if we adopt elements of muslim laws to improve integration, then I hope the muslim countries change their laws too, to allow booze, bacon sarnies, and calling teddies Mohammed :D
they won't be doing that you say?
then I guess we'd better keep British law in Britain, ho hum :)
Its true, totally agree with that. Not that i'm religious but in some muslim countries you cant build a church, so if we dont grant planning permission for a mosque then cant moan either !
A fundament of liberal democracy is equality before the law. You can't have different laws for different groups so the idea that religious law "will" be adopted here is nonsense. End of.
Its true, totally agree with that. Not that i'm religious but in some muslim countries you cant build a church, so if we dont grant planning permission for a mosque then cant moan either !
I'm all for equal rights !
The reason we allow mosques and many Middle Eastern countries don't allow the building of churches is because we have extensive freedom of religion and those other countries do not.
The reason we allow mosques and many Middle Eastern countries don't allow the building of churches is because we have extensive freedom of religion and those other countries do not.
I know we do but i dont think thats a good idea personally. Many religions just dont get on, they didnt in the old days and they still dont to this day.
Sometimes the freedom of speech we give some people makes things much worse, not saying i want a police state but i think the UK has been way too soft with immigration and other issues. We cant deport some crazy muslims because they might get killed if theyre deported ! Hello ! If you dont want to get deported dont start causing a ton of grief in your new country. Crazy
As usual, out come the knee jerk ignorant reactions. (although I don't see many knees....)
If anyone actually read the article properly and read up on Sharia Law, instead of assuming that our laws are going to be scrapped.
"He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Our ancient British legal system isn't necessarily designed for Muslims and other faiths and their way of life, so what's the problem? It's only like ACAS and other dispute services.
Many religions just dont get on, they didnt in the old days and they still dont to this day.
Did you know that Sharia law says that it is a Muslim's obligation to kill non-Muslims? That's the whole point of Jihad.
Which is also why we had the Crusades. The Arabs attacked Byzantium's outposts in the Middle East and tortured the Christians there by slicing them open and having them run around before tripping on their own entrails. No joke(not that it's even remotely funny). It was like Pearl Harbor for the Byzantines, but even worse.
I'm not "Islamophobic" in any way, but I am saying that Sharia law is completely incompatible with the legal codes of nearly all Western nations. How could it possibly be adopted?
As usual, out come the knee jerk ignorant reactions. (although I don't see many knees....)
If anyone actually read the article properly and read up on Sharia Law, instead of assuming that our laws are going to be scrapped.
"He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Our ancient British legal system isn't necessarily designed for Muslims and other faiths and their way of life, so what's the problem? It's only like ACAS and other dispute services.
This cannot be repeated enough. Everybody calm down - there really is nothing to see here.
Bloody glad I'm out of it, that's all I can say. Yet another victory for race relations from the Archbishop of Canterbury! Well done! It's almost as if these PC loonies are deliberately provoking conflict between communities...
Which is also why we had the Crusades. The Arabs attacked Byzantium's outposts in the Middle East and tortured the Christians there by slicing them open and having them run around before tripping on their own entrails. No joke(not that it's even remotely funny). It was like Pearl Harbor for the Byzantines, but even worse.
You really need to read-up on what the Byzantines got up to themselves.
Religion should play no part in any legal system. Any religion is just organised superstition with no evidence at all to back it up.
And if anyone feels differently, then fine - please post the evidence here. Because in years and years of looking, I've found none.
And as I've always reasoned, since God doesn't actually come forward and tell us how to worship/follow/serve him, then he must either be indifferent, non-existant, or willing to see us blindly stumble around grasping at the different myths and fantasies that pass themselves off as religion.
