OUTSIDE MOTHER TERESA’S CARE HOME IN GLASGOW
Care home staff plead with an Amnesty International official to rescue them from Mother Teresa
(Image courtesy of Amnesty International)
Hell's Angel
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328391 wrote: Didn’t have to endure the pain?
What distinguished Jesus’s crucifixion from that of the thief in terms of pain, OpenMind? Surely you’re not suggesting that Jesus’s crucifixion was more painful than the one suffered by the thief?
As you probably know, crucifixion was fairly common in the Roman Empire. For example, the Roman general, Marcus Licinius Crassus, crucified around six thousand slaves in response to the Spartacus rebellion.
You don't think there was anything special about Jesus’s crucifixion which set it apart from other crucifixions carried out by the Romans, do you?
What I meant, and I apologise for not expressing it properly, is that pain was not a prerequisite for entering heaven. He didn't even have to aplogise for his sins. Just want to go to paradise. That's all. That's it.
What distinguished Jesus’s crucifixion from that of the thief in terms of pain, OpenMind? Surely you’re not suggesting that Jesus’s crucifixion was more painful than the one suffered by the thief?
As you probably know, crucifixion was fairly common in the Roman Empire. For example, the Roman general, Marcus Licinius Crassus, crucified around six thousand slaves in response to the Spartacus rebellion.
You don't think there was anything special about Jesus’s crucifixion which set it apart from other crucifixions carried out by the Romans, do you?
What I meant, and I apologise for not expressing it properly, is that pain was not a prerequisite for entering heaven. He didn't even have to aplogise for his sins. Just want to go to paradise. That's all. That's it.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
THE ‘HALLMARK’ CARD MUSH OF MOTHER TERESA (No. 3)
Mother Teresa
Nobel Peace Prize Photo (1979)
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
‘Let us always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the beginning of love.’ - Mother Teresa
~o0o~
Mother Teresa
Nobel Peace Prize Photo (1979)
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
‘Let us always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the beginning of love.’ - Mother Teresa
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
Clodhopper;1328292 wrote: His [Jesus's] guidance on how to live has never been bettered, imo.
Never been bettered, Clod?
Can you provide me with an example of Jesus’s guidance on how to live which is in the least bit original? Can you identify a single moral teaching of his which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth - long before it, in fact?
Never been bettered, Clod?
Can you provide me with an example of Jesus’s guidance on how to live which is in the least bit original? Can you identify a single moral teaching of his which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth - long before it, in fact?
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328463 wrote: Never been bettered, Clod?
Can you provide me with an example of Jesus’s guidance on how to live which is in the least bit original? Can you identify a single moral teaching of his which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth?
And what has this to do with being bettered? Can you identify any culture that teaches a better set of morals than Jesus did?
Can you provide me with an example of Jesus’s guidance on how to live which is in the least bit original? Can you identify a single moral teaching of his which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth?
And what has this to do with being bettered? Can you identify any culture that teaches a better set of morals than Jesus did?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1328465 wrote: And what has this to do with being bettered? Can you identify any culture that teaches a better set of morals than Jesus did?
Jesus preached that anyone who did not believe in him and his teachings would be punished with hell and eternal damnation. I would say that any culture which abjures this crass and pernicious teaching represents a moral improvement on Jesus. Don’t you think so, OpenMind? Or do you think that threatening human beings with hell and eternal damnation is morally praiseworthy in a teacher?
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
Jesus preached that anyone who did not believe in him and his teachings would be punished with hell and eternal damnation. I would say that any culture which abjures this crass and pernicious teaching represents a moral improvement on Jesus. Don’t you think so, OpenMind? Or do you think that threatening human beings with hell and eternal damnation is morally praiseworthy in a teacher?
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Hell's Angel
What has originality to do with it?
I am very selective about the Bible. The Old Testament is only of interest as the tribal tales of the Israelites. From the New Testament, I take what I think was Jesus' intention as expressed by him, and ignore the stuff that doesn't fit - probably because it was added later by others with an agenda. Paul, for one. No-one else has to agree with me. I do not regard this as a scholastic process, more an emotional one. And it's pretty much summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself". Can't say I succeed. But I do try. Mostly. Most of the time.
Strip out the death and damnation and you have someone talking remarkable sense about how to live.
I am very selective about the Bible. The Old Testament is only of interest as the tribal tales of the Israelites. From the New Testament, I take what I think was Jesus' intention as expressed by him, and ignore the stuff that doesn't fit - probably because it was added later by others with an agenda. Paul, for one. No-one else has to agree with me. I do not regard this as a scholastic process, more an emotional one. And it's pretty much summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself". Can't say I succeed. But I do try. Mostly. Most of the time.
Strip out the death and damnation and you have someone talking remarkable sense about how to live.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328478 wrote: Jesus preached that anyone who did not believe in him and his teachings would be punished with hell and eternal damnation. I would say that any culture which abjures this crass and pernicious teaching represents a moral improvement on Jesus. Don’t you think so, OpenMind? Or do you think that threatening human beings with hell and eternal damnation is morally praiseworthy in a teacher?
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
I'm not sure that Jesus actually did preach such a thing. Perhaps one of his disciples did.
The Christian faith was founded on the teachings of Jesus, so, naturally, it would be somewhat of an advantage if Christian adherents actually believed in the guy.
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
I'm not sure that Jesus actually did preach such a thing. Perhaps one of his disciples did.
The Christian faith was founded on the teachings of Jesus, so, naturally, it would be somewhat of an advantage if Christian adherents actually believed in the guy.
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328478 wrote: Jesus preached that anyone who did not believe in him and his teachings would be punished with hell and eternal damnation. I would say that any culture which abjures this crass and pernicious teaching represents a moral improvement on Jesus. Don’t you think so, OpenMind? Or do you think that threatening human beings with hell and eternal damnation is morally praiseworthy in a teacher?
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
Cos it just is. Do you want to start a war? You also have to believe he was a god but since there is only one true god he must be the same god that made himself. Even though god created or begot his son which makes him a created being and therefore not a god and he was born of woman and we all know god was and ever shall be so why did he make himself again and need a woman to do it?
But you've not to think like that because that is bad and you will go to hell for thinking it and there are many christians who will send you on your way for daring to think about it. There are some who are not really christians who will also send you on your way but they're not really christians because they have have strayed from the one true path.
Why do you have to ask why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in? What else is there to fight about - if you preach love thy neighbour and do unto others etc etc and actually did that you wouldn't need to go to war because we would all be living happily together settling differences amicably. You weren't put on this earth to be happy - we don't know god's purpose but being happy and kind to others means you have no sins to be guilty about so it can't be that.
By the way, why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in?
Cos it just is. Do you want to start a war? You also have to believe he was a god but since there is only one true god he must be the same god that made himself. Even though god created or begot his son which makes him a created being and therefore not a god and he was born of woman and we all know god was and ever shall be so why did he make himself again and need a woman to do it?
But you've not to think like that because that is bad and you will go to hell for thinking it and there are many christians who will send you on your way for daring to think about it. There are some who are not really christians who will also send you on your way but they're not really christians because they have have strayed from the one true path.
Why do you have to ask why was it so important for Jesus to be believed in? What else is there to fight about - if you preach love thy neighbour and do unto others etc etc and actually did that you wouldn't need to go to war because we would all be living happily together settling differences amicably. You weren't put on this earth to be happy - we don't know god's purpose but being happy and kind to others means you have no sins to be guilty about so it can't be that.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
Clodhopper;1328493 wrote: What has originality to do with it?
According to you, Clod, Jesus's guidance on how to live has never been bettered. But Jesus’s guidance on how to live was wholly lacking in originality. He never produced a single moral teaching which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth. In other words, there was nothing new about his moral teachings, nothing about them which could be construed in any way as being superior to what had gone before. What Jesus did was merely regurgitate the moral teachings of others who were more gifted thinkers than he was in this respect. For he was incapable of coming up with any of his own. Therefore, the most that can be said of his moral teachings is that they were on a par with the moral teachings which antedated him. For they were certainly no better than them.
Leaving aside Jesus’s neurotic need to be believed in - as well as being a completely unoriginal thinker in the morals department, Jesus was not all that dazzling as a prophet either, was he? I mean, he proclaimed that the existing order of things would be replaced by the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth before the generation of his listeners had passed away. Talk about being spectacularly wrong!
Jesus’s howler has given rise to the most grotesque displays of mental acrobatics by Christian apologists seeking to explain it away. Perhaps you are tempted to perform similar acrobatics here as well, Clod? If so, then I must ask you to do the decent thing. I must ask you to show some good taste, and refrain from this shameful exercise.
According to you, Clod, Jesus's guidance on how to live has never been bettered. But Jesus’s guidance on how to live was wholly lacking in originality. He never produced a single moral teaching which could not already be found in a wide variety of cultures before his birth. In other words, there was nothing new about his moral teachings, nothing about them which could be construed in any way as being superior to what had gone before. What Jesus did was merely regurgitate the moral teachings of others who were more gifted thinkers than he was in this respect. For he was incapable of coming up with any of his own. Therefore, the most that can be said of his moral teachings is that they were on a par with the moral teachings which antedated him. For they were certainly no better than them.
