Article in Sunday Independent

Tim_Murphy

There are probably more serious injuries in soccer than there are in MMA. It is quite a safe sport when refereed correctly.

That's a bit of a pointless comparison due to the huge difference in number of people participating in each. MMA isn't a safe sport; anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Who are ya? Never mind.

I'm not speaking on the behalf of poor misunderstood Clive :pac: but I can see an element of truth in the above statement. You have to be bit of an eejit to participate in MMA. It's sport based around making your opponent unable to continue to fight either through Knock out, submission or exhaustion. If you think it's any way sensible to train x hours a week to beat up another human at the same time accepting the risk that comes with big strong men trying to punch you in the head you're probably not that intelligent.

That's why it's best to stick to fighting at the lighter weight classes!

Sid_Justice wrote: »

MMA is dangerous and reckless (as it boxing, motorsport and horse racing) and people do it for pride, money and the exhilaration. These are not rational reasons to do things that may seriously hurt you.

True enough.

Oh and :rolleyes: at people with no involvement with the sport other than watching it on TV getting offended at a stupid opinion piece.

Trashbat

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Oh and :rolleyes: at people with no involvement with the sport other than watching it on TV getting offended at a stupid opinion piece.

I'm not sure getting offended is the right words, but I do take exception to the article, as opinion pieces are so called not just because they are the writers opinion, but also because they form parts of the readers opinion.

Its annoying enough to be a fan or participant in any non-mainstream sport, when people don't understand it, without someone coming up with "Oh, you like UFC, I read in the paper that you are an eejit".

We all want publicity and support for our sports, and the Sindo has a much larger readership than any Irish (or UK for that matter) MMA publication. Its these attitudes that don't let the sport grow to the level that I'd like to see it.

That said, my main gripe is that a Journalist in a national paper got paid good hard cash for writing something without research. There's a recession on, and hard working people can't make money

BobbyOLeary

barochoc wrote: »

Thanks ginoginelli. I was annoyed that Clive (believed to be a well known figure in MMA) said " I merely stated that he didn't say anything untrue."

So he agreed with "It is a sport designed by eejits for other eejits to participate in and watch."

No he didn't. He was just able to admit that this guy had a different opinion and that it was as valid as anyone else's.

I'd agree with Kev, it IS a sport for eejits. The amount of times I've woken up the following day after training and had a stiff neck, sore elbows and about twenty bruises is astronomical. I could stay just as fit by going to the gym alone but I enjoy the sport. I can also see why others would not. Maybe spend a little time thinking about why people might agree with the opinion piece and you might calm down a tad.

pablohoney87

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

N
I'd agree with Kev, it IS a sport for eejits. The amount of times I've woken up the following day after training and had a stiff neck, sore elbows and about twenty bruises is astronomical. I could stay just as fit by going to the gym alone but I enjoy the sport. I can also see why others would not. Maybe spend a little time thinking about why people might agree with the opinion piece and you might calm down a tad.

Agree with ya to a certain extent bobby but in my experience Far worse things happened to me in Rugby and Gaa then ive ever had done to me in mma. Any "injuries" ive had in mma are really just aggrivating an old rugby one(knee) or gaa one(neck).
Really if your gonna talk bout mma bein for eejits and boxing and what not i think you have to put Rugby at the top of that list.

BobbyOLeary

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Agree with ya to a certain extent bobby but in my experience Far worse things happened to me in Rugby and Gaa then ive ever had done to me in mma. Any "injuries" ive had in mma are really just aggrivating an old rugby one(knee) or gaa one(neck).
Really if your gonna talk bout mma bein for eejits and boxing and what not i think you have to put Rugby at the top of that list.

Oh god yeah. I played rugby for about 5 years in school and managed to get the only concussion of my life so far in the process. Playing rugby is great craic but if you step back and look at it, it's pretty stupid. So are most, if not all contact sports though.

I was just challenging the idea that a lot of armchair MMA fans have that the sport is perfectly safe (there's a referee, how could it not be?!?) and that anyone who disagrees is a fool.

pablohoney87

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Oh god yeah. I played rugby for about 5 years in school and managed to get the only concussion of my life so far in the process. Playing rugby is great craic but if you step back and look at it, it's pretty stupid. So are most, if not all contact sports though.

