Originally Posted by Phage
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
You wan't to buy CAT-THE-FIFTH a Xeon E3-1230!
format (15-02-2012)
Shouldn't that be flashing ?
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
no, family forum.
Vodka
Phage (14-02-2012)
I will be open here and state that I am coming to the place where I believe that in the not too distant future it will, practically speaking, be illegal to be a Christian. It wont be the outlawing of Christianity per se, but it will be the outlawing of things so that Christians will not have freedom of conscience.
Perhaps the closest parallel I think of would be the Roman Empire where 'freedom of religion' existed, as long as you performed the required Emperor worship. Fail to do that and you were in trouble.
Laws are in motion moving towards the government regulation of speech and practise of religion - saying what you can or cannot say (offensive speech laws) and saying who you can or cannot or must hire, and what you must or must not do in your own building.
Christian opinion and doctrine will become illegal and the practise of the faith outlawed if you fail to tow the line.
Those who are praising militant secularism should be careful. While you're on the top all is fine, but when the militant, totalitarian boot comes down on you, it's a different story.
What you are seeing is a death of religious freedom and freedom of expression and belief and democracy.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cr...-british-mind/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...s-threat-trigg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rder-act/print
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...e-bishops.html
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
fuddam (15-02-2012)
Secularism, in the day to day life's of people with many different even contradictory beliefs is the art of compromise and in a good compromise every one is a little disappointed. No-one gets everything they want. I could easily make exactly the point you just made but from the militant theism perspective, religious schools, bishops in the house of commons, tax breaks etc and claim that a militant theocratic boot was about to come down, but it's not.
The government obsession with trying to control speech, well offence and positive discrimination I agree with you on however. The right to free speech is the right to offend and no matter what word you put in front of it, discrimination is discrimination it's negative effects are felt just as keenly regardless of the direction you take it or how you apply it.
Sure they do..
people still get the basics they lust for ,the chance for sex, drugs , more money , fame , sport , video games that keep them attached and hooked to doing the same ol habits like a monkey,as long as these things exist in one form or another people will put up with anything , as is the case now for the majority .
They even did a study to prove peoples happiness adjust to their level of suffering , and the reason for that is because their not even aware of it to start with , other than few minutes of outrage - its forgotten and accepted , as " life " while they slave on and trade in their freedoom for less and less.
m
Last edited by melon; 14-02-2012 at 08:57 PM.
Oh dear, people can't treat gay people differently because of their religious believes, how AWFUL.
If your argument for religion is so that someone can discriminate on the expressed sexual preferences of someone then I mean this, I hope every ounce of that religion is removed. How can you say its anything other than pure evil?
Two people in a civil partnership are not allowed a to share a bed, because they are both of the same gender?
Or is it OK to discriminate on such things? What about if they'd been black, or Jewish?
The idea that someone should be allowed to discriminate, because, and lets be clear on this, of something which has no evidence for its being, is shocking. How would that be any better than if I wrote a book called the Church of the People I Hate, and then claimed that I wouldn't allow short people, or the welsh in my shop?
This is why, I really do think we need to remove all public funding for any kind of religion, remove charitable status, the state funding of religious schools etc. I'd argue the legal protection for someone to pratice a faith is fine and dandy, they just shouldn't be encouraged in anyway, and if they start expressing views with anything based on "mah bible says so" then we should be able to publicly ridicule them in the exact same way people do the Flat Earth Society.
Ask yourself, do you want to live in a world were people are tolerant of someone else's choices, choices which have no impact on themselves or not?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
This isn't my thread so I'm not going to reopen the debate on homosexuality again. I will provide an answer with two points.
First of all, in response to your question, yes I do - that's exactly the point. People are always going to disagree on something, they should be allowed to do so without being arrested or fined. The two men were free to move on to somewhere else and with publicity the free market could speak if others wished to boycott their B&B.