Leaving aside Jesus’s neurotic need to be believed in - as well as being a completely unoriginal thinker in the morals department, Jesus was not all that dazzling as a prophet either, was he? I mean, he proclaimed that the existing order of things would be replaced by the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth before the generation of his listeners had passed away. Talk about being spectacularly wrong!
Jesus’s howler has given rise to the most grotesque displays of mental acrobatics by Christian apologists seeking to explain it away. Perhaps you are tempted to perform similar acrobatics here as well, Clod? If so, then I must ask you to do the decent thing. I must ask you to show some good taste, and refrain from this shameful exercise.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1328553 wrote: You also have to believe he [Jesus] was a god but since there is only one true god he must be the same god that made himself.
This sounds rather like an elephant jumping through its own arsehole, gmc.
Are such things possible?
This sounds rather like an elephant jumping through its own arsehole, gmc.
Are such things possible?
Hell's Angel
posted by glaswegian
Leaving aside Jesus’s neurotic need to be believed in - as well as being a completely unoriginal thinker in the morals department, Jesus was not all that dazzling as a prophet either, was he? I mean, he proclaimed that the existing order of things would be replaced by the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth before the generation of his listeners had passed away. Talk about being spectacularly wrong!
So he believe he was a real person then? Course we don't know what he actually said all we have are reports written by someone else. We also know the early church deliberately destroyed many of the writings because they didn't fit in with their creed. Perhaps he did say the existing order would be replaced by the establishment of god's kingdom, perhaps he didn't. All we know is what those who sought power on earth wanted you to believe.
The morality he taught is pretty basic though you can find plenty who believe you can only be a moral person if you believe in god.
Leaving aside Jesus’s neurotic need to be believed in - as well as being a completely unoriginal thinker in the morals department, Jesus was not all that dazzling as a prophet either, was he? I mean, he proclaimed that the existing order of things would be replaced by the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth before the generation of his listeners had passed away. Talk about being spectacularly wrong!
So he believe he was a real person then? Course we don't know what he actually said all we have are reports written by someone else. We also know the early church deliberately destroyed many of the writings because they didn't fit in with their creed. Perhaps he did say the existing order would be replaced by the establishment of god's kingdom, perhaps he didn't. All we know is what those who sought power on earth wanted you to believe.
The morality he taught is pretty basic though you can find plenty who believe you can only be a moral person if you believe in god.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
Clodhopper;1328493 wrote: I am very selective about the Bible. The Old Testament is only of interest as the tribal tales of the Israelites. From the New Testament, I take what I think was Jesus' intention as expressed by him, and ignore the stuff that doesn't fit - probably because it was added later by others with an agenda. Paul, for one. No-one else has to agree with me. I do not regard this as a scholastic process, more an emotional one. And it's pretty much summed up in "Love your neighbour as yourself". Can't say I succeed. But I do try. Mostly. Most of the time.
Strip out the death and damnation and you have someone talking remarkable sense about how to live.
I’m sure you find Jesus’s teachings about hell and damnation just as crass and pernicious as I do, Clod, and this is the reason why you prefer to strip them out. I’m sure you also know why you find these teachings crass and pernicious. It is because you are examining them against a set of moral criteria which exists independently of the Bible, isn’t it? This set of moral criteria is generally called ‘the moral values of Secular Humanism’, and these moral values largely grew out of the Enlightenment - in reaction to Religion - and now hold sway in liberal democracies like our own. I think you would agree that the moral values of Secular Humanism are the ones which rational and civilized human beings tend to operate with.
When the Bible is held up against Secular Humanist moral values a great deal of it is found to be vile and revolting. This is because it is being held up against a superior moral code - a more humane moral code - which is our birthright thanks to the Enlightenment. This is why you are necessarily selective about the Bible, Clod. You cannot help but reject the vile and revolting things in it because they are an affront to your entire moral sensibility.
Strip out the death and damnation and you have someone talking remarkable sense about how to live.
I’m sure you find Jesus’s teachings about hell and damnation just as crass and pernicious as I do, Clod, and this is the reason why you prefer to strip them out. I’m sure you also know why you find these teachings crass and pernicious. It is because you are examining them against a set of moral criteria which exists independently of the Bible, isn’t it? This set of moral criteria is generally called ‘the moral values of Secular Humanism’, and these moral values largely grew out of the Enlightenment - in reaction to Religion - and now hold sway in liberal democracies like our own. I think you would agree that the moral values of Secular Humanism are the ones which rational and civilized human beings tend to operate with.
When the Bible is held up against Secular Humanist moral values a great deal of it is found to be vile and revolting. This is because it is being held up against a superior moral code - a more humane moral code - which is our birthright thanks to the Enlightenment. This is why you are necessarily selective about the Bible, Clod. You cannot help but reject the vile and revolting things in it because they are an affront to your entire moral sensibility.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1328536 wrote: I'm not sure that Jesus actually did preach such a thing. Perhaps one of his disciples did.
Be sure of it, OpenMind, Jesus did preach hell and eternal damnation. He said:
‘The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man…the good seed stand for the children of the Kingdom, the chaff for the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed the chaff is the devil. The harvest is the end of time…[At] the end of time the Son of Man will send out his angels, who will gather out of his kingdom…all whose deeds are evil, and these will be thrown into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Matthew 13: 37-42
OpenMind wrote: The Christian faith was founded on the teachings of Jesus, so, naturally, it would be somewhat of an advantage if Christian adherents actually believed in the guy.
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
Be sure of it, OpenMind, Jesus did preach hell and eternal damnation. He said:
‘The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man…the good seed stand for the children of the Kingdom, the chaff for the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed the chaff is the devil. The harvest is the end of time…[At] the end of time the Son of Man will send out his angels, who will gather out of his kingdom…all whose deeds are evil, and these will be thrown into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Matthew 13: 37-42
OpenMind wrote: The Christian faith was founded on the teachings of Jesus, so, naturally, it would be somewhat of an advantage if Christian adherents actually believed in the guy.
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328722 wrote: Be sure of it, OpenMind, Jesus did preach hell and eternal damnation. He said:
‘The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man…the good seed stand for the children of the Kingdom, the chaff for the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed the chaff is the devil. The harvest is the end of time…[At] the end of time the Son of Man will send out his angels, who will gather out of his kingdom…all whose deeds are evil, and these will be thrown into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Matthew 13: 37-42
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
You are right in one instance about hell and damnation from Jesus. though I had to look it up. He used the term 'hell' 15 times one of which included 'hell and damnation'.
He isn't actually demanding that people follow him. He gives them the choice.
As for your last question, I can't really truthfully answer that as I am not an adherent of Christianity and I do not subscribe to the Christian God. I have not argued for the faith, I have only argued as to what has been written in the Bible.
The only breason I have a copy of the Bible at all is because my Grandparents adopted me at the age of 8 and christened me shortly after. My godparents gave me a copy of the Bible. Even at that age, I could see a lot of anomolies in it.
‘The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man…the good seed stand for the children of the Kingdom, the chaff for the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed the chaff is the devil. The harvest is the end of time…[At] the end of time the Son of Man will send out his angels, who will gather out of his kingdom…all whose deeds are evil, and these will be thrown into the blazing furnace, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Matthew 13: 37-42
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
You are right in one instance about hell and damnation from Jesus. though I had to look it up. He used the term 'hell' 15 times one of which included 'hell and damnation'.
He isn't actually demanding that people follow him. He gives them the choice.
As for your last question, I can't really truthfully answer that as I am not an adherent of Christianity and I do not subscribe to the Christian God. I have not argued for the faith, I have only argued as to what has been written in the Bible.
The only breason I have a copy of the Bible at all is because my Grandparents adopted me at the age of 8 and christened me shortly after. My godparents gave me a copy of the Bible. Even at that age, I could see a lot of anomolies in it.
Hell's Angel
posted by glaswegian
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
So you do think he was real person. Can you prove that was an accurate report of his words and not merely words put in his mouth for the benefit of those propagating his faith? After all believe in jesus he's a good man with some good ideas is nowhere near as exciting as believe in jesus or go to hell.
Jesus’s demand to be believed in was not only placed on his contemporaries by him. Nor was it confined to later Christians. Jesus demanded that everyone believe in him. Viz.
'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14:6)
This is a rather megalomaniacal claim, isn’t it? Do you think Jesus’s claim that he was the only route to God is true, OpenMind?
So you do think he was real person. Can you prove that was an accurate report of his words and not merely words put in his mouth for the benefit of those propagating his faith? After all believe in jesus he's a good man with some good ideas is nowhere near as exciting as believe in jesus or go to hell.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1328741 wrote: Can you prove that was an accurate report of his [Jesus's] words and not merely words put in his mouth for the benefit of those propagating his faith?
