Teacher decapitated in Paris by enraged parent.

[Troubleatmill]

Esceptico said:

A few years back I read the Bible - well to he honest just the New Testament and only the parts directly related to Jesus. My impression at the time was that he seemed a pretty decent person - non-violent, relatively tolerant, not interested in material gain.

Jesus treated the Cananite woman worse that you would treat a dog.
As you can guess - I'm not a fan.

[i4got]

coolg said:

Polls are funny things when the channel 4 one was published the liberal left objected to it, as they didn’t like the result. It allegedly only polled Muslims living in Muslim areas. This one that shows the majority aren’t supportive of the CH killings wasn’t queried ...

OK that's OK then thanks. Its only a quarter of UK Muslims living in Muslim areas that we need to worry about? I'm not sure you shot down that argument quite as effectively as you thought you had.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I recall quite a lot of support from British Muslims for the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (although I also seem to recall that almost none of them had actually read his book). It was disturbing and clearly showed that although most Muslims in the U.K. were nominally integrated into the society many held views fundamentally opposed to Western, liberal values.

Immigration “policy” in the past fifty years of so has been, in my view, someone suspect. Why have Western countries allowed or even promoted immigration of people with cultural values fundamentally opposed to our own?

[Esceptico]

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus treated the Cananite woman worse that you would treat a dog.
As you can guess - I'm not a fan.

I don’t remember that bit. What happened?

[Troubleatmill]

Esceptico said:

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus treated the Cananite woman worse that you would treat a dog.
As you can guess - I'm not a fan.

I don’t remember that bit. What happened?

Matthew 15:21–28
Poor woman has to bloody beg to him, before he would entertaining helping her.
BTW - I'm not a great fan of his Dad either. Murdered 30 million or so single handed. Most entirely innocent.
The Koran isn't a barrel of laughs, but the Bible.... God is an absolute ****.

[Getragdogleg]

Esceptico said:

Immigration “policy” in the past fifty years of so has been, in my view, someone suspect. Why have Western countries allowed or even promoted immigration of people with cultural values fundamentally opposed to our own?

My take on it is that politically they are planning for a changing climate, they expect we will be seeing a lot more climate refugees in future so its better to try to integrate some now so when the influx starts we have many here who are already moderate in comparison to what's arriving.

This approach will also be planned in reverse where the more indigenous peoples of Europe will be getting used to some of the quirks and things to try to avoid doing so you don't get your head chopped off...

[Esceptico]

Troubleatmill said:

Matthew 15:21–28
Poor woman has to bloody beg to him, before he would entertaining helping her.
BTW - I'm not a great fan of his Dad either. Murdered 30 million or so single handed. Most entirely innocent.
The Koran isn't a barrel of laughs, but the Bible.... God is an absolute ****.

Isn’t the God the same - just the book and prophet of his believers different?

I fully agree that the God of the Old Testament and the Koran hardly seems worthy of worship.

[Troubleatmill]

Esceptico said:

Troubleatmill said:

Matthew 15:21–28
Poor woman has to bloody beg to him, before he would entertaining helping her.
BTW - I'm not a great fan of his Dad either. Murdered 30 million or so single handed. Most entirely innocent.
The Koran isn't a barrel of laughs, but the Bible.... God is an absolute ****.

Isn’t the God the same - just the book and prophet of his believers different?

I fully agree that the God of the Old Testament and the Koran hardly seems worthy of worship.

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

And you are correct, Mo, Allah, Jesus and his Dad are not worthy. Neither is any religion. They are all evil. They should be banished from our lives forever.

[gazza285]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sympathy for the motives is not the same as supporting the actions.

[nikaiyo2]

A Winner Is You said:

Not really comparable though, they basically dug up an old law to prosecute someone for political reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Duncan

A mate of mine used to live in the flat she was arrested in 301 Copnor Road, never knew till years after he moved out! It was just a fairly grotty flat above a shop.

