If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I do not know about masturbators, but atheists and cohabitators (if engaging in sexual intercourse) are sinners by definition.
"Sin is transgression of the law".
Have you tried raw garlic ?
Right, over the years I have encountered everything from Bible quotations on buses to placard-waving nutters. The ads on buses don't tend to be too mental and I guess most people would not take offence. They are usually versicles warning that we are sinners and only through Jesus we can be redeemed and saved. Well I for one am offended at the suggestion that I am a 'sinner' (do this people know me?), that I need 'saving' and that I can only achieve that and become a better person by worshipping a certain character they claim to be a deity.
As well as that I have encountered far worse, in the shape of street preachers and individuals waving placards- all of which appear to be operating legally, or at least being allowed to preach without interference. Many of those people are using far more direct language and threatening just about everybody with an eternity of pain and suffering if they don't conform to the rules of their religion of choice, and painting those who, amongst others, have same-sex relations, masturbate, have sex out of wedlock or refuse to worship deities as amoral sinners. If you don't believe me come down to Brixton on a Saturday or Sunday morning. They're around most weekends.
I do not want to be sermoned or judged in public, whether by quotes from religious books on bus billboards or megaphone-wearing nutjobs. I do not want to be told I am apparently imperfect and flawed as a human being, and only the worshipping of a mythical creature can make me wholesome. Why should I have to put up with? Who the hell are these people to splash out statements on public places declaring me a 'sinner' or telling me certain behaviour is abominable? I find that highly offensive and insulting as it happens. Nor that has anyone ever bother to check individuals before allowing such adverts and preaching to take place of course.
I'm not claiming that Christinaity is homophobic (I'm not denying it either), I'm merely giving an example of an argument one could make.
Incidentally, neither does saying that it doesn't take Christianity to be homophobic, discount the argument that Christianity is homophobic. You don't have to have read Germaine Greer to be feminist, but that doesn't mean that Germaine Greer's work isn't therefore feminist, or that her work hasn't had an influence on the attitudes and beliefs of a vast number of people.
What country was this in?
And if you stereotype religious people, you're as bad as the few who stereotype other groups.
No they don't. My views aren't protected as a Tory, a Labour supporter, a libertarian, a feminist, a Spurs fan, a holocaust denier, a vegetarian. You can't refuse to employ me for any of these viewpoints (rightfully), but they don't have specific protection against being criticised in public, and employers aren't required to make reasonable adjustments to a job in order to cater for such opinions, in the event that my job conflicts with such views. A chef can't refuse to cook meat because he's vegetarian. And rightfully so. That is what religious views are the equivalent of, not race or sexuality. Race, gender and sexuality (and disability) are things that you are. Religious, moral and political opinions are something that you believe. I don't personally think any of those things should be legally protected when it comes to writing an article in a newspaper, or doing a comedy sketch, for example. If you want to say that all black people are evil, then go ahead. You'll be revealing yourself to be an idiot, but that shouldn't be a reason to prevent freedom of speech. And I think that's generally the rule (whether you could find anyone to publish your views is another matter).
Like I said, I think you only need one rule regarding employment: you can only consider things relevant to the person's ability to do the job. You can discriminate against race or gender if you're employing an actor, for example. You can discriminate against beliefs (religious or otherwise), if the person says that their beliefs would prevent them from doing a particular aspect of the job. You can discriminate against disabilities, if with reasonable adjustments, the person still wouldn't be able to do the job. Similarly, with someone providing services. A restaurant shouldn't be legally required to offer a vegetarian option (a choice), they should have to provide disabled access to the best of their ability (not a choice). Religion is a choice, and so should be the equivalent of vegetarianism when it comes to discrimination laws. You can't refuse service to someone for merely holding a view, but you shouldn't be compelled to change your service to fit in with their views.
But at what point does giving an opinion about the content of a set of religious texts become stereotyping the people who claim to follow those texts? If I said that communism was a delusional idea, would you think that I was stereotyping everyone who holds that political viewpoint? It's like those people who get personally offended that someone thinks their favourite band is shit. It's just a difference of opinion, but it seems that when this opinion is religious in nature, it's somehow a personal insult to the person who holds that opinion too.
Sorry, but I can neither prove nor disprove those events.
From my observations I have yet to find one person, describing themselves as Christian, who follows the law code as laid down in the bible.
Someone said the same thing about peadophiles yanno you wouldn't 'choose' to be attracted to kids considering the negative abuse you get and in Germany they are offered voluntary sterilisation.
I should say though that I am not comparing homosexuality to peadophilia, in anticipation that someone will decide they would like to offend themselves by misinterpreting what I've said.
I think freedom of speech should exist, but it all depends on context. If someone wants to say "Gay people are evil" then fair play. I will say in response "You are a bigoted fuckface" and proceed to take advantage of them when they are drunk (complete utter racist twat in town the other day, I 'helped' him visit the floor by placing my foot in his path). Not sure if I have the right to do the latter, but it was funny and felt so satisfying seeing him try to understand what had just happened.