There are Christians who actually believe that the four Gospels are eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life and death. They are unaware that these four tales were composed decades after Jesus was despatched by the Romans. (By the way, the Romans did not allow crucified criminals the dignity of a private tomb. They were thrown unceremoniously into a public pit.) Until these tales had been written down, they were passed along orally by generations of illiterate and superstitious yokels. I don’t have to tell you how quickly a tale becomes transformed as it makes its way through a mere roomful of people - even when these people are extremely rational and intelligent. So just imagine how grossly distorted and fantastically embellished the tales about Jesus became as a result of oozing through the benighted brains of innumerable ignoramuses.
I’m sure when you’ve read the four Gospels you must have noticed the following motif occurring ad nauseam: Jesus does something in order that some Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled. Or Jesus himself represents the fulfilment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey so that Zechariah’s prophecy about the Messiah being mounted on an ass is fulfilled; Jesus is designated as born in Bethlehem so that Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah being born in the city of David is fulfilled. Etc., etc., etc.. If you feel suspicious about just how perfectly and seamlessly Jesus’s life fits in with all these prophecies then you are right to be suspicious. For what you are witnessing in the four Gospels is a process of reverse-engineering in which the life of Jesus is written up in hindsight so that it ties in exactly with the Messianic prophecies.
Now, when the Christian beholds this blatant fabrication job knocked together by the Gospel writers what does he do? He gushes in awe: ‘The life of Jesus fits the ancient prophecies like a glove. He must be the one foretold of. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah and I believe in him!‘
But we should not be surprised by the Christian’s response. For when it comes to his religion, the Christian's critical faculties are simply not there. They have been supplanted by infantile and emotional needs.
There are Christians who actually believe that the four Gospels are eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life and death. They are unaware that these four tales were composed decades after Jesus was despatched by the Romans. (By the way, the Romans did not allow crucified criminals the dignity of a private tomb. They were thrown unceremoniously into a public pit.) Until these tales had been written down, they were passed along orally by generations of illiterate and superstitious yokels. I don’t have to tell you how quickly a tale becomes transformed as it makes its way through a mere roomful of people - even when these people are extremely rational and intelligent. So just imagine how grossly distorted and fantastically embellished the tales about Jesus became as a result of oozing through the benighted brains of innumerable ignoramuses.
I’m sure when you’ve read the four Gospels you must have noticed the following motif occurring ad nauseam: Jesus does something in order that some Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled. Or Jesus himself represents the fulfilment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey so that Zechariah’s prophecy about the Messiah being mounted on an ass is fulfilled; Jesus is designated as born in Bethlehem so that Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah being born in the city of David is fulfilled. Etc., etc., etc.. If you feel suspicious about just how perfectly and seamlessly Jesus’s life fits in with all these prophecies then you are right to be suspicious. For what you are witnessing in the four Gospels is a process of reverse-engineering in which the life of Jesus is written up in hindsight so that it ties in exactly with the Messianic prophecies.
Now, when the Christian beholds this blatant fabrication job knocked together by the Gospel writers what does he do? He gushes in awe: ‘The life of Jesus fits the ancient prophecies like a glove. He must be the one foretold of. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah and I believe in him!‘
But we should not be surprised by the Christian’s response. For when it comes to his religion, the Christian's critical faculties are simply not there. They have been supplanted by infantile and emotional needs.
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328807 wrote: There are Christians who actually believe that the four Gospels are eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life and death. They are unaware that these four tales were composed decades after Jesus was despatched by the Romans. (By the way, the Romans did not allow crucified criminals the dignity of a private tomb. They were thrown unceremoniously into a public pit.) Until these tales had been written down, they were passed along orally by generations of illiterate and superstitious yokels. I don’t have to tell you how quickly a tale becomes transformed as it makes its way through a mere roomful of people - even when these people are extremely rational and intelligent. So just imagine how grossly distorted and fantastically embellished the tales about Jesus became as a result of oozing through the benighted brains of innumerable ignoramuses.
I’m sure when you’ve read the four Gospels you must have noticed the following motif occurring ad nauseam: Jesus does something in order that some Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled. Or Jesus himself represents the fulfilment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey so that Zechariah’s prophecy about the Messiah being mounted on an ass is fulfilled; Jesus is designated as born in Bethlehem so that Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah being born in the city of David is fulfilled. Etc., etc., etc.. If you feel suspicious about just how perfectly and seamlessly Jesus’s life fits in with all these prophecies then you are right to be suspicious. For what you are witnessing in the four Gospels is a process of reverse-engineering in which the life of Jesus is written up in hindsight so that it ties in exactly with the Messianic prophecies.
Now, when the Christian beholds this blatant fabrication job knocked together by the Gospel writers what does he do? He gushes in awe: ‘The life of Jesus fits the ancient prophecies like a glove. He must be the one foretold of. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah and I believe in him!‘
But we should not be surprised by the Christian’s response. For when it comes to his religion, the Christian's critical faculties are simply not there. They have been supplanted by infantile and emotional needs.
You've given this some thought then, Gaswegian.
I’m sure when you’ve read the four Gospels you must have noticed the following motif occurring ad nauseam: Jesus does something in order that some Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled. Or Jesus himself represents the fulfilment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey so that Zechariah’s prophecy about the Messiah being mounted on an ass is fulfilled; Jesus is designated as born in Bethlehem so that Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah being born in the city of David is fulfilled. Etc., etc., etc.. If you feel suspicious about just how perfectly and seamlessly Jesus’s life fits in with all these prophecies then you are right to be suspicious. For what you are witnessing in the four Gospels is a process of reverse-engineering in which the life of Jesus is written up in hindsight so that it ties in exactly with the Messianic prophecies.
Now, when the Christian beholds this blatant fabrication job knocked together by the Gospel writers what does he do? He gushes in awe: ‘The life of Jesus fits the ancient prophecies like a glove. He must be the one foretold of. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah and I believe in him!‘
But we should not be surprised by the Christian’s response. For when it comes to his religion, the Christian's critical faculties are simply not there. They have been supplanted by infantile and emotional needs.
You've given this some thought then, Gaswegian.
Hell's Angel
I don't have any references to hand, so please don't quote me, but as I understand it, the New testament was brought together by the Romans because they otherwise had no control over the people who were spreading the teachings of Jesus.
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
The New Testament, at best, is incomplete. By comparison, the Old Testament is probably a more reliable record.
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
The New Testament, at best, is incomplete. By comparison, the Old Testament is probably a more reliable record.
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1328850 wrote: I don't have any references to hand, so please don't quote me, but as I understand it, the New testament was brought together by the Romans because they otherwise had no control over the people who were spreading the teachings of Jesus.
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
The New Testament, at best, is incomplete. By comparison, the Old Testament is probably a more reliable record.
Allow me to help elucidate
YouTube - Fables and Facts about the King James Bible (part 1)
You do know of course that King James was a gay Scotsman of course - and catholic. Those facts alone would prevent it's publication in some quarters nowadays. Doesn't detract from the words of course but it annoys fundamentalist born again Christians when you point it out.
Apparently there are plans afoot to remove the liberal bias of the bible.
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia
Building a More Conservative Bible | Right Wing Watch
Could be apocryphal of course but you never know. If god inspires you then why not re-write the bible to correct errors. After all he inspired all those gospel writers and translators who came before so what you want to change must come from god as do all things.
Sing along time
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
The New Testament, at best, is incomplete. By comparison, the Old Testament is probably a more reliable record.
Allow me to help elucidate
YouTube - Fables and Facts about the King James Bible (part 1)
You do know of course that King James was a gay Scotsman of course - and catholic. Those facts alone would prevent it's publication in some quarters nowadays. Doesn't detract from the words of course but it annoys fundamentalist born again Christians when you point it out.
Apparently there are plans afoot to remove the liberal bias of the bible.
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia
Building a More Conservative Bible | Right Wing Watch
Could be apocryphal of course but you never know. If god inspires you then why not re-write the bible to correct errors. After all he inspired all those gospel writers and translators who came before so what you want to change must come from god as do all things.
Sing along time
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1328850 wrote: I don't have any references to hand, so please don't quote me, but as I understand it, the New testament was brought together by the Romans because they otherwise had no control over the people who were spreading the teachings of Jesus.
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
Yes, OpenMind. This is it pretty much in a nutshell.
The Council of Nicaea was convened by the emperor Constantine in 325 AD in order to end squabbling between different Christian groups over what was to count as orthodoxy within the Church. At this time, the Roman Empire had been ravaged by a succession of political and military conflicts. Therefore, Constantine could not afford further conflict breaking out in the form of Christian warring factions. The directive which the emperor issued to the bishops at the Council of Nicaea was basically this: ‘Get your act together now!’ The formulation of the New Testament canon had nothing to do with 'Divine inspiration'. It had everything to do with political expediency.
Prior to Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, the followers of this religion belonged in the main to the lowest groups within the Empire. In the wake of his conversion, however, Christianity began to filter up through the Roman class structure because members of the more socially and economically powerful groups felt it was politic to embrace the emperor‘s new religion. Under Constantine, mass conversions to Christianity by whole towns and cities often occurred - ’Just like that!’, as a comedian used to say. Furthermore, as Christianity became increasingly wedded to the Roman state during Constantine’s reign, many ambitious individuals from the educated classes viewed this religion as a useful tool for gaining access to positions of power and influence, and went for it too.
