Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

[Enoch]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

[bobo the clown]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us Chelsea.

[TANGODANCER]

what does that even mean?

Okay, since it's Easter Sunday, why not........

We will obviously see things differently since you have declared you don't believe in the concept of Heaven. How much of the rest we agree/disagree about is immaterial. As to what sins of the fathers means, I would have thought that obvious. It's a Bible reference to the words of God that say he will visit vengeance (or whatever) on the the generations( not all) of men that hate him. It also doesn't need much explanation outside of the bible or religion. All those victims of Aids, battered wives, sexually mistreated women and children, people murdered etc, etc, in the world, are not victims of God, nor the will of God, but of man. My idea of God (and I'm careful to state as I did above that I have no more idea than the next man what it's all about (hence my little joke about hoping there's a St Alfred so I can ask him ) is not that he will prevent any of these things happening, nor strike down with a bolt of lightning any sinners, or prevent illness or disaster, but that come the judgement day all will pay the price of sin or achieve the rewards of goodness from their earthly lives. (Hey, not me being fire and brimstone, just that if you believe in God and the Scriptures, that's the way it is). Religion isn't tangible; in direct opposition to science it's all about faith and belief without proof....and a free chioce for everybody.

Go in peace....

[CrazyHorse]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us the word Chester.

As in Manchester.

As in Manchester United.

Wankers.

[TANGODANCER]

Hmmm. Its possible you may have, just possibly, over exaggerated what has been said for dramatic affect. Rather like saying "you get arrested and thrown in jail just for saying you're English these days".

Though I would be interested to know who has written that "we owe them big time now".

This lot for starters

Members of Caricom, the Caribbean's political and economic body, are meeting on the island of St Vincent on 10 March to co-ordinate their campaign for compensation payments against former slave-owning nations in Europe.

Colonialism Reparation calls on the UK to apologize and pay reparations to India for the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh and for the whole period of British colonial rule, also returning the cultural property stolen during the colonial period.

At the end of May, the Oxford Union held a debate on the motion "This house believes Britain owes reparations to her former colonies". Speakers included former Conservative MP Sir Richard Ottaway, Indian politician and writer Shashi Tharoor and British historian John Mackenzie. Shashi Tharoor's argument in support of the motion, went viral in India after he tweeted it out from his personal account. The argument has found favour among Indians, where the subject of colonial exploitation remains a sore topic

So, compensation is really what it's all about? Well, the present generation apologising for something that happened long before their grandparents were born seems a bit..useless? We're still being called Crusaders by lots of eastern entities and the last crusade was what....over 700 years ago. What point..?

[Prufrock]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us the word Chester.

As in Manchester.

As in Manchester United.

Wankers.

QE f*cking D, to put it in terms the wankers would understand!

[thebish]

what does that even mean?

Okay, since it's Easter Sunday, why not........

We will obviously see things differently since you have declared you don't believe in the concept of Heaven. How much of the rest we agree/disagree about is immaterial. As to what sins of the fathers means, I would have thought that obvious. It's a Bible reference to the words of God that say he will visit vengeance (or whatever) on the the generations( not all) of men that hate him. It also doesn't need much explanation outside of the bible or religion. All those victims of Aids, battered wives, sexually mistreated women and children, people murdered etc, etc, in the world, are not victims of God, nor the will of God, but of man. My idea of God (and I'm careful to state as I did above that I have no more idea than the next man what it's all about (hence my little joke about hoping there's a St Alfred so I can ask him ) is not that he will prevent any of these things happening, nor strike down with a bolt of lightning any sinners, or prevent illness or disaster, but that come the judgement day all will pay the price of sin or achieve the rewards of goodness from their earthly lives. (Hey, not me being fire and brimstone, just that if you believe in God and the Scriptures, that's the way it is). Religion isn't tangible; in direct opposition to science it's all about faith and belief without proof....and a free chioce for everybody.

