Hate Laws?

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

No, but I am very very glad that I was christened.

The only reason you wouldn't want to be christened, is if you didn't believe in God, in which case the whole christening would be meaningless for you, so it wouldn't even matter. So it's harmless, either way. Unless you are some kind of Satan-worshipper, in which case I can only laugh at you.

But Tommy we were both christened before we knew what it meant. And let me say, to call me a satan worshipper is about the most ignorant thing you've said here, in a long list of ignorant things. You're saying if I don't belive in jesus, if I subscribe to a different belief, then I must be a satan worshipper? Are you for real? You're certainly a hypcrite.

Thus I will begin to prove that christianity is the most true religion. (Not that there is not measure of truth in many other religions, for one of the good things about christianity, is that it does not require it's followers to believe that all other religions are just wrong - unlike atheism, which must believe that.)

pbsuxok1znja4r

Karl Hungus wrote:

What the hell gives you the right to second-guess or presume what beliefs I might or might not hold? If you want to know if I'm a Buddhist, just ask and I'll tell you upfront. Don't make snide posts about suspiscion.

And for that matter, why does it have to be a faith or belief in order to defend something? You make comments about "Random Death Metallers" allegedly slagging your beliefs, yet for me, and I'm sure a lot of other people here, such music that you belittle is something dear to us.

Of course I have the right to suspect whether something is or is not true about you! Why the hell wouldnt I have the right to?! I wasn't being "snide", as you so conveniently put it, when I said I suspected you were not Buddhist, I was merely stating fact. I believe you were just joking and trying to rile me when you said Buddha was the only person to tell people how to live. So, were you joking, or are you really a Buddhist?

I haven't be-littled death metal. Where the hell did you get that idea? All I did was recognise a trend of people who listen to death-metal, tending to slag me for being christian. I have real-life experience of this, so if you say I'm making a generalisation, it's only because it's largely true. Besides, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend death metal, do you? Further evidence that I never slagged it in the first place. And, I don't see how defend death-metal, which is dear to your heart, could possibly entail refuting christianity. How could it?

Ruaidhri

you know scouser.tommy, i tried to have a rational debate with you. you ignored my request for an intellectual debate.
<edit>
i humbly apologize for my incredible bad taste with the comment i had here.
i went too far.
</edit>

pbsuxok1znja4r

Karl Hungus wrote:

Christ... That's just pure ignorance right there.

FFS, when you make statements like that - EXPLAIN WHY

pbsuxok1znja4r

Ruaidhri wrote:

you know scouser.tommy, i tried to have a rational debate with you. you ignored my request for an intellectual debate.
i hate to say this, as it's the most politically uncorrected, topical and outright mean thing to say. but if you were born a Muslim , you'd be prime suicide bomber material.

I'm sorry, I never meant to ignore you, I just have a lot of posts to get round to. I would definitely like to debate it with you, in a civilised manner. TBH though, I really don't think I can do it here, because other people are jumping on every other thing I say, and I'm finding it hard to keep up.

I dont think that 'suicide bomber' remark was called for at all. I would never injure another person, not least for having different beliefs from me.

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

Let me ask you this, if you lived 600 years ago, and you knew the world was round, would it count as "propaganda" if you went around around trying to tell people about it?

Interesting read...

The long association between Christianity and the flat-earth theory begins in the sixth century when a Greek monk of Alexandria, Cosmas, who had traveled widely in the East, retired to a cloister in Sinai and wrote his Christian Topography. In it he refuted the 'false and heathen' notion that the earth is a sphere, and showed that it is really a rectangular plane arched over by the firmament which separates us from heaven. The inhabited earth, with Jerusalem at its hub, is at the centre of the plane, and it is surrounded by oceans beyond which lies Adam's paradise. The sun revolves round a north polar mountain, circling its peak in summer and its base in winter.

Christian Topography was well received by the Church, whose policy at the time was to eradicate all previous knowledge and establish itself as the sole authority in religion, philosophy and science. The flat-earth theory, hitched on to the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy, prevailed among clergymen (if not among navigators) until the sixteenth century, when Copernicus called it into question by venturing the idea that the earth is a planet orbiting the sun. He was not very assertive. The preface to his book emphasized that the heliocentric system was merely a hypothesis, and Copernicus avoided controversy with the reviewers by dying on the day it was published.

Copernicus first derived his theory from esoteric studies of the Pythagorean and other ancient traditions. His successor, Galileo, challenged the flat-earth believers to scientific experiments. One of theirs was to shoot a cannonball vertically into the air. When it fell to earth near the cannon they claimed to have proved that the earth was not moving. Galileo explained that the reason why the ball was not left behind by the spinning earth was that it partook of the same motion. The argument went on for years, but heliocentricism was in the air. It won its way against the Inquisition and finally triumphed with the cosmological system of Sir Isaac Newton. The Church found that it could after all live with the round-earth idea, and that references in the Old Testament to the four corners of the earth and the pillars on which it rests might have been intended, not literally, but as figures of speech.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

But Tommy we were both christened before we knew what it meant. And let me say, to call me a satan worshipper is about the most ignorant thing you've said here, in a long list of ignorant things. You're saying if I don't belive in jesus, if I subscribe to a different belief, then I must be a satan worshipper? Are you for real? You're certainly a hypcrite.