The Romans, as we know, were egolomaniacical and didn't like not being in control. So, they decide to promote the idea themselves and take control. They grabbed the current proponents of the Christian cause and, needing nothing more than the promise of having their words put into print, formed the New Testament. So, hey, we beget Roman Catholocism. And what evil can we acredit to this movement.
Yes, OpenMind. This is it pretty much in a nutshell.
The Council of Nicaea was convened by the emperor Constantine in 325 AD in order to end squabbling between different Christian groups over what was to count as orthodoxy within the Church. At this time, the Roman Empire had been ravaged by a succession of political and military conflicts. Therefore, Constantine could not afford further conflict breaking out in the form of Christian warring factions. The directive which the emperor issued to the bishops at the Council of Nicaea was basically this: ‘Get your act together now!’ The formulation of the New Testament canon had nothing to do with 'Divine inspiration'. It had everything to do with political expediency.
Prior to Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, the followers of this religion belonged in the main to the lowest groups within the Empire. In the wake of his conversion, however, Christianity began to filter up through the Roman class structure because members of the more socially and economically powerful groups felt it was politic to embrace the emperor‘s new religion. Under Constantine, mass conversions to Christianity by whole towns and cities often occurred - ’Just like that!’, as a comedian used to say. Furthermore, as Christianity became increasingly wedded to the Roman state during Constantine’s reign, many ambitious individuals from the educated classes viewed this religion as a useful tool for gaining access to positions of power and influence, and went for it too.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1328919 wrote: You do know of course that King James was a gay Scotsman
Does this mean, gmc, that after praying King James preferred to say, 'Ah, men!' instead of 'Amen' ?
Does this mean, gmc, that after praying King James preferred to say, 'Ah, men!' instead of 'Amen' ?
Hell's Angel
gmc;1328919 wrote: Allow me to help elucidate
YouTube - Fables and Facts about the King James Bible (part 1)
You do know of course that King James was a gay Scotsman of course - and catholic. Those facts alone would prevent it's publication in some quarters nowadays. Doesn't detract from the words of course but it annoys fundamentalist born again Christians when you point it out.
Apparently there are plans afoot to remove the liberal bias of the bible.
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia
Building a More Conservative Bible | Right Wing Watch
Could be apocryphal of course but you never know. If god inspires you then why not re-write the bible to correct errors. After all he inspired all those gospel writers and translators who came before so what you want to change must come from god as do all things.
Sing along time
YouTube - Tribute To The King James Bible
According to a book I have about the King James II bible, the king got an equal number each of Catholics and Protestants together to complile the version we now have today.
YouTube - Fables and Facts about the King James Bible (part 1)
You do know of course that King James was a gay Scotsman of course - and catholic. Those facts alone would prevent it's publication in some quarters nowadays. Doesn't detract from the words of course but it annoys fundamentalist born again Christians when you point it out.
Apparently there are plans afoot to remove the liberal bias of the bible.
Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia
Building a More Conservative Bible | Right Wing Watch
Could be apocryphal of course but you never know. If god inspires you then why not re-write the bible to correct errors. After all he inspired all those gospel writers and translators who came before so what you want to change must come from god as do all things.
Sing along time
YouTube - Tribute To The King James Bible
According to a book I have about the King James II bible, the king got an equal number each of Catholics and Protestants together to complile the version we now have today.
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1328928 wrote: According to a book I have about the King James II bible, the king got an equal number each of Catholics and Protestants together to compile the version we now have today.
He did, but you need to make up your own mind about these things. Squabbling about which version is correct is a bit like arguing about the correct shape for the candles. They all throw light on a subject - does the shape really matter? Clearly it does to some.
I posted that link, alongside it are dozens of debates on the subject, knock yourself out.
Posted by glaswegian
Does this mean, gmc, that after praying King James preferred to say, 'Ah, men!' instead of 'Amen' ?
There are various response to that but I've decided not to use any of them as I fear it would seriously lower the tone of the thread.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Sorry, but they would have been funny. You've no idea what you missed.
He did, but you need to make up your own mind about these things. Squabbling about which version is correct is a bit like arguing about the correct shape for the candles. They all throw light on a subject - does the shape really matter? Clearly it does to some.
I posted that link, alongside it are dozens of debates on the subject, knock yourself out.
Posted by glaswegian
Does this mean, gmc, that after praying King James preferred to say, 'Ah, men!' instead of 'Amen' ?
There are various response to that but I've decided not to use any of them as I fear it would seriously lower the tone of the thread.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Sorry, but they would have been funny. You've no idea what you missed.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1328964 wrote: Squabbling about which version is correct is a bit like arguing about the correct shape for the candles. They all throw light on a subject - does the shape really matter? Clearly it does to some.
It certainly did to Mother Teresa. She was very particular about the correct shape for the candles she liked to use. This foible stayed with her until the grave. Viz.
DETAIL FROM MOTHER TERESA’S TOMB
Mother Teresa liked her candles a certain shape
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Private Collection)
It certainly did to Mother Teresa. She was very particular about the correct shape for the candles she liked to use. This foible stayed with her until the grave. Viz.
DETAIL FROM MOTHER TERESA’S TOMB
Mother Teresa liked her candles a certain shape
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Private Collection)
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1328972 wrote: It certainly did to Mother Teresa. She was very particular about the correct shape for the candles she liked to use. This foible stayed with her until the grave. Viz.
DETAIL FROM MOTHER TERESA’S TOMB
Mother Teresa liked her candles a certain shape
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Private Collection)
In retrospect I regret the candle analogy. I hadn't thought of quite that context it was more that arguing about the form was rather missing the point of the candle which was to give light. Just as the different cults go to war over their differences rather concentrate on what unites them.
It's like row of houses all painted white - but the neighbours fight over who has the correct shade of white and then turn on anyone that points out they are all being a bit silly.
You really have it in for the catholic church don't you. Protestants set fire to catholics with much the same enthusiasm as catholics killed and tortured protestants
DETAIL FROM MOTHER TERESA’S TOMB
Mother Teresa liked her candles a certain shape
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Private Collection)
In retrospect I regret the candle analogy. I hadn't thought of quite that context it was more that arguing about the form was rather missing the point of the candle which was to give light. Just as the different cults go to war over their differences rather concentrate on what unites them.
It's like row of houses all painted white - but the neighbours fight over who has the correct shade of white and then turn on anyone that points out they are all being a bit silly.
You really have it in for the catholic church don't you. Protestants set fire to catholics with much the same enthusiasm as catholics killed and tortured protestants
Hell's Angel
At the end of the day, people with or given power within any religious order, have used their religion to exact the most heinous crimes on people. They want to control people rather than let them have freedom. The same, of course, can be said of non-religious people with power.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc wrote: You really have it in for the catholic church don't you.
No, gmc. I am completely unprejudiced regarding Christian denominations. I despise them all equally.
gmc;1328919 wrote: Sing along time
YouTube - Tribute To The King James Bible
Watching this video about the King James Bible made me think of a former governor of Texas who, on being asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied: ‘If English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.’
N.B. The governor was not joking.
No, gmc. I am completely unprejudiced regarding Christian denominations. I despise them all equally.
gmc;1328919 wrote: Sing along time
YouTube - Tribute To The King James Bible
Watching this video about the King James Bible made me think of a former governor of Texas who, on being asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied: ‘If English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.’
N.B. The governor was not joking.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1325616 wrote: So Glaswegian, when the pope visits will you be out on the streets protesting?
THE ARCHBISHOP OF GLASGOW
Rev. Mario Joseph Conti
Overjoyed by news of Pope’s visit to Glasgow
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF GLASGOW
Rev. Mario Joseph Conti
Overjoyed by news of Pope’s visit to Glasgow
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329014 wrote: No, gmc. I am completely unprejudiced regarding Christian denominations. I despise them all equally.
Watching this video about the King James Bible made me think of a former governor of Texas who, on being asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied: ‘If English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.’
N.B. The governor was not joking.
That tale was apocryphal was it not?
big·ot
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
It's not just religious bigots you get. I understand where you are coming from but when you shout at people they stop listening. You go at it with all the demented fervour of the religious zealot - you won't go to hell if you listen to me because it doesn't exist. It does I've been to glasgow, the cultural centre is doubly appreciated after driving through the outskirts.
I can't get a handle on how dangerous the religious right in america is. Luckily here they aren't getting anywhere.
Scottish Christian Party
Donald thinks that the recent equality legislation will divide society further as different groups clamour for their rights to be paramount. He looks to the lessons of British history which led to the establishment of parliamentary democracy, the clarifying of the relationship of Church and state through Scottish Covenanting times and the 19th century Disruption. These lessons are being forgotten by our surveillance society, spying on its citizens instead of promoting neighbourliness through gracious influence. He looks in vain for parliamentarians "to fix broken Britain" with the Christian courage of William Wilberforce, who abolished the slave trade against powerful vested interests.
How that's for a breathtaking let's ignore the lessons of history and restore religion to it's proper place. He probably thinks bonnie prince charlie is a misunderstood character and the battle of the boyne where chrisrian slaughtered christian, not to mention all the other wars of religion as the godly clung to power didn't happen.