I was just challenging the idea that a lot of armchair MMA fans have that the sport is perfectly safe (there's a referee, how could it not be?!?) and that anyone who disagrees is a fool.

Agreed.

Tim_Murphy

Trashbat wrote: »

We all want publicity and support for our sports, and the Sindo has a much larger readership than any Irish (or UK for that matter) MMA publication. Its these attitudes that don't let the sport grow to the level that I'd like to see it.

Others won't want to see a sport where men beat up other men being accepted as mainstream sport, or as an acceptable activity in general. As opinions on sport go, that wouldn't be too crazy.

I think maybe people who just watch MMA on TV and are fans have a certain detachment from what the sport is tbh. As skilled and as athletic as it is, lets not forget that at the end of the day it is about guys trying to incapicate each other.

Trashbat wrote: »

That said, my main gripe is that a Journalist in a national paper got paid good hard cash for writing something without research. There's a recession on, and hard working people can't make money

He's not the first or the last I'm afraid.

Dave!

But boxing is a mainstream sport, people don't tend to have a problem with that

Why the disparity?

Do ye reckon it's just cos there tends to be more blood in MMA?

cowzerp

Dave! wrote: »

But boxing is a mainstream sport, people don't tend to have a problem with that

Why the disparity?

Do ye reckon it's just cos there tends to be more blood in MMA?

Boxing is not really mainstream, its been vilified for years by the same people who vilify mma, its widely known but that's because its old and prize fighting was mainstream at 1 time, its not anymore, we've become more civilised!!

Tim_Murphy

Dave! wrote: »

But boxing is a mainstream sport, people don't tend to have a problem with that

Why the disparity?

Do ye reckon it's just cos there tends to be more blood in MMA?

1) Newer
2) In a cage
3) GnP

But as Paul pointed out, plenty of people do have the same objections to boxing as they do to MMA. There are stupid reasons for being against combat sports but there are legitimate reasons too, which many fans don't like to admit.

BobbyOLeary

Dave! wrote: »

But boxing is a mainstream sport, people don't tend to have a problem with that

Why the disparity?

Do ye reckon it's just cos there tends to be more blood in MMA?

Tim covered it pretty well but also due to the reputation it got following it's inception. I've got a few of the early UFCs on my laptop and they're awful to watch. While it's been cleaned up significantly since, it still carries that "No Holds Barred" reputation.

There was a BBC documentary (or maybe Channel 4?) not so long ago where they looked at MMA, with the focus primarily being on Brock Lesnar's fight with Randy. I vaguely remember a part of it which was an interview with a senator/congressman for New York on why he was fighting to keep it banned from the state. His argument boiled down to that he couldn't be okay with a sport which allowed the hitting of a downed opponent.

I remember it so well because it was probably the only non-hysterical argument I've seen on tv about MMA. Simple and legitimate reason for not liking the sport. I don't agree with him but I can definitely see his point of view. Also, there was a doc on from the British Medical Association (or something similar) saying how it's members couldn't endorse it because it was barbaric. Interestingly the producers of the documentary left out the fact that the BMA say the exact same about boxing.

I'm prob repeating myself here but the sooner MMA fans realise that the UFC isn't everyone's cup of tea and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them a moron, the better.

DrPhilG

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

There was a BBC documentary (or maybe Channel 4?) not so long ago where they looked at MMA, with the focus primarily being on Brock Lesnar's fight with Randy.

I'm prob repeating myself here but the sooner MMA fans realise that the UFC isn't everyone's cup of tea and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them a moron, the better.

It was BBC I'm fairly sure. They made a big deal about how the UFC had let them use footage from the Couture Lesnar fight but wouldn't let them show the last minute or so showing Lesnar pounding on Randy and then Randy struggling to stand up. Then of course they miraculously produced the footage anyway (if the UFC didn't allow it then how did the manage to show it?) and the BMA doc nearly fell off his chair in disgust.

I agree with you that people are entitled to their opinion, (my wife thinks it's terrible, even though I watch everything that's on and have started training) but she puts up with it. That BBC documentary was annoying though because although they let on they were unbiased and had Wayne McCullough and Dana White on defending the sport and even showed Randy himself defending the late stoppage, it was a pretty much anti-MMA show.