Go in peace....

whilst you obviously believe that - and it seems to work for you - I don't - and Jesus seemed to go out of his way in the gospels to deny the (then popular) idea that punishment is visited on subsequent generations for the "sins of their fathers".. so - that's still a no for me. for one thing - why should you be punished for the sins of your great grandad - that doesn't seem in the least bit just to me.

your way of "believing in God and the scriptures" is not the only possible way of believing - so, I'm sorry, but that's not "the way it is" - it's your interpretation of the the way it is.

also - religion is tangible and not in direct opposition to science. the definition of "faith" is NOT "belief without proof".

[TANGODANCER]

what does that even mean?

whilst you obviously believe that - and it seems to work for you - I don't - and Jesus seemed to go out of his way in the gospels to deny the (then popular) idea that punishment is visited on subsequent generations for the "sins of their fathers".. so - that's still a no for me. for one thing - why should you be punished for the sins of your great grandad - that doesn't seem in the least bit just to me.

your way of "believing in God and the scriptures" is not the only possible way of believing - so, I'm sorry, but that's not "the way it is" - it's your interpretation of the the way it is.
also - religion is tangible and not in direct opposition to science. the definition of "faith" is NOT "belief without proof".

I think you. like me (and I did make that quite clear I was not trying to be a ventrilloquist for anybody else) are but expressing opinions. Fine, I have no truck with that. What Jesus says is that mankind will be judged on their own morals and not those of anyone else. The sins of the fathers I speak of (again, as I tried to explain) are earthly sins. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a father contacts and passes on aids or other diseases then it's not outrageous to expect it will impact on his children, possibly theirs. If he's a criminal or convicted of sexual crime his children may suffer the shame. If that isn't the case then it absolutely makes bollox of any claims for compensation that our ancestors are accused of that we are needing to appologise and compensate anybody for.

If religious faith (and we are talking about just that, are we not?) is not your belief without proof, then what is it? Your views and opinions bear no more weight than mine, so why not let both stand as they will?

[TANGODANCER]

Actually forgot all about this, but looks like it was a success:

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/143 ... in_Bolton/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

what does that even mean?

whilst you obviously believe that - and it seems to work for you - I don't - and Jesus seemed to go out of his way in the gospels to deny the (then popular) idea that punishment is visited on subsequent generations for the "sins of their fathers".. so - that's still a no for me. for one thing - why should you be punished for the sins of your great grandad - that doesn't seem in the least bit just to me.

your way of "believing in God and the scriptures" is not the only possible way of believing - so, I'm sorry, but that's not "the way it is" - it's your interpretation of the the way it is.
also - religion is tangible and not in direct opposition to science. the definition of "faith" is NOT "belief without proof".

I think you. like me (and I did make that quite clear I was not trying to be a ventrilloquist for anybody else) are but expressing opinions. Fine, I have no truck with that. What Jesus says is that mankind will be judged on their own morals and not those of anyone else. The sins of the fathers I speak of (again, as I tried to explain) are earthly sins. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a father contacts and passes on aids or other diseases then it's not outrageous to expect it will impact on his children, possibly theirs. If he's a criminal or convicted of sexual crime his children may suffer the shame. If that isn't the case then it absolutely makes bollox of any claims for compensation that our ancestors are accused of that we are needing to appologise and compensate anybody for.

If religious faith (and we are talking about just that, are we not?) is not your belief without proof, then what is it? Your views and opinions bear no more weight than mine, so why not let both stand as they will?

Just to be clear... this AIDS example - you are saying that if someone gets AIDS passed on by their parents then it is because of their parents' (forefathers') sin?? which other diseases do you have in mind that come under this "sin" banner when they are passed on? (I think linking AIDS to "sin" is a bad move...)

if you are restricting the phrase "sins of the fathers" to mean diseases passed on genetically (and some inherited "shame") - then I suspect you are using it in a very much more limited way than it is normally understood... the common understanding reflected in the bible and roundly condemned by jesus was that (for example) people are born blind or disabled because their parents - or forefathers - broke a commandment.


nowhere have I not allowed your opinion to "stand" - I was merely challenging your very dogmatic statement that "if you believe in God and the Scriptures, that's the way it is" - I think there is more than one way (your way) to understand faith and the scriptures your way is not "the way it is" - it is merely one of the ways people have interpreted things.

to answer your other question... "faith" (at least as described in the new testament) is not believing statements about God or dogma without proof - it is not swallowing ten unbelievable things before breakfast because you are told to or because you fear you might go to hell if you don't believe them - it is demonstrating allegiance and trust in a person - specifically, Jesus - by your actions - "following".