And no, the Bible, the Kuran, the stories of Zeus, Ra etc are not evidence, since any of them could have been created by man (and I believe that they all were), have almost certainly been altered, edited and rewritten (or at least re-interpreted) so much that many of their "lessons" are misrepresentative of their true morals, and most telling of all, the Bible, the Kuran etc DO NOT CONVINCE EVERYONE WHO FINDS THEM. Surely the true word of God would be totally convincing to everyone who encounters it? It would have the divine truth behind it and would resonate with us all, and we would recognise it for what it was, the literal, absolute, unmistakable word of God. The all powerful God, if he chose to make himself known to the world, would surely do so in a way that could not be misinterpreted or, far worse, deliberately mis-represented to gain wealth of power by people who would abuse God's name for his own ends. Instead we have a variety of contradictory stories and "divine" laws, with many different religions all claiming to be the only religion offering the true word of God and the true way to serve and worship him, yet not one of them can offer a single shred of evidence to support their claims.
Oh, and when a religion becomes successful, it's leaders tend to become rich. Yep, Religion teaches us that wealth and worldly goods are wrong, and that poverty is a virtue, and yet religious leaders get stinking rich. The Vatican City is allegedly the richest place on Earth, and certainly it is extremely wealthy, and contains many priceless works of art. Whilst countless millions of Christians (and non-Christians, whom are still the brothers of Christians, and whom Christians are told to love) literally starve to death.
Sorry to bang on about it, but I detest hypocrisy, especially religious hypocrisy, which is so often used to gain wealth and power for the tiny minority at the expense of the lives and futures of the majority.
The crusades had more to do with geo-politics than religion.
Indeed. The crusades began as a liberation of the holy land conquered by islamic infidels but ultimately had a lot to do with the struggle of power between the church and state in Europe. The muslims in the Middle East didn't even know the crusades were an organized Christian invasion until several centuries later.
War is brutal and Christian warriors were just as brutal as everyone else. They killed, maimed and despoiled men, women and children in all manners. Many knights who joined the crusades were not honourable men; their purpose for being there was to seek salvation for their sins as promised by the pope and the fact they were on crusade didn't stop many from partaking in their usual activities of looting and raping. One of the crusades even managed to sack the richest city in Christianity (Constantinople), the capital of Byzantium to whom they were supposed to be giving aid to hold off the muslim invasions. And let's not forget the massacre in Jerusalem where Christians murdered nearly every inhabitant after taking the city, men, women and children.
One of my favourite stories is how one of the Byzantine kings captured a Bulgarian army and had 99 out of every 100 soldiers blinded by poking both eyes out. The hundredth soldier only had one eye poked out so that he could lead his comrades back home. Of course this was only done a century or so after the Bulgarians had managed to kill a Byzantine king, carve out his skull and use it as a drinking cup. The act of blinding the Bulgarian army was meant to discourage them from invading for a while.
Some Muslim leaders were also very well regarded by the Christians. Saladen, eg, was deemed so honourable that it was believed he was secretly a Christian because no one would believe a non-Christian could possess his virtues. A widely circulated story had him converting to Christianity on his deathbed.
Islam in the middle ages tolerated other religions and gave both Jews and Christians special status as they are regarded as people "of the book" in the Koran. While positions of political importance could only be held by muslims, christians and jews could live in relative comfort and unharrassed. During this time the Islamic world was flourishing economically and scientifically while Europe was still recovering in poverty from the collapse of the Roman Empire. Islam was responsible for preserving the remnants of Western civilization which may otherwise have been lost.
One sided accounts of history are quite often used to inflame hate and motivate populations for wars. Massacring a bunch of people and tripping over their entrails is not a characteristic of being a muslim, it is a characteristic of war where the business of killing people is messy.
In conclusion, your leaders lie to you constantly to motivate you to do nasty things you wouldn't otherwise do. Religion has been a grand motivation tool but not so much in the West anymore. In the middle east, religion is still very relevant to the population and is used in modern times. Religion doesn't have a lot of hold on Western civilization anymore so other symbols are used to justify wars, including "freedom", "democracy", "axis of evil", "they're going to get us... imminently... really" etc. You can be sure that wars rarely have anything to do with any of the above but you can be damn well sure that any war is motivated by economic and political factors.