I have no problem with someone not liking the sport, but the 2 things that get my goat are;
1 - Those who think boxing is fine but MMA is brutal
2 - Those who go out of their way to educate the masses with nonsense about MMA and sway neutral opinion against it.

kumate_champ07

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

Poorly researched? Check.
Dismissive? Yep.
Sweeping generalizations? Present Sir!

Maybe it's the elitist in me, but I don't mind reading articles like these. Personally I don't want MMA to be the next big thing with Sunday Indo readers, and I like the fact that the sport isn't bland enough to appeal to insular old men like Mr Sweeney.

Or maybe i'm wrong?



He certainly looks like a man who knows 'cool' when he see's it.

strange, theres a music journalist with the same name working for hot press and he's supposed to be a cúnt too

rovert

I believe we are a generation away from knowing the dangers of MMA in terms of the true long term effects of training, physical damage, psychological damage, weight cutting and let’s face in cases drug use.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Tim covered it pretty well but also due to the reputation it got following it's inception. I've got a few of the early UFCs on my laptop and they're awful to watch. While it's been cleaned up significantly since, it still carries that "No Holds Barred" reputation.

There was a BBC documentary (or maybe Channel 4?) not so long ago where they looked at MMA, with the focus primarily being on Brock Lesnar's fight with Randy. I vaguely remember a part of it which was an interview with a senator/congressman for New York on why he was fighting to keep it banned from the state. His argument boiled down to that he couldn't be okay with a sport which allowed the hitting of a downed opponent.

I remember it so well because it was probably the only non-hysterical argument I've seen on tv about MMA. Simple and legitimate reason for not liking the sport. I don't agree with him but I can definitely see his point of view. Also, there was a doc on from the British Medical Association (or something similar) saying how it's members couldn't endorse it because it was barbaric. Interestingly the producers of the documentary left out the fact that the BMA say the exact same about boxing.

Congressman Bob Reilly is a joke if you look into his conduct in trying to keep MMA banned.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I'm prob repeating myself here but the sooner MMA fans realise that the UFC isn't everyone's cup of tea and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them a moron, the better.

Well if their reasoning is moronic then they can be called a moron.

Trashbat

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

2) In a cage

This is what really gets me. I guess its the old Pro Wrestling this of overplaying the seriousness of being in a cage.

Making it even more ironic is that one of British boxings most serious injuries in the last 20 years was that of Michael Watson, in his fight with Chris Eubank. If i remember correctly, it was when Eubank knocked him down and he hit the back of his head/neck on a rigid bottom ring rope that was at least partly responsible for some of the permanent damage he suffered.

I think a cage is better for a fighters safety, especially when you look at some of the old PRIDE events where lads would fall out of the ring taking nasty bumps on the floor below.

BobbyOLeary

rovert wrote: »

Well if their reasoning is moronic then they can be called a moron.

What reasoning is that now? They don't like watching people getting punched in the face on the ground so they dislike MMA? I can't really see a flaw there. The analogy to boxing is flawed; boxers can't knee, elbow (well they're not meant to :pac:) or hit a downed opponent.

You like MMA, I like MMA, some people don't like MMA. Simple as. People aren't morons because they look at things differently to you. The level of violence in an MMA bout is fairly high, I've no problem with that but a lot of people do. Having that opinion is perfectly valid, as is the opposite view.

As for Bob Reilly I've no idea about his conduct, I've only seen him on that BBC show where he came across quite well with his argument.

BobbyOLeary

DrPhilG wrote: »

I have no problem with someone not liking the sport, but the 2 things that get my goat are;
1 - Those who think boxing is fine but MMA is brutal

Sorry, just saw this now. I'm not sure about that one really, they're very different sports. How many boxing fights have ended from a GnP stoppage? It's a big step mentally for a lot of folks from a KO in boxing.

pablohoney87

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Sorry, just saw this now. I'm not sure about that one really, they're very different sports. How many boxing fights have ended from a GnP stoppage? It's a big step mentally for a lot of folks from a KO in boxing.

YOu could just argue back how mma fights have ended in death.
I thought DrPhilG's point was fairly valid and its the way id feel bout things too.

DrPhilG

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Sorry, just saw this now. I'm not sure about that one really, they're very different sports. How many boxing fights have ended from a GnP stoppage? It's a big step mentally for a lot of folks from a KO in boxing.