[Montreal Wanderer]

It strikes me that the sins of the fathers are always visited upon the children of the third and fourth generation. We have to live with our history and are the product of it. My grandfather's era gave us WW1 which went to WW2, the holocaust, and much of the unpleasant history since - especially the Middle East. Of course the good things they did are also visited upon us, especially medical advances (including universal health care systems) and social welfare programs. Still a long way to go for Nirvana or paradise on earth of course.

[TANGODANCER]

Just to be clear... this AIDS example - you are saying that if someone gets AIDS passed on by their parents then it is because of their parents' (forefathers') sin?? which other diseases do you have in mind that come under this "sin" banner when they are passed on? (I think linking AIDS to "sin" is a bad move...)

if you are restricting the phrase "sins of the fathers" to mean diseases passed on genetically (and some inherited "shame") - then I suspect you are using it in a very much more limited way than it is normally understood... the common understanding reflected in the bible and roundly condemned by jesus was that (for example) people are born blind or disabled because their parents - or forefathers - broke a commandment.


nowhere have I not allowed your opinion to "stand" - I was merely challenging your very dogmatic statement that "if you believe in God and the Scriptures, that's the way it is" - I think there is more than one way (your way) to understand faith and the scriptures your way is not "the way it is" - it is merely one of the ways people have interpreted things.

to answer your other question... "faith" (at least as described in the new testament) is not believing statements about God or dogma without proof - it is not swallowing ten unbelievable things before breakfast because you are told to or because you fear you might go to hell if you don't believe them - it is demonstrating allegiance and trust in a person - specifically, Jesus - by your actions - "following".

Okay.

[Enoch]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us the word Chester.

As in Manchester.

As in Manchester United.

Wankers.

QE f*cking D, to put it in terms the wankers would understand!

Year or two ago I spent a couple of weeks in their back yard. They may have built stuff to last, but they don't appear to have much in the way of a building maintenance department. Place is falling apart.

Hominischester Iunctus.

Has a ring to it, as does a cow's arse.

[thebish]

It strikes me that the sins of the fathers are always visited upon the children of the third and fourth generation. We have to live with our history and are the product of it. My grandfather's era gave us WW1 which went to WW2, the holocaust, and much of the unpleasant history since - especially the Middle East. Of course the good things they did are also visited upon us, especially medical advances (including universal health care systems) and social welfare programs. Still a long way to go for Nirvana or paradise on earth of course.

indeed - but that is merely saying that one thing happening will have a knock-on effect - which need not involve the word or the idea of "sin" at all - especially (I think) when you are talking about stuff like AIDS - it's simply unhelpful... tango related it to the idea of "God's vengeance" - which is an altogether different idea!

[bobo the clown]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us the word Chester.

As in Manchester.

As in Manchester United.

Wankers.

Whoa, whoa .... just a cotton-picking minute. The fact that they corrupted the word doesn't mean the base word is bad. Watch your mouth !!!

[Worthy4England]

^^ Well, the didn't call Manchester, Manchester anyhow...

Either way they're still a bag o bastards

[Lord Kangana]

No smoke without fire if you ask me.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us the word Chester.

As in Manchester.

As in Manchester United.

Wankers.

Chester derives its name from the Latin castrum (fortified camp) as does Cirencester, Worcester, etc. However the Romans called Manchester Mamucium or Mancunium, a latinization of the Celtic word for a breast-like hill. So the derivation is not the same (at least as far as the Romans go). Put another way, Manchester United mean a union of complete tits.

[Enoch]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

They gave us Chelski.

Happy to help.

[Harry Genshaw]

Put another way, Manchester United mean a union of complete tits.

It's heartwarming to see that even distance doesn't diminish hatred for that lot