I can’t understand how people can attempt to draw parallels with witch trials and what is going on today.

I can understand Muslims not allowing publication of images of Mohomed in Muslim countries. I get that. I get them not liking it in the west, but the response to not liking a publication should be to not read (view, download, listen to, whatever) it. The laws of the land and desire of the audience dictates what can and can’t be published.

There should be no place for censorship by mob, be that Muslims, Greens, Rights, Lefts whatever.

[coolg]

i4got said:

OK that's OK then thanks. Its only a quarter of UK Muslims living in Muslim areas that we need to worry about? I'm not sure you shot down that argument quite as effectively as you thought you had.

You misunderstood, I was making the point that the liberal left don’t like polls when they make negative points about Islam but are fully supportive of the same polling methodology when the answer is as positive one, if you can call this positive.

[coppernorks]

Getragdogleg said:

I think we are pretty fking accommodating in the grand scheme of things, try popping over to Saudi and building a cathedral and insisting on equality. I'd wager you won't get far.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Sunday 18th October 17:43

Indeed, until we see two muslim men or two muslim women getting married in a mosque with the blessing of the muslim community
then we shall be getting somewhere near we want to be.

Until then Islam is a medieval, backward religion and as such should not be tolerated in a modern, western democracy

[Derek Smith]

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

And you are correct, Mo, Allah, Jesus and his Dad are not worthy. Neither is any religion. They are all evil. They should be banished from our lives forever.

A book isn't evil. It's just words. If you go down that road, you start banning books, or burning them. That's the start of the slide to tyranny.

There should be laws on incitement, but they should be tightly limited. If anyone complains of being upset, offended or disrespected in a book, film or programme, they should be told the solution is in their hands: don’t read the book or watch that particular programme or film, or told to woman up. It’s not a difficult concept.

coppernorks said:

Indeed, until we see two muslim men or two muslim women getting married in a mosque with the blessing of the muslim community
then we shall be getting somewhere near we want to be.

Until then Islam is a medieval, backward religion and as such should not be tolerated in a modern, western democracy

It’s only recently that marriage became inclusive in this country, and many feel there are still institutions which exclude unreasonably. For instance, no female priest, gays being told what they do is a sin (whatever that is). Until the various churches conform to modern mores, they should be treated as a club, and not given the special protection they enjoy. Nor should they be allowed to run schools.

Unless a church allows equal access regardless of sexuality, gender, colour, and creed, they should be treated in exactly the same way as any other business, club or shop, and subject to taxes on property and income.

[Troubleatmill]

Derek Smith said:

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

And you are correct, Mo, Allah, Jesus and his Dad are not worthy. Neither is any religion. They are all evil. They should be banished from our lives forever.

A book isn't evil. It's just words. If you go down that road, you start banning books, or burning them. That's the start of the slide to tyranny......(more stuff )....

I meant religion should be banished from our lives.

[PeteinSQ]

nikaiyo2 said:

A mate of mine used to live in the flat she was arrested in 301 Copnor Road, never knew till years after he moved out! It was just a fairly grotty flat above a shop.

I can’t understand how people can attempt to draw parallels with witch trials and what is going on today.

I can understand Muslims not allowing publication of images of Mohomed in Muslim countries. I get that. I get them not liking it in the west, but the response to not liking a publication should be to not read (view, download, listen to, whatever) it. The laws of the land and desire of the audience dictates what can and can’t be published.

There should be no place for censorship by mob, be that Muslims, Greens, Rights, Lefts whatever.

Muslims must view sin quite differently to how (most) Christians view it. If showing images of Mohammed is a sin then a Christian would typically see that as being an issue for the sinner and god. That's what I don't understand about this. It is a good job they don't get as angry over every sin e.g. alcohol

[Derek Smith]

Troubleatmill said:

I meant religion should be banished from our lives.

My apologies for misreading your post.

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

(I’m not picking on you, but . . .)