But what defines brutality in a sport? How it appears, or the statistics and facts? Statistically and factually (even according to the medical professionals who want it banned) MMA has a lesser risk of death/serious injury or long term complications for it's competitors due to far less head shots, more ways to end the fight etc.

Looking at the facts, boxing is far more dangerous. I know as has been said we won't know the long term implications of MMA for a generation but as the medics admit, fights can end in submissions, downed fighters are usually finished quickly instead of stood up to take more punishment and there are way more places to hit than the head so I doubt if even a generation down the line we'll see many MMA fighters with their brains knocked loose. (That's apart from the ones whose brains were loose before they started)...

rovert

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

What reasoning is that now? They don't like watching people getting punched in the face on the ground so they dislike MMA? I can't really see a flaw there. The analogy to boxing is flawed; boxers can't knee, elbow (well they're not meant to :pac:) or hit a downed opponent.

You like MMA, I like MMA, some people don't like MMA. Simple as. People aren't morons because they look at things differently to you. The level of violence in an MMA bout is fairly high, I've no problem with that but a lot of people do. Having that opinion is perfectly valid, as is the opposite view.

As for Bob Reilly I've no idea about his conduct, I've only seen him on that BBC show where he came across quite well with his argument.

My comment about reasoning is a general one.

I dont mind people or groups of people like anti-violence campaigners or doctors looking to ban MMA as along as they are looking to ban boxing too. If boxing is more dangerous than MMA.

BobbyOLeary

DrPhilG wrote: »

But what defines brutality in a sport? How it appears, or the statistics and facts?

For me at least, the brutality of a sport is how it looks and it's safety is seen through stats and facts. I'm happy with the level of brutality in MMA, others aren't. Despite the sport being safer than boxing the majority still see it as more brutal.

I'm fully aware of the facts regarding MMA and it's safety record but this doesn't mean that I don't find it brutal and violent. I'm happy to watch it and train but I'm acutely aware that what I'm doing isn't to everyone's tastes.

Visually MMA is worse and statistically Boxing is worse. We both know which metric people will use to judge the two sports and they should be let do that without being called a moron.

I dont mind people or groups of people like anti-violence campaigners or doctors looking to ban MMA as along as they are looking to ban boxing too. If boxing is more dangerous than MMA.

I disagree with you but I can see where you're coming from. People looking to ban MMA from a medical point of view are wrong to only single out the sport but those who wish to ban MMA because it contrasts with their own valueset should be allowed to voice their opinion just like we are allowed to voice ours.

Mark Hamill

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

I disagree with you but I can see where you're coming from. People looking to ban MMA from a medical point of view are wrong to only single out the sport but those who wish to ban MMA because it contrasts with their own valueset should be allowed to voice their opinion just like we are allowed to voice ours.

I put this part of your post first because I do agree with it. People dont have to like MMA and should be allowed to voice their opinion if they dont. Its only opinions, and If they are wrong, it should be possible to demonstarte how they are wrong. However...

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Visually MMA is worse and statistically Boxing is worse. We both know which metric people will use to judge the two sports and they should be let do that without being called a moron.

People who judge things visually without looking at the statistics are morons. They are morons because they are letting personal bias get in the way of evidence and assuming that their own perspective is right without checking. Its arrogant, ignorant and unscientific and frankly I believe they should be berated at length for doing so. It makes for bad journalism, bad science and bad decisions in general.

barochoc

The old boxing v MMA argument has flared up again in yet another forum!!!

I don't have a problem with those who don't like MMA. I can see why people don't like MMA. A lot of these anti MMA fans have probably been to or are big fans of boxing.

They obviously see it to be more gentleman like to constantly pummel each others brains for 12 x 3min rounds. Not my cuppa.

Do I think they're ejits? No, what ever floats your boat & as long as it's not illegal or immoral.

Now if I practice the bible as a Christian (Covers all Christian religions) then these practices are wrong & immoral. Don't argue with me here. Seriously.
These people don't agree with nor practice such sports...... then again, we have so called religious people in the ring or cage blessing themselves & looking to God before & after fights. This is contradictory & annoys me because they really haven't a clue about their religion.

Are they ejits? No, they're just misinformed or not very well read.

Was Yuri Gagarin an ejit for agreeing to get into a rocket, be blasted out of the atmosphere & come back to earth safely??????