What ended slavery in british colonies was sugar beet. The plantation owners lost their income and couldn't bribe enough MP's to stop it being abolished.
1833 Abolition of Slavery Act
Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.
So much for christian values and the claim that's what ended the slave trade and slavery. Who would have thought - the church of england owned slaves.
Yet they are gentle and reasonable and almost sane compared to the nutters on god TV, if they can raise millions imagine what they could do if they entered politics.
Watching this video about the King James Bible made me think of a former governor of Texas who, on being asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied: ‘If English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.’
N.B. The governor was not joking.
That tale was apocryphal was it not?
big·ot
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
It's not just religious bigots you get. I understand where you are coming from but when you shout at people they stop listening. You go at it with all the demented fervour of the religious zealot - you won't go to hell if you listen to me because it doesn't exist. It does I've been to glasgow, the cultural centre is doubly appreciated after driving through the outskirts.
I can't get a handle on how dangerous the religious right in america is. Luckily here they aren't getting anywhere.
Scottish Christian Party
Donald thinks that the recent equality legislation will divide society further as different groups clamour for their rights to be paramount. He looks to the lessons of British history which led to the establishment of parliamentary democracy, the clarifying of the relationship of Church and state through Scottish Covenanting times and the 19th century Disruption. These lessons are being forgotten by our surveillance society, spying on its citizens instead of promoting neighbourliness through gracious influence. He looks in vain for parliamentarians "to fix broken Britain" with the Christian courage of William Wilberforce, who abolished the slave trade against powerful vested interests.
How that's for a breathtaking let's ignore the lessons of history and restore religion to it's proper place. He probably thinks bonnie prince charlie is a misunderstood character and the battle of the boyne where chrisrian slaughtered christian, not to mention all the other wars of religion as the godly clung to power didn't happen.
What ended slavery in british colonies was sugar beet. The plantation owners lost their income and couldn't bribe enough MP's to stop it being abolished.
1833 Abolition of Slavery Act
Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.
So much for christian values and the claim that's what ended the slave trade and slavery. Who would have thought - the church of england owned slaves.
Yet they are gentle and reasonable and almost sane compared to the nutters on god TV, if they can raise millions imagine what they could do if they entered politics.
Hell's Angel
OK This is funny, but only because it's NOT satire
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
IF ATHEISTS RULED THE WORLD
‘Let me see if I could paint you a little picture…you know…if atheists ruled the world.'
So an atheist son comes home to his mom:
“Hi mom.â€
“Hey son!â€
And the son would probably say something like:
“Hey mom, I’m gonna go fu*k a hooker.â€
“No problem, son. Don’t be home late.â€
“Oh, I might be because then I’m gonna go smoke pot with my friends since it’s not addictive.â€
“Fine with me, son.â€
And then the atheist dad would come home and say:
“Hi honey.â€
“Hey!â€
“How’s your day?â€
“Oh, I’m pregnant again. Looks like I’m gonna have to get another abortion…since foetuses aren’t actual human life.â€
"No problem, honey. Get as many abortions as you like."
“Okay, I will…Oh, don’t go into the bedroom because there are two gay men fu*king in there.â€
“Why are the gay men there, honey?â€
“Because I wanted to watch the gay men.â€
“Oh, that’s fine with me.â€
And then probably an atheist neighbour would run in and say:
“Quick. There’s a Christian outside.’
“Oh, we’re coming.â€
And then they would grab their black robes and their hoods, and they would run into the street where a Christian would probably be nailed to a big wooden ’X’ being burned at the stake, surrounded by atheists in their hoods and robes, saying:
“Die Christian! Die!…We claim to be tolerant of all religions except yours. We hate you because we’re atheists. And we’re hypocritical like that. Because we’re atheists.â€
‘Scary, isn’t it.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc;1329138 wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
Tell me, gmc: what is the colour of your atheist robe and hood?
‘Let me see if I could paint you a little picture…you know…if atheists ruled the world.'
So an atheist son comes home to his mom:
“Hi mom.â€
“Hey son!â€
And the son would probably say something like:
“Hey mom, I’m gonna go fu*k a hooker.â€
“No problem, son. Don’t be home late.â€
“Oh, I might be because then I’m gonna go smoke pot with my friends since it’s not addictive.â€
“Fine with me, son.â€
And then the atheist dad would come home and say:
“Hi honey.â€
“Hey!â€
“How’s your day?â€
“Oh, I’m pregnant again. Looks like I’m gonna have to get another abortion…since foetuses aren’t actual human life.â€
"No problem, honey. Get as many abortions as you like."
“Okay, I will…Oh, don’t go into the bedroom because there are two gay men fu*king in there.â€
“Why are the gay men there, honey?â€
“Because I wanted to watch the gay men.â€
“Oh, that’s fine with me.â€
And then probably an atheist neighbour would run in and say:
“Quick. There’s a Christian outside.’
“Oh, we’re coming.â€
And then they would grab their black robes and their hoods, and they would run into the street where a Christian would probably be nailed to a big wooden ’X’ being burned at the stake, surrounded by atheists in their hoods and robes, saying:
“Die Christian! Die!…We claim to be tolerant of all religions except yours. We hate you because we’re atheists. And we’re hypocritical like that. Because we’re atheists.â€
‘Scary, isn’t it.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc;1329138 wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
Tell me, gmc: what is the colour of your atheist robe and hood?
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329176 wrote: IF ATHEISTS RULED THE WORLD
‘Let me see if I could paint you a little picture…you know…if atheists ruled the world.'
So an atheist son comes home to his mom:
“Hi mom.â€
“Hey son!â€
And the son would probably say something like:
“Hey mom, I’m gonna go fu*k a hooker.â€
“No problem, son. Don’t be home late.â€
“Oh, I might be because then I’m gonna go smoke pot with my friends since it’s not addictive.â€
“Fine with me, son.â€
And then the atheist dad would come home and say:
“Hi honey.â€
“Hey!â€
“How’s your day?â€
“Oh, I’m pregnant again. Looks like I’m gonna have to get another abortion…since foetuses aren’t actual human life.â€
"No problem, honey. Get as many abortions as you like."
“Okay, I will…Oh, don’t go into the bedroom because there are two gay men fu*king in there.â€
“Why are the gay men there, honey?â€
“Because I wanted to watch the gay men.â€
“Oh, that’s fine with me.â€
And then probably an atheist neighbour would run in and say:
“Quick. There’s a Christian outside.’
“Oh, we’re coming.â€
And then they would grab their black robes and their hoods, and they would run into the street where a Christian would probably be nailed to a big wooden ’X’ being burned at the stake, surrounded by atheists in their hoods and robes, saying:
“Die Christian! Die!…We claim to be tolerant of all religions except yours. We hate you because we’re atheists. And we’re hypocritical like that. Because we’re atheists.â€
‘Scary, isn’t it.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
Tell me, gmc: what is the colour of your atheist robe and hood?
Don't have one but I think I may have found an anthem for you.
(please if you are sensitive do not watch this)
YouTube - Evil Scotsman (With Lyrics) (A Song By Rockin' Jock)
‘Let me see if I could paint you a little picture…you know…if atheists ruled the world.'
So an atheist son comes home to his mom:
“Hi mom.â€
“Hey son!â€
And the son would probably say something like:
“Hey mom, I’m gonna go fu*k a hooker.â€
“No problem, son. Don’t be home late.â€
“Oh, I might be because then I’m gonna go smoke pot with my friends since it’s not addictive.â€
“Fine with me, son.â€
And then the atheist dad would come home and say:
“Hi honey.â€
“Hey!â€
“How’s your day?â€
“Oh, I’m pregnant again. Looks like I’m gonna have to get another abortion…since foetuses aren’t actual human life.â€
"No problem, honey. Get as many abortions as you like."
“Okay, I will…Oh, don’t go into the bedroom because there are two gay men fu*king in there.â€
“Why are the gay men there, honey?â€
“Because I wanted to watch the gay men.â€
“Oh, that’s fine with me.â€
And then probably an atheist neighbour would run in and say:
“Quick. There’s a Christian outside.’
“Oh, we’re coming.â€
And then they would grab their black robes and their hoods, and they would run into the street where a Christian would probably be nailed to a big wooden ’X’ being burned at the stake, surrounded by atheists in their hoods and robes, saying:
“Die Christian! Die!…We claim to be tolerant of all religions except yours. We hate you because we’re atheists. And we’re hypocritical like that. Because we’re atheists.â€
‘Scary, isn’t it.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
Tell me, gmc: what is the colour of your atheist robe and hood?
Don't have one but I think I may have found an anthem for you.
(please if you are sensitive do not watch this)
YouTube - Evil Scotsman (With Lyrics) (A Song By Rockin' Jock)
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1329180 wrote: Don't have one but I think I may have found an anthem for you.
(please if you are sensitive do not watch this)
YouTube - Evil Scotsman (With Lyrics) (A Song By Rockin' Jock)
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl :yh_worshp:yh_worshp:yh_worshp
(please if you are sensitive do not watch this)
YouTube - Evil Scotsman (With Lyrics) (A Song By Rockin' Jock)
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl :yh_worshp:yh_worshp:yh_worshp
Hell's Angel
That bit where DNA is acid and ever see what happens when you put things in acid - they dissolve ( no vinegar on the chips for them then). In fact the whole thing is so convincing It's almost hard to believe it is satire - says at the end all words taken from fundamentalist web sites.