Well Western law is founded on Christian values but I get your meaning :)
Any religion is just organised superstition with no evidence at all to back it up.
And if anyone feels differently, then fine - please post the evidence here. Because in years and years of looking, I've found none.
Religion is faith and therefore has no proof. Our modern world has become so materialistic that it's easy to lose track of the distinction between the why and the how. Back in the 16th century or so our preferred lines of philosopohical thought changed from thought experiments ("how many angels fit on the head of a pin...") to experiential experiments ("when I double the pressure of a gas maintained at the same temperature, the volume is halved")
and it's gone so far in the materialistic direction that I think it's lost on many of us that the materialistic approach doesn't currently answer questions of the former approach (which religion tries to) and may never be able to. For example, before Newton we knew that stuff fell to the Earth. After Newton we knew F=GmM/r^2 and could determine how fast they would fall and where the object falling would be at any time. But does knowing Netwon's laws make understanding what gravity is any clearer or does it just allow us to quantify the effects of gravity? The point I'm trying to make is creating ever better materialistic models that can predict causal relationships in the universe doesn't necessarily conclude with understanding the whys of the universe.
Anyway I'm sure I had a better point in there but I've lost it now.
And as I've always reasoned, since God doesn't actually come forward and tell us how to worship/follow/serve him, then he must either be indifferent, non-existant, or willing to see us blindly stumble around grasping at the different myths and fantasies that pass themselves off as religion.
For someone that doesn't believe, why would you assume God is a person, being or entity? And what about the warning of following false gods/idols?
Numerous ancient writings from Sumerian, Hindu etc. (too many to list), depict their God or Gods as coming from heaven to earth (nephilim). Its either a great myth that propagated across all the continents in the same milleniums, thousands of years ago, or they're all false gods or great pretenders from outside our solar system. A Sumerian tablet supposedly has a story about giant gods that created the Adamic race genetically, combining neanderthal and themselves, to serve as slaves to mine Gold to repair the atmosphere of their planet. They also described every planet in our solar system, its orbital path and size/colour. Their planet was Nibiru (Planet X, actually a dead brown dwarf star), that was caught by our Sun's gravity millions of years ago in an eliptical orbit 90 degrees to our own, apparently this is where we inherited our moon from, the date 2012 keeps popping up, which is also the end of the cycle in the Mayan calendar, but us human slaves rarely pay attention or give creedance to ancient history without a royal stamp of approval. Some reckon this could be whats causing our solar system to be heating up now and it fits with some of the anomalies in the planets orbits that are being detected now, and a lot of theologians say this planet (brown dwarf) caused the great flood depicted in history the world over. If the orbit is 7200 years, it will pass us by once every 3600 years. I think a better way of dating its orbit is with more accurate dates of great global floods and/or global warming in history. One thing is certain, if planet x is ever validated, it gives even more weight to the Sumerian writings. So maybe it'll be about the time it will be taken seriously. The fact that when Pluto was first discovered by man it was in the exact orbit found in the Sumerian tablets isn't enough proof, I suppose more is needed. It must've already passed us thousands of times before. I find it pretty strange that the British Museum are apparently sitting on roughly 200,000 Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals taken from excavations in Kuwait, Iraq. Why not let the worlds experts in Sumerian Cuneform script translate them for us all?
Personally, I believe that God isn't a being, but a field of energy that if it wasn't there nothing would exist. The zero point field is everywhere, in everything, all over the known universe, it is an invisible creator and the only true constant that can never change or be affected by other forces that we currently know of.
Appoligies if I've upset anyone, but since my Dad died on Christmas morning, I've had lots of reasons to be annoyed about not getting information or rights that we should be entitled to, whether its the banks, governments, hospitals, religions and churches. Money is the root of a lot of evil. The only people I trust for the truth are the ones who work for the knowledge, not money. People who work without an organisation or compartmentalised company that tells them what they can be payed for. I think they used to call them pioneers once upon a time.