I don't think he was. He was & is still a hero. Even though many died before him trying.

Do you know how many Astronauts have been to Space? Approx 500

Do you know how many have died since space exploration started? 24

Looks very very very risky to me. That means for every 21 astronauts that went into space 1 died (Killed actually)

Astronauts are susceptible to a variety of health risks including decompression sickness, barotrauma, immunodeficiencies, loss of bone and muscle, orthostatic intolerance due to volume loss, sleep disturbances, and radiation injury. (Wikipedia)

I mean, these guys are complete idiots no? They've no regard for their own life whatsoever. They must be ejits according to the small collection of so call intelligent people left on this earth!

DrPhilG

barochoc wrote: »

Now if I practice the bible as a Christian (Covers all Christian religions) then these practices are wrong & immoral. Don't argue with me here. Seriously.
These people don't agree with nor practice such sports...... then again, we have so called religious people in the ring or cage blessing themselves & looking to God before & after fights. This is contradictory & annoys me because they really haven't a clue about their religion.

Go for it boyo!

I'm a born again Christian, long time MMA fan and recently started training. I have had this debate with my wife, my best friend (a Pastor) my brother in law (a Pastor) my father in law (deacon and devout boxing fan), his best mate (a Pastor & boxing fan) and a very good friend of mine from Canada (you've guessed it... a Pastor).

Dave!

You happen to know anyone who isn't a pastor or a deacon? :pac:

Tim_Murphy

barochoc wrote: »

Now if I practice the bible as a Christian (Covers all Christian religions) then these practices are wrong & immoral. Don't argue with me here. Seriously.
These people don't agree with nor practice such sports...... then again, we have so called religious people in the ring or cage blessing themselves & looking to God before & after fights. This is contradictory & annoys me because they really haven't a clue about their religion.

Far be it for me to argue on the side of the religious amongst us (:eek: ), but there would be a fair number of them who would not doubt disagree with that. Just because somebody doesn’t agree with your opinion doesn’t they are ignorant of their religion.

DrPhilG

All comes down to your definition of violence. Big John McCarthy summed it up well when he said that violence is something that is committed, unlike MMA that is consenting competitive combat.

People could argue against Christians being involved with MMA because they are supposed to be pansy "Ned Flanders" pacifists. Jesus was no pansy, when the temple was full of dodgy traders etc did he go nicely and ask them to leave? Or maybe have a sit down protest? No, he got a good thick rope, twisted it into a whip and beat them out of the place.

Remember in the old Testament when Jacob wrestled with an angel? Theologians will tell you that it's widely believed that the "angel" referred to was actually Jesus due to the words for "angel" that were used. Bearing in mind that wrestling in those days was not the freestyle or greco Roman that we see nowadays, you could make the arguement that Jacob and Jesus had an old style MMA match. And I don't say that to be blasphemous at all. It was a tough as hell combat event which left Jacob with a long term hip injury.

This is all a bit off topic but I couldn't resist!

Dave!

What a strange twist this thread took ! I'm actually intrigued by the Biblical discussion, I must say

Shazbot

Strange turn in this thread. On the note of religion, jesus didn't tap........

Professey Chin

Shazbot wrote: »

Strange turn in this thread. On the note of religion, jesus didn't tap........

Oddly owned by the Green/White Power Ranger (with an MMA record of 2-0)

DrPhilG

Shazbot wrote: »

Some of those shirts are really cringeworthy... Ned Flanders would be proud.

Someone want to tell Vitor Belfort that Christians can't do MMA? He's one of the more passionate ones!

Ron Waterman (16-6-2), UFC, WEC and Pride veteran is currently working as a Pastor I think. I heard he wrote a book about the apparent incompatability of Christianity and professional fighting but I'm not sure, might have been someone else.

Raze_them_all

Ehm didn't the popes lead armies before.

Hasn there been religious wars.

Let that be an end to the holier than thou attitudes religions are resposible for more deaths than will ever be recorded.

DrPhilG

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Ehm didn't the popes lead armies before.

Hasn there been religious wars.

Let that be an end to the holier than thou attitudes religions are resposible for more deaths than will ever be recorded.

Well that's a different topic again.

Just because a pope or king decided to use religion as an excuse for war doesn't mean the religion is to blame, just the person who twisted it's meanings/messages to their own benefit.