Came across the site by accident. To paraphrase billy connolly, if you only read one book and believe it word for word you are deep trouble.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
Came across the site by accident. To paraphrase billy connolly, if you only read one book and believe it word for word you are deep trouble.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc;1329249 wrote: if you only read one book and believe it word for word you are deep trouble.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
In the above video, mention is made of Kurt Wise who wilfully sacrificed his career as an outstanding teacher of science for the sake of his religious belief that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.
Kurt Wise is highly educated. He holds two degrees in geology, and a third in palaeontology, and trained under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard University. He has openly acknowledged that all the available evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Nevertheless, when forced to choose between his fundamentalist Christian faith and the enormous body of scientific evidence which flatly contradicts it, he chose to commit intellectual suicide by clinging to his faith.
Wise’s fundamentalist faith not only caused him to reject the view that the earth is billions of years old. He also rejected the theory of evolution because of it. According to Wise, he rejected this theory one night after struggling to reconcile it with his faith. He writes:
‘Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible…It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.’
What is clearly demonstrated by the case of Kurt Wise is the intellectual dishonesty of the religious believer. Wise’s intellectual crisis arose because his religious faith was under siege from a Grande Armee of evidence marshalled against it by his academic studies. In his mind, Wise had constructed a fortress around his faith in order to protect it against the onslaughts of reason - and this is something which all religious believers must do. Since faith is irrational it cannot co-exist alongside whatever is rational, empirical and real. In the mind of the religious believer, faith must be kept cocooned from these things otherwise cognitive dissonance occurs.
The religious believer’s attempt to compartmentalize his faith in this way requires him to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. For in order to preserve his faith, in order to keep it intact and secure, he must ignore a veritable ocean of evidence which flies in the face of it. This process becomes so ingrained in the religious believer that after a while it starts to operate in the form of an unconscious defence mechanism: thus, he learns to stop, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous idea or fact which threatens to undermine his religious faith. This defence mechanism functions as protective stupidity.
For Kurt Wise, the evidence which his studies threw up against his religious faith was too overwhelming. When the cognitive dissonance in his mind became unbearable he was driven to choose between his religious faith and the evidence which contradicted it. He chose the former. In doing so, he showed himself to be not only a fool - but a thoroughly dishonest fool to boot.
Kurt Wise
Religious faith made him commit intellectual suicide
~o0o~
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
In the above video, mention is made of Kurt Wise who wilfully sacrificed his career as an outstanding teacher of science for the sake of his religious belief that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.
Kurt Wise is highly educated. He holds two degrees in geology, and a third in palaeontology, and trained under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard University. He has openly acknowledged that all the available evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Nevertheless, when forced to choose between his fundamentalist Christian faith and the enormous body of scientific evidence which flatly contradicts it, he chose to commit intellectual suicide by clinging to his faith.
Wise’s fundamentalist faith not only caused him to reject the view that the earth is billions of years old. He also rejected the theory of evolution because of it. According to Wise, he rejected this theory one night after struggling to reconcile it with his faith. He writes:
‘Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible…It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.’
What is clearly demonstrated by the case of Kurt Wise is the intellectual dishonesty of the religious believer. Wise’s intellectual crisis arose because his religious faith was under siege from a Grande Armee of evidence marshalled against it by his academic studies. In his mind, Wise had constructed a fortress around his faith in order to protect it against the onslaughts of reason - and this is something which all religious believers must do. Since faith is irrational it cannot co-exist alongside whatever is rational, empirical and real. In the mind of the religious believer, faith must be kept cocooned from these things otherwise cognitive dissonance occurs.
The religious believer’s attempt to compartmentalize his faith in this way requires him to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. For in order to preserve his faith, in order to keep it intact and secure, he must ignore a veritable ocean of evidence which flies in the face of it. This process becomes so ingrained in the religious believer that after a while it starts to operate in the form of an unconscious defence mechanism: thus, he learns to stop, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous idea or fact which threatens to undermine his religious faith. This defence mechanism functions as protective stupidity.
For Kurt Wise, the evidence which his studies threw up against his religious faith was too overwhelming. When the cognitive dissonance in his mind became unbearable he was driven to choose between his religious faith and the evidence which contradicted it. He chose the former. In doing so, he showed himself to be not only a fool - but a thoroughly dishonest fool to boot.
Kurt Wise
Religious faith made him commit intellectual suicide
~o0o~
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329434 wrote: In the above video, mention is made of Kurt Wise who wilfully sacrificed his career as an outstanding teacher of science for the sake of his religious belief that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.
Kurt Wise is highly educated. He holds two degrees in geology, and a third in palaeontology, and trained under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard University. He has openly acknowledged that all the available evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Nevertheless, when forced to choose between his fundamentalist Christian faith and the enormous body of scientific evidence which flatly contradicts it, he chose to commit intellectual suicide by clinging to his faith.
Wise’s fundamentalist faith not only caused him to reject the view that the earth is billions of years old. He also rejected the theory of evolution because of it. According to Wise, he rejected this theory one night after struggling to reconcile it with his faith. He writes:
‘Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible…It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.’
What is clearly demonstrated by the case of Kurt Wise is the intellectual dishonesty of the religious believer. Wise’s intellectual crisis arose because his religious faith was under siege from a Grande Armee of evidence marshalled against it by his academic studies. In his mind, Wise had constructed a fortress around his faith in order to protect it against the onslaughts of reason - and this is something which all religious believers must do. Since faith is irrational it cannot co-exist alongside whatever is rational, empirical and real. In the mind of the religious believer, faith must be kept cocooned from these things otherwise cognitive dissonance occurs.
The religious believer’s attempt to compartmentalize his faith in this way requires him to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. For in order to preserve his faith, in order to keep it intact and secure, he must ignore a veritable ocean of evidence which flies in the face of it. This process becomes so ingrained in the religious believer that after a while it starts to operate in the form of an unconscious defence mechanism: thus, he learns to stop, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous idea or fact which threatens to undermine his religious faith. This defence mechanism functions as protective stupidity.
For Kurt Wise, the evidence which his studies threw up against his religious faith was too overwhelming. When the cognitive dissonance in his mind became unbearable he was driven to choose between his religious faith and the evidence which contradicted it. He chose the former. In doing so, he showed himself to be not only a fool - but a thoroughly dishonest fool to boot.
Kurt Wise
Religious faith made him commit intellectual suicide
~o0o~
Or a man of faith depending on your perspective.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God
Martin Luther
Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see.
Martin Luther
God is dead
Neitzche
Neitzche is dead
God
There is no god only the cosmic comedian. To have faith you must set aside all reason and follow the insane logic of religion as if it is all true. That is why imo the deeply religious fundamentalists are potentially so dangerous, (of whatever faith) they cannot be reasoned with, all you can do is appeal to reason but they are by definition unreasonable.
Kurt Wise is highly educated. He holds two degrees in geology, and a third in palaeontology, and trained under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard University. He has openly acknowledged that all the available evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Nevertheless, when forced to choose between his fundamentalist Christian faith and the enormous body of scientific evidence which flatly contradicts it, he chose to commit intellectual suicide by clinging to his faith.
Wise’s fundamentalist faith not only caused him to reject the view that the earth is billions of years old. He also rejected the theory of evolution because of it. According to Wise, he rejected this theory one night after struggling to reconcile it with his faith. He writes:
‘Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible…It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.’
What is clearly demonstrated by the case of Kurt Wise is the intellectual dishonesty of the religious believer. Wise’s intellectual crisis arose because his religious faith was under siege from a Grande Armee of evidence marshalled against it by his academic studies. In his mind, Wise had constructed a fortress around his faith in order to protect it against the onslaughts of reason - and this is something which all religious believers must do. Since faith is irrational it cannot co-exist alongside whatever is rational, empirical and real. In the mind of the religious believer, faith must be kept cocooned from these things otherwise cognitive dissonance occurs.
The religious believer’s attempt to compartmentalize his faith in this way requires him to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. For in order to preserve his faith, in order to keep it intact and secure, he must ignore a veritable ocean of evidence which flies in the face of it. This process becomes so ingrained in the religious believer that after a while it starts to operate in the form of an unconscious defence mechanism: thus, he learns to stop, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous idea or fact which threatens to undermine his religious faith. This defence mechanism functions as protective stupidity.
For Kurt Wise, the evidence which his studies threw up against his religious faith was too overwhelming. When the cognitive dissonance in his mind became unbearable he was driven to choose between his religious faith and the evidence which contradicted it. He chose the former. In doing so, he showed himself to be not only a fool - but a thoroughly dishonest fool to boot.
Kurt Wise
Religious faith made him commit intellectual suicide
~o0o~
Or a man of faith depending on your perspective.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God
Martin Luther
Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see.