I said that the OT was still current in a post a little while ago and I received a PM – shame the person didn’t post it themselves – telling me, politely, that I was wrong. The person sent a number of links, all, of course, supporting that point of view. However, there were other links in the documents.

What I was told, and tend to believe(ish), is that the NT laws do not have to be obeyed. There are lots of biblical references to support. Further, the term ‘the law’ is open to a multitude of interpretations.

On a separate website, from a link in one of the links sent to me, there was the suggestion that, as christianity was a sect of Judaism, there’s every chance that the Matthew comment was added in, or interpreted, by those who were supporters of the Jewish religion. In other words, Matthew is not necessarily gospel.

There were any number of other books circulating at the time but were suppressed. It seems possible that these books contradicted what Judaism was all about, which is adherence to strict laws.

Moral and spiritual guidance can be sourced from the OT, but it should be remembered that much of it is more OTT.

Should gaying be an abomination in christian eyes? The answer appears to be not, in the same way as death not being the requirement if you say nasty things about a parent or disobey them. Mind you, death for a woman who claimed to be a virgin at the time of her marriage but was discovered to be a bit slack in morals department, and elsewhere, seems reasonable enough.

[A Winner Is You]

Troubleatmill said:

Derek Smith said:

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

And you are correct, Mo, Allah, Jesus and his Dad are not worthy. Neither is any religion. They are all evil. They should be banished from our lives forever.

A book isn't evil. It's just words. If you go down that road, you start banning books, or burning them. That's the start of the slide to tyranny......(more stuff )....

I meant religion should be banished from our lives.

That would just be fundamentalism under a different banner.

[anonymous-user]

A Winner Is You said:

Troubleatmill said:

Derek Smith said:

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

And you are correct, Mo, Allah, Jesus and his Dad are not worthy. Neither is any religion. They are all evil. They should be banished from our lives forever.

A book isn't evil. It's just words. If you go down that road, you start banning books, or burning them. That's the start of the slide to tyranny......(more stuff )....

I meant religion should be banished from our lives.

That would just be fundamentalism under a different banner.

Karl Popper would like a word.

[Funk]

The difference is between "I can't do that because it's against my religion," and "YOU can't do that because it's against my religion."

I won't tell others what to do when it comes to their religion, they can't tell me what to do when their religion means nothing to me whatsoever.

[Troubleatmill]

Derek Smith said:

Troubleatmill said:

I meant religion should be banished from our lives.

My apologies for misreading your post.

Troubleatmill said:

Jesus said in the New Testament that the Old Testament is still valid.

(I’m not picking on you, but . . .)

I said that the OT was still current in a post a little while ago and I received a PM – shame the person didn’t post it themselves – telling me, politely, that I was wrong. The person sent a number of links, all, of course, supporting that point of view. However, there were other links in the documents.

What I was told, and tend to believe(ish), is that the NT laws do not have to be obeyed. There are lots of biblical references to support. Further, the term ‘the law’ is open to a multitude of interpretations.

On a separate website, from a link in one of the links sent to me, there was the suggestion that, as christianity was a sect of Judaism, there’s every chance that the Matthew comment was added in, or interpreted, by those who were supporters of the Jewish religion. In other words, Matthew is not necessarily gospel.

There were any number of other books circulating at the time but were suppressed. It seems possible that these books contradicted what Judaism was all about, which is adherence to strict laws.

Moral and spiritual guidance can be sourced from the OT, but it should be remembered that much of it is more OTT.

Should gaying be an abomination in christian eyes? The answer appears to be not, in the same way as death not being the requirement if you say nasty things about a parent or disobey them. Mind you, death for a woman who claimed to be a virgin at the time of her marriage but was discovered to be a bit slack in morals department, and elsewhere, seems reasonable enough.

The Bible was written by men for men and amended over several hundred years to suit the needs of the male leaders at the time.

I'm with Hitchins on this. Mary was a bit of a harlot.