Oh my god. Where in the heck did you get the idea that I was assuming you were a satan worshipper? Where? Please tell me, because I am confused as to where you could possibly have gotten that idea.

Listen up:

I NEVER CALLED ANYONE HERE A SATAN WORSHIPPER.

I NEVER IMPLIED THAT ANYONE HERE IS A SATAN WORSHIPPER.


Got it?

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

Interesting read...

Thank you. You've just demonstrated what I'm talking about. The bible has parts in it that simply can not be taken literally. The church itself has recognised this and revised some of it's ideologies, etc. It's progress.

Doctor J

"The only reason you wouldn't want to be christened, is if you didn't believe in God, in which case the whole christening would be meaningless for you, so it wouldn't even matter. So it's harmless, either way. Unless you are some kind of Satan-worshipper, in which case I can only laugh at you."

Surely christening is a christian service, no? And if I don't partake in the christian service I musn't believe in god? So why would you bother bring satan worship into it? Who said anything about satan worshipping prior to you?

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

Thank you. You've just demonstrated what I'm talking about. The bible has parts in it that simply can not be taken literally. The church itself has recognised this and revised some of it's ideologies, etc. It's progress.

Yes, it only took 1670 years. I wonder how many "heathens" were burned in the meantime?

Again, I ask, for the third time, who, which authority deems itself worthy enough to decide what parts of the bible are true and what parts are lies.

Ruaidhri

scouser.tommy wrote:

I NEVER CALLED ANYONE HERE A SATAN WORSHIPPER.

I NEVER IMPLIED THAT ANYONE HERE IS A SATAN WORSHIPPER.

you forget to worship satan you first have to accept that god also exists.

i would say this tommy. Religion has been the cause of most conflict. remember the crusades? well google for the children's crusade. you might be a little shocked.

now, since this is the case, that religion incited hatred, dont you think it would be logical, and better for society, to ban the means which incited the hate in the first place?

think about it. one less metric to discriminate against people. a step closer to a rational, peaceful society.

again i apologize for my earlier last comment. i'd appreciate you edit it out of the quote of my post.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

Surely christening is a christian service, no? And if I don't partake in the christian service I musn't believe in god? So why would you bother bring satan worship into it? Who said anything about satan worshipping prior to you?

FFS, I was only joking; I was saying that only some kind of Satan worshipper would really feel "harmed" by being christened. I meant nothing else by it.

Do you understand now what I was saying?

Three of you have called me ignorant because you misunderstood what I said. There was no need for you to go getting so offended, DoctorJ.

Karl Hungus

There is need to be offended. Satanism is a genuine belief, yet you belittle it and think of it as a joke. Yet you're the one getting offended about people not giving your beliefs the respect you want them to. Irony? Or just pure ignorance...

Doctor J

Fair enough, I apologise for the misunderstanding, though I would suggest that saying any non-christian who would irk at being christened is a satan worshipper is a tad generalised, wouldn't you? I can't visualise that many jews who would happily be christened, given that it contradicts their beliefs, yet they do not worship satan (openly anyway).

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

Yes, it only took 1670 years. I wonder how many "heathens" were burned in the meantime?

Again, I ask, for the third time, who, which authority deems itself worthy enough to decide what parts of the bible are true and what parts are lies.

I don't really know.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

For now, we just try to take what we believe to be true, and, more and more, by trial and error, I suppose, we can learn which parts of the bible should be revered, and which ignored. There is no definite rule as of yet.


Yes, "heathens" were burned. What of it? Does that make christianity wrong or something? Do you believe that, say, The church of England, for example, were "evil" for burning witches?

Sarky

Flying Spaghetti Monster tbh.

In the Beginning, He created a mountain, some trees, and a midget.

I have been touched by His noodly appendage.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Karl Hungus wrote:

There is need to be offended. Satanism is a genuine belief, yet you belittle it and think of it as a joke. Yet you're the one getting offended about people not giving your beliefs the respect you want them to. Irony? Or just pure ignorance...

Are you kidding me? I think I can safely say that all Satanists are very foolish people. Satan cannot exist without God. Evil cannot exist without Good. Every quality that allows evil to survive and continue to be evil efficiently, is, in itself, a good quality. Good and Evil are not equal. Evil is but the excess or perversion of what would normally be a good quality. Do you understand now what I'm saying? Satan is LESS than God. This is why people's consciences are naturally inclined toward GOOD. Hence, anyone who follows Satan to the end is a fool. And I don't care if you think I'm "ignorant" for saying that. I have no respect for Satanists.