Martin Luther
God is dead
Neitzche
Neitzche is dead
God
There is no god only the cosmic comedian. To have faith you must set aside all reason and follow the insane logic of religion as if it is all true. That is why imo the deeply religious fundamentalists are potentially so dangerous, (of whatever faith) they cannot be reasoned with, all you can do is appeal to reason but they are by definition unreasonable.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
MASTERPIECES OF RELIGIOUS ‘REASONING’ (No. 1)
‘Everyone knows that scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for true Christians to refute their claims. Take deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA], for example. Sounds impressive, right?
Have you ever seen what happens when you put something in acid?
It dissolves.
If our bodies were full of that acid, we’d all dissolve.
So much for the theory of evolution.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
‘Everyone knows that scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for true Christians to refute their claims. Take deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA], for example. Sounds impressive, right?
Have you ever seen what happens when you put something in acid?
It dissolves.
If our bodies were full of that acid, we’d all dissolve.
So much for the theory of evolution.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
gmc wrote: YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329528 wrote: MASTERPIECES OF RELIGIOUS ‘REASONING’ (No. 1)
‘Everyone knows that scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for true Christians to refute their claims. Take deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA], for example. Sounds impressive, right?
Have you ever seen what happens when you put something in acid?
It dissolves.
If our bodies were full of that acid, we’d all dissolve.
So much for the theory of evolution.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
Can you access the site. You could tell them just how volatile the air and oxygen is.:wah:
‘Everyone knows that scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for true Christians to refute their claims. Take deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA], for example. Sounds impressive, right?
Have you ever seen what happens when you put something in acid?
It dissolves.
If our bodies were full of that acid, we’d all dissolve.
So much for the theory of evolution.’
~o0o~
The above words were posted on a Christian Fundamentalist forum. They have been transcribed from the following video link:
~o0o~
Kurt Wise: Christian
Mind imploded as a result of too much reasoning
Can you access the site. You could tell them just how volatile the air and oxygen is.:wah:
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
gmc wrote: You go at it with all the demented fervour of the religious zealot - you won't go to hell if you listen to me because it doesn't exist. It does I've been to glasgow, the cultural centre is doubly appreciated after driving through the outskirts.
I agree. There are places in the outskirts of Glasgow which are quite hellish. For example, Edinburgh.
EDINBURGH’S SHAME
Religious Sectarianism In Scotland’s Capital City
'A few years ago, leaving the train at Edinburgh's Haymarket station to attend the International Book Festival, I was unnerved by a massive police presence. Oh no! Must have been an incident. But on emerging onto the street, barriers had been erected, crowds were gathering and the streets were cleared of traffic. Hooray! It's the festival. Of course, a parade! Then why all the police? And why did a large percentage of the gathering crowd resemble the slopping out queue at Barlinnie? It was the end of July. You're probably way ahead of me already, dear reader. Yes, an Orange Walk, right in the centre of our cultured capital city of Edinburgh, at festival time. You really couldn't make it up. As soon as the distant sound of flute bands started to float towards us, two nearby American tourists reached for their cameras and got ready to snap.
"Excuse me, but what is this parade for?" asked the gentle lady with a southern Texas accent. I glanced around at the collection of drunken lowlife, all but drooling on their tracksuits, and took a deep breath. After a quick historical precis of the Boyne and the Troubles, I cut to the chase. The people in this parade, I explained, hate people of a different religion, and this "celebration" is to remind those people that they still hate them, and will always hate them. The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them.
The lady was aghast. "Then why is it allowed?" Now this is the bit, with regards to the Lockerbie controversy, where one would wish to reply thus. It's because in morally superior Scotland, the country showing you Yanks a thing or two about tolerance, we believe in unbridled freedom of expression and broad-mindedness, in a society where all opinions can be liberally expressed and where others must restrain themselves, regardless of their offence, to allow such.
That's what one might wish to say. But that's not true is it? If it were we should be able to peacefully tolerate a celebration of the Crusaders having murdered Muslims by marching past a mosque every year, or celebrate the slaughter of infidels outside a church. We could have Nazis marching to celebrate killing Jews and tobacco companies holding steel band parades to celebrate the subjugation of black slaves. We, thankfully, don't allow those things because they would be hateful, vile, divisive and sickening. But despite pleas this week from some enlightened members of Glasgow City Council to the Orange Order to stop their repugnant marches, they have no intention of doing so.
So this was my actual answer to our Texan visitor. Madam, it's allowed because there are people from this band of simian, sectarian thugs in powerful positions in our police forces and our councils. Makes you proud, doesn't it? And why doesn't Salmond sort that out, apart, obviously, from the fact that it won't get him onto the Oprah Winfrey show? I wouldn't like to hazard a guess.' Muriel Gray, The Herald (24 August 2009)
Full article can be read here: Vile Orange marches prove Scots still have a way to go on compassion - Herald Scotland | Comment | Muriel Gray
~o0o~
EDINBURGH: THE BENIGHTED CITY
A place where the dark forces of religion remain unchecked
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Tourist Board)
~o0o~
I agree. There are places in the outskirts of Glasgow which are quite hellish. For example, Edinburgh.
EDINBURGH’S SHAME
Religious Sectarianism In Scotland’s Capital City
'A few years ago, leaving the train at Edinburgh's Haymarket station to attend the International Book Festival, I was unnerved by a massive police presence. Oh no! Must have been an incident. But on emerging onto the street, barriers had been erected, crowds were gathering and the streets were cleared of traffic. Hooray! It's the festival. Of course, a parade! Then why all the police? And why did a large percentage of the gathering crowd resemble the slopping out queue at Barlinnie? It was the end of July. You're probably way ahead of me already, dear reader. Yes, an Orange Walk, right in the centre of our cultured capital city of Edinburgh, at festival time. You really couldn't make it up. As soon as the distant sound of flute bands started to float towards us, two nearby American tourists reached for their cameras and got ready to snap.
"Excuse me, but what is this parade for?" asked the gentle lady with a southern Texas accent. I glanced around at the collection of drunken lowlife, all but drooling on their tracksuits, and took a deep breath. After a quick historical precis of the Boyne and the Troubles, I cut to the chase. The people in this parade, I explained, hate people of a different religion, and this "celebration" is to remind those people that they still hate them, and will always hate them. The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them.
The lady was aghast. "Then why is it allowed?" Now this is the bit, with regards to the Lockerbie controversy, where one would wish to reply thus. It's because in morally superior Scotland, the country showing you Yanks a thing or two about tolerance, we believe in unbridled freedom of expression and broad-mindedness, in a society where all opinions can be liberally expressed and where others must restrain themselves, regardless of their offence, to allow such.
That's what one might wish to say. But that's not true is it? If it were we should be able to peacefully tolerate a celebration of the Crusaders having murdered Muslims by marching past a mosque every year, or celebrate the slaughter of infidels outside a church. We could have Nazis marching to celebrate killing Jews and tobacco companies holding steel band parades to celebrate the subjugation of black slaves. We, thankfully, don't allow those things because they would be hateful, vile, divisive and sickening. But despite pleas this week from some enlightened members of Glasgow City Council to the Orange Order to stop their repugnant marches, they have no intention of doing so.
So this was my actual answer to our Texan visitor. Madam, it's allowed because there are people from this band of simian, sectarian thugs in powerful positions in our police forces and our councils. Makes you proud, doesn't it? And why doesn't Salmond sort that out, apart, obviously, from the fact that it won't get him onto the Oprah Winfrey show? I wouldn't like to hazard a guess.' Muriel Gray, The Herald (24 August 2009)
Full article can be read here: Vile Orange marches prove Scots still have a way to go on compassion - Herald Scotland | Comment | Muriel Gray
~o0o~
EDINBURGH: THE BENIGHTED CITY
A place where the dark forces of religion remain unchecked
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Tourist Board)
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
THE ‘HALLMARK’ CARD MUSH OF MOTHER TERESA (No. 4)
Mother Teresa
Nobel Peace Prize Photo (1979)
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
‘Every time you smile at someone, it is an action of love, a gift to that person, a beautiful thing.’ - Mother Teresa
~o0o~
Mother Teresa
Nobel Peace Prize Photo (1979)
(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)
‘Every time you smile at someone, it is an action of love, a gift to that person, a beautiful thing.’ - Mother Teresa
~o0o~
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329544 wrote: I agree. There are places in the outskirts of Glasgow which are quite hellish. For example, Edinburgh.
EDINBURGH’S SHAME
Religious Sectarianism In Scotland’s Capital City
'A few years ago, leaving the train at Edinburgh's Haymarket station to attend the International Book Festival, I was unnerved by a massive police presence. Oh no! Must have been an incident. But on emerging onto the street, barriers had been erected, crowds were gathering and the streets were cleared of traffic. Hooray! It's the festival. Of course, a parade! Then why all the police? And why did a large percentage of the gathering crowd resemble the slopping out queue at Barlinnie? It was the end of July. You're probably way ahead of me already, dear reader. Yes, an Orange Walk, right in the centre of our cultured capital city of Edinburgh, at festival time. You really couldn't make it up. As soon as the distant sound of flute bands started to float towards us, two nearby American tourists reached for their cameras and got ready to snap.
