is clearly meant, but to me atheism is as blind and closed minded as the insistant belief in a religion.
You could say that God can't exist, as if he did then the world wouldn't be in so bad a state, but I could argue that maybe he does exist, he did create this world, but did it badly because he didn't know how to make it better, or that he just doesn't care. Or maybe he died, or just lost interest. Yes, religious people will (blindly) disagree here, but they can't offer even the slightest evidence to the contrary.
Personally, I'm an agnostic, which means that I don't see how we can know anything about God for definate. Maybe he/she/they exist, and perhaps he/she/they in turn were created by even higher Gods. Maybe the Christian God exists, and was in turn created by a higher God, who was in turn created by a pantheon of gods, and none of the lower gods even suspects the existance of the higher gods. Or maybe we're all part of some universal consciousness. Or maybe there is no God, no after life or anything. I just don't see any firm evidence for one state or the other. So I don't believe in anything about God or the afterlife, but I don't absolutely disbelieve, either.
I didn't choose to be an agnostic, it just seems to me to be the only reasonable viewpoint given the lack of evidence of God or the afterlife.
Two things I do believe, though:
1) Organised religion is wrong. People who cannot know the truth telling others that "this is right, anything else is wrong", and getting rich whilst their followers starve, and fighting wars to force other cultures to worship their "kind and loving" God, that's just plain wrong.
2) If God(s) does exist, then he/she/they/it/them etc are either not all powerful or not all good. There's is no justification for the suffering inflicted upon us by our "heavenly father", even if we do have an eternity of bliss to follow this miserable life that we are subjected to, with no say in our birth or help given when we ask for it. God? Maybe. An all good and all powerful God? No chance.
Jesus never existed. The name Jesus was NEVER used and was not his name (might as well have called him bob). The correct Hebrew name he had was Yeshua/Yahshua (Joshua). Jesus was/is a Greek translation of the pagan name Isus.
How about them apples?
Edit: I took great glee in telling a friend of mine..who is training to be a preacher this..he had no idea...oh how I rubbed it in that someone who doesn't believe knew more about his savior than someone training to spread his word.
Josephus and Tacitus both make reference to Jesus (Josephus actually uses that name while Tacitus mentions 'Christus' in reference to the leader of the sect in Judea from whom the Christians got their name, and was executed under Pontius Pilate - and historians are unanimous about the veracity of this quote, while some doubt the Josephus one)
Wanna try again? :-P
What is your source for that? Not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you in any way at all - like ewgf, I'm agnostic. I'm just interested in learning a bit more about the "Jesus didn't actually exist" viewpoint.
Until beanz provides his evidence, I'm inclined to agree with you. As an agnostic, I will only believe what can be proven / demonstrated - and independent historical sources are good enough for me.
Maybe Iesous was Isus back in them days huh? :)..looks close!
Do a google on Yeshua....its pretty much all you need to do. hundreds of pages about it...granted its up for debate but seems pretty clear Jesus would not have responded to 'hey Jesus!' if you yelled at him in the street!
Cut and paste example.
"Yeshua is the original Hebrew proper name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish Rabbi (and more) who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) In other words, Yeshua was the name His mother called Him when shall called Him for supper.
Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. (Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the pagan god Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that Emporer Constatine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is another story.
Edit: I originally read of this in a book called 101 myths in the bible. (or something like that). However being intrigued I looked further and as you can see if you do a google on it.....there is a lot of compelling evidence that it is the case.
Nothing can be proven 100%...not even your existance! :)
....Oh Yeshua! (teehee)...Im turning into Cornishpasty!!!!