If someone says "Gay people are evil, lets all go out and beat them" then it shouldn't be allowed. But a statement by itself, depending on context, without incitement, should be permissable. That includes people who think black people are monkeys, and so on. If you're insulting someone personally that counts as harassment and is already covered under UK law.
It's like, I wouldn't ban the BNP, I just reserve the right to hate them. If they go on a hate march, I think that should be stopped. But I don't think they should be stopped from having meetings / rallies of their own as long as they are not impacting on others.
I think more than legislation, education needs to have a bigger role in combating homophobia and xenophobia. Religion shouldn't have special exemptions, but they shouldn't be stopped from plainly saying stupid things like sodom went to hell (although, I read the bit in the old testament where it is on about sodom, and it doesn't really read like gay sex at all, but I guess some people are experts on 'intepretation').
Equally, christians shouldnt be stopped saying you cant eat seafood with something or other. As long as they aren't advocating (and it depends on the context) going out and bashing all the seafood eaters, thats fine by me. I still reserve my right to laugh.
Well then they shouldn't have a problem with you criticising it then.
I'll think you'll find Christianity has been debating, criticising, changing and reinterpreting what's inside the bible ever since the day it was written. When a religious scholar spends a lifetime studying a religious text they don't just keep re-reading it going 'yup, agree with that', 'yup, agree with that'.
You get what bible readings, religious sermons actually involve don't you?
The issue isn't criticism, it's whether you have a right to insult people under the banner of free speech.
Even though Jesus instructs them not to do that.
Not one jot or one tittle.
I wasn't aware Jesus wrote any of the bible
Yep. All on the back of a fag packet. It was another one of his miracles.
They still do it though. The vatican is full of scholars trying to decide what everything means, and it does change depending on the political affiliations of the vatican at any one time. Judeo-Christian mythology was influenced by the social norms of the time, which has led to many peculiarities including homophobia (that was acceptable and even normal in both Greek and Roman cultures prior to the adoption of Christianity).
I think to properly interpret your religion, you need to take the general idea of what is said, rather than the literal word. As you say that's not what the religion itself says, but then there are far more ridiculous literal things that priests are happy to omit.
Like I said though, people should be permitted to freedom of speech, as long as they aren't being horrid. I would argue you don't have the freedom to tell someone to fuck off willy nilly (again, depends on context ), but people do it anyway.
Yes, more politics than scriptures. Modern day pharisees.
Doesn't a lot of the archelogical evidence support it (or at least is consitent). Jericho does seem to have been invaded and destroyed, Pilate and Herod have plenty of evidence for their existence and . There' also seems plenty of evidence for a Flood (both geological and historical). Whilst there are historical gaps are knowledge of a lot of societies and civilizations in ancient times is pretty sketchy.
Also it seems a bit weird to point to the laws of physics and biology - after all if everyone else could do it they wouldn't be miracles. It's because they break the rules that they are...
Now this doesn't proove the existence of God, but it doesn't disproove it
And of course if even the slightest bit is conflicting with archeological evidence (which of course we know it is), then pointing that out is surely calling those who believe the bible literally (as some do) delusional, is it not?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd find it wrong to link mainstream Christianity in with its extreme fringe though.
Of course I defend your right to say it, but I wouldn't defend your right to wander into the middle of a wedding and start shouting God doesn't exist...
I think we're in absolute agreement :yes:
Yes. Yes, you absolutely do. What is suspect is happening here is the same old, tired tactic of setting religion aside for special dispensation. If politician A told politician B he was ridiculous and stupid for thinking plan X on subject Y would work, and politician A said "sorry, you're not allowed to insult me" he'd be - rightly - laughed off stage. If I were to tell Nick Griffin he was a small-minded bigot, not only would I be right, no one would bat an eyelid. You can so completely rely on religious people's reaction to being criticised as "I'm offended" or "you can't insult me", that it's boring. The majority of religious doctrine is downright ridiculous, and a lot of it is disgusting and superlatively immoral. I'll be fucked if someone tells me I can't insult someone who's preaching their hate-filled bigotry.
I seem to be pretty much exclusively posting on topics of religion lately - usually by writing some diatribe or other. I'm starting to bore myself. I'm off to post in Food & Drink. Homemade steak & kidney pie, anyone?
as for freedom of speech, well time has proven again and again whenever you try to ban or limit the expression of something you just drive it underground and the (perceived) problem doesn't go away, it usually just gains credence and popularity....the labour gov definitely doesn't believe in it however, and it's not something we should take for granted. that's why i use every opportunity to mention what a numpty that gordon brown is!
I'm not quite sure which tact to take in replying to you here. Firstly, it'd help it you could explain what you mean by "dogmatic atheism" and secondly for you to elaborate on how and why it's as bad as a fundametalist's religious belief.
Agree.