Those who led the crusades did so to spread the word of God? The Bible says to spread the word but I think I missed the bit where it says to kick the hell out of anyone who doesn't want to.

Professey Chin

DrPhilG wrote: »

Those who led the crusades did so to spread the word of God?

Altaír kicked all their asses though

Raze_them_all

DrPhilG wrote: »

Well that's a different topic again.

Just because a pope or king decided to use religion as an excuse for war doesn't mean the religion is to blame, just the person who twisted it's meanings/messages to their own benefit.

Those who led the crusades did so to spread the word of God? The Bible says to spread the word but I think I missed the bit where it says to kick the hell out of anyone who doesn't want to.

I think the leader of a worldwide religion that is supposed to preach "treat others as you wish them to treat you" going to war is significant, especially with papal infalibility when they sit on the chair of saint peter.

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Altaír kicked all their asses though

Pfffft all he did was run jump stab......man i hate that series...yet I know I'm going to finish 3 just to finish the series

DrPhilG

Raze_them_all wrote: »

I think the leader of a worldwide religion that is supposed to preach "treat others as you wish them to treat you" going to war is significant, especially with papal infalibility when they sit on the chair of saint peter.

Same thing though. The blame lies with that particular leader, not with the religion. I have read some history and there were periods of time where the behavious of some popes was far from "Christian". Murder, prostitution and war!

Ps I'm not a Catholic so I don't believe in papal infalibility anyway! Or any man/woman's infalibility for that matter.

Tim_Murphy

DrPhilG wrote: »

Just because a pope or king decided to use religion as an excuse for war doesn't mean the religion is to blame, just the person who twisted it's meanings/messages to their own benefit
.

Religious people always talks about meanings and messages being twisted when something bad happens because of religion or by religious people. It brings to mind the No true Scotsman fallacy

DrPhilG wrote: »

Those who led the crusades did so to spread the word of God? The Bible says to spread the word but I think I missed the bit where it says to kick the hell out of anyone who doesn't want to.

There are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of people killing other people in Gods name and with Gods approval.

DrPhilG

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Religious people always talks about meanings and messages being twisted when something bad happens because of religion or by religious people.

Can you think of any scriptural defence or justification for the Crusades or the actions of certain popes in history? No, coz there isn't any. People just used their silly interpretations as an excuse.

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

There are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of people killing other people in Gods name and with Gods approval.

True, but most of the Old Testament wars were just that, wars. Other people wanted to wipe out the Israelites so they fought til one side won.

Of course there's many instances that are hard to understand like when God instructed his people to wipe out entire nations, man woman and child but that's a whole other can of theological worms and I'm finished work now so no time to open it!

rovert

DrPhilG does it bother you when fighters say they are fighting for God?

BobbyOLeary

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People who judge things visually without looking at the statistics are morons. They are morons because they are letting personal bias get in the way of evidence and assuming that their own perspective is right without checking. Its arrogant, ignorant and unscientific and frankly I believe they should be berated at length for doing so. It makes for bad journalism, bad science and bad decisions in general.

This thread has changed completely since I was here last. Just wanted to answer this Mark though I'll happily talk about it in person too if you want.

Quick question first, for every single decision you've made have you had statistics to back it up? I really doubt it, I know I definitely haven't. I'm not a moron, nor are you.

Stats and numbers aren't enough for making every decision. If someone disagrees with a sport for moral reasons (their own morals) it isn't moronic, it's simply different. If someone claims that MMA is unsafe and only relies on their morality as proof then they're a moron. If they call the sport stupid and for eejits then let them, it's their opinion and is as perfectly valid as your opposing one.

Tim_Murphy

DrPhilG wrote:

Of course there's many instances that are hard to understand like when God instructed his people to wipe out entire nations, man woman and child but that's a whole other can of theological worms and I'm finished work now so no time to open it!

Many Christians will go to great lengths to dismiss any other Christians who have done something bad as ‘twisting’ Christianity but they will go to even greater lengths to justify atrocities carried out in the Old Testament.

Book of Joshua wrote:

So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.

Whilst the mental gymnastics people do to justify such things can be quite impressive at times, it is also what I find worrying about the effect religion can have on people.

cowzerp

Discussion way off topic, if you want to talk about zombies or atheism or whatever go to there respective forums and topic complete, closed.