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

I don't really know.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

For now, we just try to take what we believe to be true, and, more and more, by trial and error, I suppose, we can learn which parts of the bible should be revered, and which ignored. There is no definite rule as of yet.


Yes, "heathens" were burned. What of it? Does that make christianity wrong or something? Do you believe that, say, The church of England, for example, were "evil" for burning witches?

Well given that the texts you base your beliefs on were under the contol of the very people who believed the world to be flat, who tried to expunge all knowledge contradictory to theirs by force, who burned those who would say anything other than their doctrine, who still to this day celebrate masses with golden chalices and golden crosses, who sold indulgences, I would have to question that text. Yes, it was written by men, the same men who twisted it to suit their needs as they saw fit. The very hands of evil have held those texts for 2000 years. Who knows what the texts may have originally said, given the inevitable translation errors and misinterpretations.

As I said, I respect your views and I hope you would learn to respect mine, but I disagree with them, which doesn't mean I have nothing to defend or that I believe in nothing. I just don't believe what you believe. I won't force my beliefs on you. That is where I back out of this thread, the concept of religion and spirituality is for another forum.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

Well given that the texts you base your beliefs on were under the contol of the very people who believed the world to be flat, who tried to expunge all knowledge contradictory to theirs by force, who burned those who would say anything other than their doctrine, who still to this day celebrate masses with golden chalices and golden crosses, who sold indulgences, I would have to question that text. Yes, it was written by men, the same men who twisted it to suit their needs as they saw fit. The very hands of evil have held those texts for 2000 years. Who knows what the texts may have originally said, given the inevitable translation errors and misinterpretations.

As I said, I respect your views and I hope you would learn to respect mine, but I disagree with them, which doesn't mean I have nothing to defend or that I believe in nothing. I just don't believe what you believe. I won't force my beliefs on you. That is where I back out of this thread, the concept of religion and spirituality is for another forum.

That's fair enough, but I just want to clarify that I don't exactly "base" my beliefs on the bible, certainly not in its entirety. The foundation of my beliefs lies in the evidence for the Law of Human Nature, and in the gospel sections of the bible, notably the records of Jesus' life.

Karl Hungus

scouser.tommy wrote:

Are you kidding me? I think I can safely say that all Satanists are very foolish people. Satan cannot exist without God. Evil cannot exist without Good. Every quality that allows evil to survive and continue to be evil efficiently, is, in itself, a good quality. Good and Evil are not equal. Evil is but the excess or perversion of what would normally be a good quality. Do you understand now what I'm saying? Satan is LESS than God. This is why people's consciences are naturally inclined toward GOOD. Hence, anyone who follows Satan to the end is a fool. And I don't care if you think I'm "ignorant" for saying that. I have no respect for Satanists.

Please, you've no knowledge of what Satanism is, nor the beliefs behind it. You're effectively talking out of your hole. Please read this in full.

Ruaidhri

i think we've discovered one of Bubbles alter-ego's

pbsuxok1znja4r

Karl Hungus wrote:

Please, you've no knowledge of what Satanism is, nor the beliefs behind it. You're effectively talking out of your hole. Please read this in full.

To specify: I'm talking about the form of satanism whereby followers worship an actual deity - satan:

Others worship a stricter interpretation of Satan; that of the fallen angel featured in the Christian Bible, believing Him to be correct in his rebellion against God.

In this respect, I'm not talking out of my hole. Not at all.

It wasn't me!

Satanism is far closer to Nihilism than most people realise. It's a belief in what's tangible, and real, not a concept by which to live one's life. In such a way, it's rather empowering for the individual. There are offshoots, as you've seen, but that's not an accurate representation of satanism. I'm not actually a satanist by the way.

Undergod

Well Karl Hungus already pointed out that Satanism dos not mean Satan-worship, so I won't go into that. But Satanism, however much you like or dislike it, is a valid and for the most part, mature and intelligent philosophy. It's based on writings by important intellectuals and philosophers. It's quite influential- and in some cases associated with- schools of anarchist thought.


On the original topic, will the laws about incitement of religous hatred in the UK deport skinheads and Paisleyites along with Islamic fundamentalists? What about Israelis who hate, and preach their hate, of Islam? What about Christians who hate? Hardly

This is a law of convenience to use in the fight against terror- whether that's a good thing or bad thing I don't know- but I don't think music is at risk.

Doctor J

Good point, it will be interesting to see how this is applied up north. I'm sure a lot of the sectarian end-of-terrace paintings up there would definitely have to be reviewed. I mean, can you imagine something like that being left up in a muslim neighbourhood in Bradford?

Undergod

Not for long.