The only people I trust for the truth are the ones who work for the knowledge, not money. People who work without an organisation or compartmentalised company that tells them what they can be payed for. I think they used to call them pioneers once upon a time.
the hard part is figuring out which ones are pioneers, and which ones are raving nutters.
the hard part is figuring out which ones are pioneers, and which ones are raving nutters.
Aspartame! Git yer aspartame here! :D
This thread reminds me of the Satanic Verses controversy; ISTR that someone from the village where the book was printed said that those objecting to the book should come and settle the matter amicably over a pint and a pork pie. ;)
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
Surely the true word of God would be totally convincing to everyone who encounters it? It would have the divine truth behind it and would resonate with us all, and we would recognise it for what it was, the literal, absolute, unmistakable word of God.
But that's just the point, the Lord is revealed to mankind and has been for all eternity. For those that find enlightenment after cleansing themselves of negative emotions, thoughts, deeds etc the curtain is drawn back and what they encounter is so divine, so unmistakable and intricately tied together that they feel they at heightened moments connected to God, that they are in his presence. The fact is that those who don't want to believe do not usually get to this point, and those that find cannot but hope to put into any words that would sway an unbeliever.
Just because you haven't found evidence doesn't make the idea of God impossible :)
Personally, I believe that God isn't a being, but a field of energy that if it wasn't there nothing would exist. The zero point field is everywhere, in everything, all over the known universe, it is an invisible creator and the only true constant that can never change or be affected by other forces that we currently know of.
I believe the same, but then it's such a shame that what Science should be proving should otherwise be used to discount a Creator, even when that very Science shows such a magical and strange world.
the PC correct brigade is one of the reasons I've decided to live in Melbourne......stuff 'ere in Oz certainly ain't a bed of roses, however, you're allowed to sell bendy bananas, ugly looking produce,
Mr Hook would've been booted out of here fairly quickly had he tried his thing
there are few people with full religeous dress here as, it's the accepted norm by all communities to pretty much 'fit in' with the norm, which isn't really burkha wearing
point being is that fundementalism, in a way that clearly causes some form of grievance to other people simply isn't tolerated, and isn't really seen!
the down side of course is that people are quite openly racist (well, more ignorant really) in some of the smaller, out of town areas.
Keep your offensive racist twaddle off WoS please.
There are many interpretations of what Sharia law includes and does not include.
Killing is forbidden by the Koran.
The crusades had more to do with geo-politics than religion.
Jihad was in decline at the time of the crusades.
Christians raped, tortured and killed the inhabitants of the cities they took regardless of religion.
This sort of thing (particularly the post to which the one I quote here was in reply) is the kind of reason why discussion of religion is denienced on EMD...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe this thread should be locked. Or perhaps bring back Cornispasty so he can be banned again. :)
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
And if anyone feels differently, then fine - please post the evidence here. Because in years and years of looking, I've found none.
In "years and years of looking", I have found plenty of evidence against the idea of macroevolution - but I won't turn this thread into a debate by posting it. Maybe we could argue via PM.
And as I've always reasoned, since God doesn't actually come forward and tell us how to worship/follow/serve him, then he must either be indifferent, non-existant, or willing to see us blindly stumble around grasping at the different myths and fantasies that pass themselves off as religion.
Well, Jesus did about 2000 years ago. The way I see it, there's no way that his followers would have gladly accepted imprisonment and even martyrdom if he hadn't really done everything that the Bible says that he did. The Christians started as a small group of people on the edge of the Mediterranean, who were persecuted relentlessly by the Roman empire, but, for some reason, people today worship God instead of Jupiter. How could such a small movement survive and grow for so long if it wasn't based on at least some truth? It's not like people didn't convert by choice.
And no, the Bible [...] [has] almost certainly been altered, edited and rewritten (or at least re-interpreted) so much that many of their "lessons" are misrepresentative of their true morals
Please tell me why the earliest known Biblical manuscripts differ only in handwriting from their more recent counterparts.
and most telling of all, the Bible, the Kuran etc DO NOT CONVINCE EVERYONE WHO FINDS THEM. Surely the true word of God would be totally convincing to everyone who encounters it? It would have the divine truth behind it and would resonate with us all, and we would recognise it for what it was, the literal, absolute, unmistakable word of God.
Come on, they're books. Do you really think that we'd even need them if the truth was already in us? Besides, they were written down by humans, which would remove any trace of divinity that they could have possessed.
Oh, and when a religion becomes successful, it's leaders tend to become rich. Yep, Religion teaches us that wealth and worldly goods are wrong, and that poverty is a virtue, and yet religious leaders get stinking rich.
What religion teaches that? None that I've encountered.
Sorry to bang on about it, but I detest hypocrisy, especially religious hypocrisy, which is so often used to gain wealth and power for the tiny minority at the expense of the lives and futures of the majority.
"So often", huh? Care to provide a recent and relevant example?
OK, my response is done. I just couldn't let that go without answering it.
but I won't turn this thread into a debate by posting it. Maybe we could argue via PM.
That does sound awfully like trying to weasel out of it, in front of an audience which has many members who can assuredly pull apart this "evidence" :-)
Well, Jesus did about 2000 years ago. The way I see it, there's no way that his followers would have gladly accepted imprisonment and even martyrdom if he hadn't really done everything that the Bible says that he did
Why not? Jesus was the only religious leader at the time who was nice to people, and preached love and tolerance. That alone would be enough that people would rather follow him than the other religious leaders, who in the main were repulsively savage. No miracles required.
In "years and years of looking", I have found plenty of evidence against the idea of macroevolution
MRSA, warfarin-resistant rats, white moths which turned black when the air was fouled by the Industrial Revolution and then back to white again when pollution was brought under control... I've always wondered how so-called "creation scientists" manage to overlook these glaring pro-evolution examples and countless others.
I suppose it's because "creation scientists" fall in the same category as "perpetual-motion scientists" and the like. :p;)
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
Comments
Too short.
he says a lot of stupid things.
if we adopt elements of muslim laws to improve integration, then I hope the muslim countries change their laws too, to allow booze, bacon sarnies, and calling teddies Mohammed :D
they won't be doing that you say?
then I guess we'd better keep British law in Britain, ho hum :)
I'm all for equal rights !
The reason we allow mosques and many Middle Eastern countries don't allow the building of churches is because we have extensive freedom of religion and those other countries do not.
the mans becoming a prophet.
I know we do but i dont think thats a good idea personally. Many religions just dont get on, they didnt in the old days and they still dont to this day.
Sometimes the freedom of speech we give some people makes things much worse, not saying i want a police state but i think the UK has been way too soft with immigration and other issues. We cant deport some crazy muslims because they might get killed if theyre deported ! Hello ! If you dont want to get deported dont start causing a ton of grief in your new country. Crazy
Unless you were actually born there.
Yep totally agree. When we stop being tree huggers and rolling over for whoever to take the piss then things might start to go back to normal.
If anyone actually read the article properly and read up on Sharia Law, instead of assuming that our laws are going to be scrapped.
"He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Our ancient British legal system isn't necessarily designed for Muslims and other faiths and their way of life, so what's the problem? It's only like ACAS and other dispute services.
Did you know that Sharia law says that it is a Muslim's obligation to kill non-Muslims? That's the whole point of Jihad.
Which is also why we had the Crusades. The Arabs attacked Byzantium's outposts in the Middle East and tortured the Christians there by slicing them open and having them run around before tripping on their own entrails. No joke(not that it's even remotely funny). It was like Pearl Harbor for the Byzantines, but even worse.
I'm not "Islamophobic" in any way, but I am saying that Sharia law is completely incompatible with the legal codes of nearly all Western nations. How could it possibly be adopted?
This cannot be repeated enough. Everybody calm down - there really is nothing to see here.
My take on it exactly.
You really need to read-up on what the Byzantines got up to themselves.
And if anyone feels differently, then fine - please post the evidence here. Because in years and years of looking, I've found none.
And as I've always reasoned, since God doesn't actually come forward and tell us how to worship/follow/serve him, then he must either be indifferent, non-existant, or willing to see us blindly stumble around grasping at the different myths and fantasies that pass themselves off as religion.
And no, the Bible, the Kuran, the stories of Zeus, Ra etc are not evidence, since any of them could have been created by man (and I believe that they all were), have almost certainly been altered, edited and rewritten (or at least re-interpreted) so much that many of their "lessons" are misrepresentative of their true morals, and most telling of all, the Bible, the Kuran etc DO NOT CONVINCE EVERYONE WHO FINDS THEM. Surely the true word of God would be totally convincing to everyone who encounters it? It would have the divine truth behind it and would resonate with us all, and we would recognise it for what it was, the literal, absolute, unmistakable word of God. The all powerful God, if he chose to make himself known to the world, would surely do so in a way that could not be misinterpreted or, far worse, deliberately mis-represented to gain wealth of power by people who would abuse God's name for his own ends. Instead we have a variety of contradictory stories and "divine" laws, with many different religions all claiming to be the only religion offering the true word of God and the true way to serve and worship him, yet not one of them can offer a single shred of evidence to support their claims.
Oh, and when a religion becomes successful, it's leaders tend to become rich. Yep, Religion teaches us that wealth and worldly goods are wrong, and that poverty is a virtue, and yet religious leaders get stinking rich. The Vatican City is allegedly the richest place on Earth, and certainly it is extremely wealthy, and contains many priceless works of art. Whilst countless millions of Christians (and non-Christians, whom are still the brothers of Christians, and whom Christians are told to love) literally starve to death.
Sorry to bang on about it, but I detest hypocrisy, especially religious hypocrisy, which is so often used to gain wealth and power for the tiny minority at the expense of the lives and futures of the majority.
Indeed. The crusades began as a liberation of the holy land conquered by islamic infidels but ultimately had a lot to do with the struggle of power between the church and state in Europe. The muslims in the Middle East didn't even know the crusades were an organized Christian invasion until several centuries later.
War is brutal and Christian warriors were just as brutal as everyone else. They killed, maimed and despoiled men, women and children in all manners. Many knights who joined the crusades were not honourable men; their purpose for being there was to seek salvation for their sins as promised by the pope and the fact they were on crusade didn't stop many from partaking in their usual activities of looting and raping. One of the crusades even managed to sack the richest city in Christianity (Constantinople), the capital of Byzantium to whom they were supposed to be giving aid to hold off the muslim invasions. And let's not forget the massacre in Jerusalem where Christians murdered nearly every inhabitant after taking the city, men, women and children.
One of my favourite stories is how one of the Byzantine kings captured a Bulgarian army and had 99 out of every 100 soldiers blinded by poking both eyes out. The hundredth soldier only had one eye poked out so that he could lead his comrades back home. Of course this was only done a century or so after the Bulgarians had managed to kill a Byzantine king, carve out his skull and use it as a drinking cup. The act of blinding the Bulgarian army was meant to discourage them from invading for a while.
Some Muslim leaders were also very well regarded by the Christians. Saladen, eg, was deemed so honourable that it was believed he was secretly a Christian because no one would believe a non-Christian could possess his virtues. A widely circulated story had him converting to Christianity on his deathbed.
Islam in the middle ages tolerated other religions and gave both Jews and Christians special status as they are regarded as people "of the book" in the Koran. While positions of political importance could only be held by muslims, christians and jews could live in relative comfort and unharrassed. During this time the Islamic world was flourishing economically and scientifically while Europe was still recovering in poverty from the collapse of the Roman Empire. Islam was responsible for preserving the remnants of Western civilization which may otherwise have been lost.
One sided accounts of history are quite often used to inflame hate and motivate populations for wars. Massacring a bunch of people and tripping over their entrails is not a characteristic of being a muslim, it is a characteristic of war where the business of killing people is messy.
In conclusion, your leaders lie to you constantly to motivate you to do nasty things you wouldn't otherwise do. Religion has been a grand motivation tool but not so much in the West anymore. In the middle east, religion is still very relevant to the population and is used in modern times. Religion doesn't have a lot of hold on Western civilization anymore so other symbols are used to justify wars, including "freedom", "democracy", "axis of evil", "they're going to get us... imminently... really" etc. You can be sure that wars rarely have anything to do with any of the above but you can be damn well sure that any war is motivated by economic and political factors.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
Well Western law is founded on Christian values but I get your meaning :)
Religion is faith and therefore has no proof. Our modern world has become so materialistic that it's easy to lose track of the distinction between the why and the how. Back in the 16th century or so our preferred lines of philosopohical thought changed from thought experiments ("how many angels fit on the head of a pin...") to experiential experiments ("when I double the pressure of a gas maintained at the same temperature, the volume is halved")
and it's gone so far in the materialistic direction that I think it's lost on many of us that the materialistic approach doesn't currently answer questions of the former approach (which religion tries to) and may never be able to. For example, before Newton we knew that stuff fell to the Earth. After Newton we knew F=GmM/r^2 and could determine how fast they would fall and where the object falling would be at any time. But does knowing Netwon's laws make understanding what gravity is any clearer or does it just allow us to quantify the effects of gravity? The point I'm trying to make is creating ever better materialistic models that can predict causal relationships in the universe doesn't necessarily conclude with understanding the whys of the universe.
Anyway I'm sure I had a better point in there but I've lost it now.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
For someone that doesn't believe, why would you assume God is a person, being or entity? And what about the warning of following false gods/idols?
Numerous ancient writings from Sumerian, Hindu etc. (too many to list), depict their God or Gods as coming from heaven to earth (nephilim). Its either a great myth that propagated across all the continents in the same milleniums, thousands of years ago, or they're all false gods or great pretenders from outside our solar system. A Sumerian tablet supposedly has a story about giant gods that created the Adamic race genetically, combining neanderthal and themselves, to serve as slaves to mine Gold to repair the atmosphere of their planet. They also described every planet in our solar system, its orbital path and size/colour. Their planet was Nibiru (Planet X, actually a dead brown dwarf star), that was caught by our Sun's gravity millions of years ago in an eliptical orbit 90 degrees to our own, apparently this is where we inherited our moon from, the date 2012 keeps popping up, which is also the end of the cycle in the Mayan calendar, but us human slaves rarely pay attention or give creedance to ancient history without a royal stamp of approval. Some reckon this could be whats causing our solar system to be heating up now and it fits with some of the anomalies in the planets orbits that are being detected now, and a lot of theologians say this planet (brown dwarf) caused the great flood depicted in history the world over. If the orbit is 7200 years, it will pass us by once every 3600 years. I think a better way of dating its orbit is with more accurate dates of great global floods and/or global warming in history. One thing is certain, if planet x is ever validated, it gives even more weight to the Sumerian writings. So maybe it'll be about the time it will be taken seriously. The fact that when Pluto was first discovered by man it was in the exact orbit found in the Sumerian tablets isn't enough proof, I suppose more is needed. It must've already passed us thousands of times before. I find it pretty strange that the British Museum are apparently sitting on roughly 200,000 Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals taken from excavations in Kuwait, Iraq. Why not let the worlds experts in Sumerian Cuneform script translate them for us all?
Personally, I believe that God isn't a being, but a field of energy that if it wasn't there nothing would exist. The zero point field is everywhere, in everything, all over the known universe, it is an invisible creator and the only true constant that can never change or be affected by other forces that we currently know of.
Appoligies if I've upset anyone, but since my Dad died on Christmas morning, I've had lots of reasons to be annoyed about not getting information or rights that we should be entitled to, whether its the banks, governments, hospitals, religions and churches. Money is the root of a lot of evil. The only people I trust for the truth are the ones who work for the knowledge, not money. People who work without an organisation or compartmentalised company that tells them what they can be payed for. I think they used to call them pioneers once upon a time.
Yours grievingly
Frank
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
*points at Da Rules* :smile:
the hard part is figuring out which ones are pioneers, and which ones are raving nutters.
Aspartame! Git yer aspartame here! :D
This thread reminds me of the Satanic Verses controversy; ISTR that someone from the village where the book was printed said that those objecting to the book should come and settle the matter amicably over a pint and a pork pie. ;)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.But where have you been looking, in books or within yourself and the cosmos, you can't find what you ain't looking for :D
But that's just the point, the Lord is revealed to mankind and has been for all eternity. For those that find enlightenment after cleansing themselves of negative emotions, thoughts, deeds etc the curtain is drawn back and what they encounter is so divine, so unmistakable and intricately tied together that they feel they at heightened moments connected to God, that they are in his presence. The fact is that those who don't want to believe do not usually get to this point, and those that find cannot but hope to put into any words that would sway an unbeliever.
Just because you haven't found evidence doesn't make the idea of God impossible :)
I believe the same, but then it's such a shame that what Science should be proving should otherwise be used to discount a Creator, even when that very Science shows such a magical and strange world.
My condolences also Frank.
Mr Hook would've been booted out of here fairly quickly had he tried his thing
there are few people with full religeous dress here as, it's the accepted norm by all communities to pretty much 'fit in' with the norm, which isn't really burkha wearing
point being is that fundementalism, in a way that clearly causes some form of grievance to other people simply isn't tolerated, and isn't really seen!
the down side of course is that people are quite openly racist (well, more ignorant really) in some of the smaller, out of town areas.
This sort of thing (particularly the post to which the one I quote here was in reply) is the kind of reason why discussion of religion is denienced on EMD...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe this thread should be locked. Or perhaps bring back Cornispasty so he can be banned again. :)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.In "years and years of looking", I have found plenty of evidence against the idea of macroevolution - but I won't turn this thread into a debate by posting it. Maybe we could argue via PM.
Well, Jesus did about 2000 years ago. The way I see it, there's no way that his followers would have gladly accepted imprisonment and even martyrdom if he hadn't really done everything that the Bible says that he did. The Christians started as a small group of people on the edge of the Mediterranean, who were persecuted relentlessly by the Roman empire, but, for some reason, people today worship God instead of Jupiter. How could such a small movement survive and grow for so long if it wasn't based on at least some truth? It's not like people didn't convert by choice.
Please tell me why the earliest known Biblical manuscripts differ only in handwriting from their more recent counterparts.
Come on, they're books. Do you really think that we'd even need them if the truth was already in us? Besides, they were written down by humans, which would remove any trace of divinity that they could have possessed.
What religion teaches that? None that I've encountered.
"So often", huh? Care to provide a recent and relevant example?
OK, my response is done. I just couldn't let that go without answering it.
That does sound awfully like trying to weasel out of it, in front of an audience which has many members who can assuredly pull apart this "evidence" :-)
Why not? Jesus was the only religious leader at the time who was nice to people, and preached love and tolerance. That alone would be enough that people would rather follow him than the other religious leaders, who in the main were repulsively savage. No miracles required.
MRSA, warfarin-resistant rats, white moths which turned black when the air was fouled by the Industrial Revolution and then back to white again when pollution was brought under control... I've always wondered how so-called "creation scientists" manage to overlook these glaring pro-evolution examples and countless others.
I suppose it's because "creation scientists" fall in the same category as "perpetual-motion scientists" and the like. :p ;)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.