The second point is to see how this applies to the specific issue of homosexuality. You see, you - and many others - compare homosexuality to being black or Jewish. The problem is that we're talking apples and oranges. Being gay is not like being black or being Jewish. The science of the matter is that homosexuality is not genetic in any way similar to how being black or Jewish is. Jewish people are born Jewish because they come from Jewish families. Black people are born black because their parents are black. In the case of a black and white couple the baby born would be lighter brown, however, if monozygotic twins were born they would both be the same colour. Gay parents - do not produce gay children - firstly because no gay couple has ever produced a child - and interestingly, in even monozygotic twins where one is gay, the other is often not.
The science so far shows that sexuality has some mild but undiscernable genetic influence but that environmental factors play a large and complex role too. I wont go on, I'll leave it there. Sexuality is not genetic in the way everyone usually talks of it.
Having said all this, the B&B owners' perspective (and the one posted on their website for 24 years - apparently) was that they do not issue beds to unmarried couples (of any sexuality).
Considering the science is so poorly understood, public opinion is so skewed, because we are considering all of this in the light of a couple rights to run their own business in their own home, and because they were in no way rude or abusive to the two gentlemen, I believe it is wrong they should be liable to being sued and then fined.
We have to find ways of living with different opinions and beliefs. Those two men could have and should have shrugged it off and gone on their way. Instead they brought court action to essentially force their own beliefs about a disputed subject upon a couple of different opinion.
So yes, you're right, I would like to live in a society of tolerance, not bullying.
Last edited by Galant; 15-02-2012 at 04:28 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
fuddam (15-02-2012)
No room at the inn, eh ?
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
Wow.
I'll be honest here, I think it will be hard for many tolerant people to read that and not think your a very bad person. You are using some predjudice towards someone. Ignoring the whole genetic / choice thing, for another time (there is an interesting body of evidence that suggest in sheep, its genetic, in sheep few people think of sex as recreation... its all about the farming, hence the value of such research) What would you say if I refused to serve people with body peircings, or those who wear a cross? It's their choice, I should be allowed to discriminate.
The question I ask, is what, what possible harm does having your hotel room been let to two gay people pose to you? How is it any of their business.
How would you feel if someone said "sorry this hotel isn't for your kind" or "you have to go to the other end of the bus" or "this drug isn't available to your kind" its just wrong, its not nice and its not needed. You claim you need religion for morals, or rather you've suggested before that without religion one can not be a moral person.
Just ask yourself as someone who said this:What is bullying? I would suggest its singling people out for been differen't is one definition. Don't you think your a bully, don't you think your actively making the world a worse place, due to a belief system hidden in a collection of books from 2,000 years ago, when you'd stone people to death for things which todays society considers normal?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Phage (15-02-2012)
Careful now, its not as if scriptures tend to be quite contradictory and people pick and choose whichever ones serve their personal whim...
Tell me who in the Christian faith wears blended fabrics?.......
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
How could we have morals without Religion!?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-for-kiss.html
What could be more moral, I mean she chose to use her own body to kiss a man, who wasn't even the right colour or religion, what a bad choice.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Wow indeed. I was referring to the genetics and studies of human beings (those being immediately relevant) and you mention the genetics of sheep?
I would say that they, and you, should be allowed to discriminate on those grounds. Just like people discriminate on the basis of whether you're wearing a shirt or shoes. What we shouldn't do is have the society or crowds or the government lock people up or fine them because of those differences.What would you say if I refused to serve people with body peircings, or those who wear a cross? It's their choice, I should be allowed to discriminate.
Erm - it was their business. Their house, their B&B, their business. It's called freedom of conscience - that you cannot be forced to act against your conscience in matters of morality. How would you feel if someone else, the government forced you to do or support something you thought was wrong?The question I ask, is what, what possible harm does having your hotel room been let to two gay people pose to you? How is it any of their business.
I don't think we should legislate based on feelings and whether something is perceived as 'nice' or not? The fact the UK government and others have been doing so is, I believe, a huge part of the problem.How would you feel if someone said "sorry this hotel isn't for your kind" or "you have to go to the other end of the bus" or "this drug isn't available to your kind" its just wrong, its not nice and its not needed.