"Excuse me, but what is this parade for?" asked the gentle lady with a southern Texas accent. I glanced around at the collection of drunken lowlife, all but drooling on their tracksuits, and took a deep breath. After a quick historical precis of the Boyne and the Troubles, I cut to the chase. The people in this parade, I explained, hate people of a different religion, and this "celebration" is to remind those people that they still hate them, and will always hate them. The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them.
The lady was aghast. "Then why is it allowed?" Now this is the bit, with regards to the Lockerbie controversy, where one would wish to reply thus. It's because in morally superior Scotland, the country showing you Yanks a thing or two about tolerance, we believe in unbridled freedom of expression and broad-mindedness, in a society where all opinions can be liberally expressed and where others must restrain themselves, regardless of their offence, to allow such.
That's what one might wish to say. But that's not true is it? If it were we should be able to peacefully tolerate a celebration of the Crusaders having murdered Muslims by marching past a mosque every year, or celebrate the slaughter of infidels outside a church. We could have Nazis marching to celebrate killing Jews and tobacco companies holding steel band parades to celebrate the subjugation of black slaves. We, thankfully, don't allow those things because they would be hateful, vile, divisive and sickening. But despite pleas this week from some enlightened members of Glasgow City Council to the Orange Order to stop their repugnant marches, they have no intention of doing so.
So this was my actual answer to our Texan visitor. Madam, it's allowed because there are people from this band of simian, sectarian thugs in powerful positions in our police forces and our councils. Makes you proud, doesn't it? And why doesn't Salmond sort that out, apart, obviously, from the fact that it won't get him onto the Oprah Winfrey show? I wouldn't like to hazard a guess.' Muriel Gray, The Herald (24 August 2009)
Full article can be read here: Vile Orange marches prove Scots still have a way to go on compassion - Herald Scotland | Comment | Muriel Gray
~o0o~
EDINBURGH: THE BENIGHTED CITY
A place where the dark forces of religion remain unchecked
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Tourist Board)
~o0o~
Then again the orange walk commenorates the defeat of those who believed in the divine right of kings and the setting in trail those events that led to a modern state. We're not allowed to mention that the jacobite rebellions were actually about the same thing because bonnie prince charlie was a hero rather than a wee ***** that led his followers to destruction while he buggered off to safety.
That 1689 bill of rights so loved of ukip and the like is anti-catholic, which fact they like to ignore. The sectarianism is appalling nowadays but we should remember the horror that made it so vitriolic. The only way it will end is to end seperate faith schools - something most scots would agree - with but we seem unable to bite the bullet and tell the religious to F0-0k off once and for all. in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
EDINBURGH’S SHAME
Religious Sectarianism In Scotland’s Capital City
'A few years ago, leaving the train at Edinburgh's Haymarket station to attend the International Book Festival, I was unnerved by a massive police presence. Oh no! Must have been an incident. But on emerging onto the street, barriers had been erected, crowds were gathering and the streets were cleared of traffic. Hooray! It's the festival. Of course, a parade! Then why all the police? And why did a large percentage of the gathering crowd resemble the slopping out queue at Barlinnie? It was the end of July. You're probably way ahead of me already, dear reader. Yes, an Orange Walk, right in the centre of our cultured capital city of Edinburgh, at festival time. You really couldn't make it up. As soon as the distant sound of flute bands started to float towards us, two nearby American tourists reached for their cameras and got ready to snap.
"Excuse me, but what is this parade for?" asked the gentle lady with a southern Texas accent. I glanced around at the collection of drunken lowlife, all but drooling on their tracksuits, and took a deep breath. After a quick historical precis of the Boyne and the Troubles, I cut to the chase. The people in this parade, I explained, hate people of a different religion, and this "celebration" is to remind those people that they still hate them, and will always hate them. The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them.
The lady was aghast. "Then why is it allowed?" Now this is the bit, with regards to the Lockerbie controversy, where one would wish to reply thus. It's because in morally superior Scotland, the country showing you Yanks a thing or two about tolerance, we believe in unbridled freedom of expression and broad-mindedness, in a society where all opinions can be liberally expressed and where others must restrain themselves, regardless of their offence, to allow such.
That's what one might wish to say. But that's not true is it? If it were we should be able to peacefully tolerate a celebration of the Crusaders having murdered Muslims by marching past a mosque every year, or celebrate the slaughter of infidels outside a church. We could have Nazis marching to celebrate killing Jews and tobacco companies holding steel band parades to celebrate the subjugation of black slaves. We, thankfully, don't allow those things because they would be hateful, vile, divisive and sickening. But despite pleas this week from some enlightened members of Glasgow City Council to the Orange Order to stop their repugnant marches, they have no intention of doing so.
So this was my actual answer to our Texan visitor. Madam, it's allowed because there are people from this band of simian, sectarian thugs in powerful positions in our police forces and our councils. Makes you proud, doesn't it? And why doesn't Salmond sort that out, apart, obviously, from the fact that it won't get him onto the Oprah Winfrey show? I wouldn't like to hazard a guess.' Muriel Gray, The Herald (24 August 2009)
Full article can be read here: Vile Orange marches prove Scots still have a way to go on compassion - Herald Scotland | Comment | Muriel Gray
~o0o~
EDINBURGH: THE BENIGHTED CITY
A place where the dark forces of religion remain unchecked
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Tourist Board)
~o0o~
Then again the orange walk commenorates the defeat of those who believed in the divine right of kings and the setting in trail those events that led to a modern state. We're not allowed to mention that the jacobite rebellions were actually about the same thing because bonnie prince charlie was a hero rather than a wee ***** that led his followers to destruction while he buggered off to safety.
That 1689 bill of rights so loved of ukip and the like is anti-catholic, which fact they like to ignore. The sectarianism is appalling nowadays but we should remember the horror that made it so vitriolic. The only way it will end is to end seperate faith schools - something most scots would agree - with but we seem unable to bite the bullet and tell the religious to F0-0k off once and for all. in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
Hell's Angel
Quoted by gmc
in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
We should reflect very hard on that statement.
in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
We should reflect very hard on that statement.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Hell's Angel
PETER STEPHEN: LORD PROVOST OF ABERDEEN
‘No one can rest until we are free of the evil of religious sectarianism in Scotland.’
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Rangers Football Club)
‘No one can rest until we are free of the evil of religious sectarianism in Scotland.’
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Rangers Football Club)
Hell's Angel
Glaswegian;1329596 wrote: PETER STEPHEN: LORD PROVOST OF ABERDEEN
‘No one can rest until we are free of the evil of religious sectarianism in Scotland.’
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Rangers Football Club)
As always billy connelly sums it up beautifully
YouTube - Billy Connolly - Football Violence
‘No one can rest until we are free of the evil of religious sectarianism in Scotland.’
(Photo courtesy of Glasgow Rangers Football Club)
As always billy connelly sums it up beautifully
YouTube - Billy Connolly - Football Violence
Hell's Angel
gmc;1329591 wrote: Then again the orange walk commenorates the defeat of those who believed in the divine right of kings and the setting in trail those events that led to a modern state. We're not allowed to mention that the jacobite rebellions were actually about the same thing because bonnie prince charlie was a hero rather than a wee ***** that led his followers to destruction while he buggered off to safety.
That 1689 bill of rights so loved of ukip and the like is anti-catholic, which fact they like to ignore. The sectarianism is appalling nowadays but we should remember the horror that made it so vitriolic. The only way it will end is to end seperate faith schools - something most scots would agree - with but we seem unable to bite the bullet and tell the religious to F0-0k off once and for all. in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
You have more chance of standing on your head and pushing the Earth out of orbit than ending separate faith schools.:wah:
That 1689 bill of rights so loved of ukip and the like is anti-catholic, which fact they like to ignore. The sectarianism is appalling nowadays but we should remember the horror that made it so vitriolic. The only way it will end is to end seperate faith schools - something most scots would agree - with but we seem unable to bite the bullet and tell the religious to F0-0k off once and for all. in the name of tolerance we tolerate bigotry.
You have more chance of standing on your head and pushing the Earth out of orbit than ending separate faith schools.:wah:
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1329603 wrote: You have more chance of standing on your head and pushing the Earth out of orbit than ending separate faith schools.:wah:
Tsk tsk now you are being anti-religious.
Tsk tsk now you are being anti-religious.
Hell's Angel
gmc;1329630 wrote: Tsk tsk now you are being anti-religious.
I'll go and give myself a slap then shall I?
A few Oh Mary's should do it.
I'll go and give myself a slap then shall I?
A few Oh Mary's should do it.
Hell's Angel
OpenMind;1329714 wrote: I'll go and give myself a slap then shall I?
A few Oh Mary's should do it.
Yes OM. 'ave a word wiv yerself will ya ?
A few Oh Mary's should do it.
Yes OM. 'ave a word wiv yerself will ya ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Hell's Angel
Snowfire;1329721 wrote: Yes OM. 'ave a word wiv yerself will ya ?
Ok. I'll have the word 'yeah' wiv mesen.:sneaky:
Ok. I'll have the word 'yeah' wiv mesen.:sneaky: