• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Antisemitism in Christianity

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    My initial point was broadly serious. Wikipedia has pretty strong laws about neutrality and point of view.

    The page clearly is bat tulip crazy, yet seems not to have been questioned or downgraded.

    The holocaust stuff is barking, yet slapping in a reference to a book by some Jewish critical studies professor that asks "was Jesus a Nazi" seems to be seen as enough evidence to keep the stuff on the page.

    Comment


      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
      But are you chaotic good, neutral or evil?

      Btw - I don't need to use google for this stuff. Anymore than I suppose you do. But if I want to have a reasonable, fully referenced philosophical debate, I won't be using CUK for it. Sorry if that's a disappointment to someone as erudite and intellectual as you.
      Surely only religious people or at least those who follow a religion, would class themselves or others as 'good' or 'evil'?

      As I'm not religious I don't prescribe to those terms.

      Now, if you want to ask if I'm an annoying twunt, then I'd have to answer in the affirmative
      I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

      Comment


        I don't believe the vast majority of Christians view people in these binary terms like good and evil.

        Jesus loved sinners and died for them. If you believe the gospel. Christianity's success was that is was fantastic marketing, never shut anyone off, prodigal son and all that.

        Comment


          Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
          I have a serious question.

          Is it really acceptable on CUK, even in general, to repeatedly go out of one's way to insult a religion and its adherents by mischaracterising its teachings in the most inflammatory way possible? Are we also going to permit people to call the founder of a different world religion a paedophile? If not, why not? Is it just because one of the mods here is a Christian and he seems to handle the flak pretty well that this is deemed to be ok?

          I do not think people should be flamed over their religion. There are lines that shouldn't be crossed even in general, and I wonder why this is ok when racism, homophobia, even Islamophobia, aren't.
          It should be just as OK to criticise a religion the same as it is to criticise atheism or Darwinism or any other 'ism'. These are just views and open for debate, however badly handled.

          Attacking someone because of their religious stance, or hate speech, should not be allowed, whatever the religion or belief.

          So it's fine by me for a Christian to say atheism is a load of fake tulip thought up by a molecule bothering boffin; this doesn't offend me one bit. Someone attacking me personally for my atheist views though could be construed as offensive, although strangely, us atheists don't get the same protection in hate law as religious followers even though there is considerably more proof that we're right.

          Others may disagree, and be offended by the fact god is questioned, but surely if their faith is strong, and they truly believe that there is a god and I'm wrong, then they should be content that their god can look after him/herself against a puny little human like me.

          As for NAT, I'm sure he takes all this on here with a big pinch of salt and has better things to do than get upset by us lot
          Last edited by Whorty; 31 October 2019, 17:01.
          I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

          Comment


            Originally posted by Whorty View Post
            ...and has better things to do than get upset by us lot
            Nah. At the moment I'm banged up in hospital. (Home tomorrow).
            Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

            Comment


              Originally posted by Whorty View Post
              It should be just as OK to criticise a religion the same as it is to criticise atheism or Darwinism or any other 'ism'. These are just views and open for debate, however badly handled.

              Attacking someone because of their religious stance, or hate speech, should not be allowed, whatever the religion or belief.

              So it's fine by me for a Christian to say atheism is a load of fake tulip thought up by a molecule bothering boffin; this doesn't offend me one bit. Someone attacking me personally for my atheist views though could be construed as offensive, although strangely, us atheists don't get the same protection in hate law as religious followers even though there is considerably more proof that we're right.

              Others may disagree, and be offended by the fact god is questioned, but surely if their faith is strong, and they truly believe that there is a god and I'm wrong, then they should be content that their god can look after him/herself against a puny little human like me.

              As for NAT, I'm sure he takes all this on here with a big pinch of salt and has better things to do than get upset by us lot
              I'm sorry but that is just complete crap.

              Graham Linehan given police warning after complaint by transgender activist | Culture | The Guardian

              Progressive politicians are as obsessed about same sex marriage and reproductive rights as the most religious.

              They just have the full weight of the law on their side

              Comment


                To imagine a goddess, because living beings are so complicated and cannot have evolved by chance is even more impossible, because it is many more times complicated to evolve an omnipotent being out of nothing, rather than living creatures evolving from a primordial soup with single celled creatures into complex multi cellular organisms over the cause of billions of years. Religious freaks never think of that.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Eirikur View Post
                  To imagine a goddess, because living beings are so complicated and cannot have evolved by chance is even more impossible, because it is many more times complicated to evolve an omnipotent being out of nothing, rather than living creatures evolving from a primordial soup with single celled creatures into complex multi cellular organisms over the cause of billions of years. Religious freaks never think of that.
                  Brilliant. Keep 'em coming. They do say laughter is the best medicine.
                  Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Eirikur View Post
                    To imagine a goddess, because living beings are so complicated and cannot have evolved by chance is even more impossible, because it is many more times complicated to evolve an omnipotent being out of nothing, rather than living creatures evolving from a primordial soup with single celled creatures into complex multi cellular organisms over the cause of billions of years. Religious freaks never think of that.
                    Yes, the big bang theory is 100 years old.

                    "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" is somewhat older.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                      Brilliant. Keep 'em coming. They do say laughter is the best medicine.
                      Explain fossils

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X