I would suggest it might well be singling someone out and fining them because they don't believe what you believe - even if they have been perfectly polite about the whole thing.What is bullying? I would suggest its singling people out for been differen't is one definition.
No. I don't. Just because my belief system is old doesn't make it wrong. I have no intention of stoning anyone, nor would I. I'm sad you feel this way, but that isn't representative of my faith at all. The couple at the B&B didn't stone anyone. No-one is stoning anyone. Think about it. No-one is saying it or believing but you're claiming the whole Christian world wants to stone gay people. We don't. We aren't. We just see the issue of homosexuality as something different to the genetic equation it is often presented to be. I believe the science backs that position. Therefore I believe we should be entitled to hold our position as long as we do so peaceably and kindly and reasonably.Don't you think your a bully, don't you think your actively making the world a worse place, due to a belief system hidden in a collection of books from 2,000 years ago, when you'd stone people to death for things which todays society considers normal?
Last edited by Galant; 15-02-2012 at 01:19 AM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
fuddam (15-02-2012)
But then the argument falls to balance of evidence. Dawkins, love or loathe him, has a good way of describing atheists vs theists on a sliding scale. 10 is an absolute atheist and 0 is an absolute theist. He puts himself as a 9, firmly believing that there is no God, but open to a proof.
X-rays and gamma rays are the same thing fundamentally (one can transform to the other under the Doppler shift, for instance). We hypothesise that there is something called a photon, regardless of how abstracted the notion is. We suggest that it can be in certain discrete energy levels and formulate a theory to predict them. Once we understand that within our theory, a photon has an energy that is variable, we can predict the effects of higher and lower energy photons. This predictive power has led to the exploitation of terahertz radiation recently.
Point being that science is tested, we make a prediction ideally in advance and then we try to disprove it. Once particle physics took off, some of the greatest results in scientific history were the advance prediction of certain particles that appeared right at the expected energy. We then use this as basis for believing in the theory.
The beauty of science is that as soon as you disprove something, the entire community - hundreds of millions of people - should immediately change their minds. And thus is the scientific method.
Religion offers no proofs by construction, it must be accepted on faith, this is fine, however a lot of what people believe in - the power of prayer, for example - simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. People still believe in miracles, that visiting Lourdes will cure you of incurable diseases.
Not entirely on topic, but: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm
The issue is not in religion itself, it's when religion has a discernible affect on a populous that, by and large, does not agree with it. Suppose 90% of the UK were atheist, is it fair then that the laws should be dictated by the remaining 10% who are Christian (or whatever faith)?
The point of a secular state is that religion should not play a part in lawmaking. By construction, secularism is unbiased by the entrapments of religion and therefore does not pander to anybody. You are free to practice whatever religion you feel like, so long as you don't try to force it on others without their consent. Similarly religious conviction would not be considered either a defence or a crime in a secular state, it is a completely separate matter. This is what the US was envisaged to be, by the founding fathers. Ironically countries with state religions tend to be more secular and countries with secular constitutions tend to be heavily religious.
And actually what is happening is the opposite. We are becoming more politically correct by the day and it's shooting religious people in the feet because we, as a society, are so loathe to offend. Far from being outlawed, religion will be so heavily tolerated that it becomes impossible to practice it.
format (15-02-2012)
Warsi says the Catholic church was instrumental in "toppling communism" and "securing peace in Northern Ireland".
I'm actually astonished by this. Genuinely.
format (15-02-2012)
The funny thing about all of this is Galants use of logic and reason rather than his religion to define his morality, it almost makes me wonder half the time if your trying to convince yourself more than us ( which is worrying for someone whose morality is based on faith )
The idea of love itself as I understand it is something " unconditional " ,so I find the idea of any one in touch with god using that to discriminate - and further encouraging it - pretty suspect to say the least .
Sure you can disagree , but why would you unless that person posed a threat to you - which of course takes us back to your faith ( that version of it ) and one of the many reasons why I personally mistrust it.
Separation in any language is not usually good, why do you think it refers to God / Jesus / Holy spirit being the one and the same ?
"As Above, So Below"
m
Last edited by melon; 15-02-2012 at 02:42 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
