Here we go again

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:16 am

InsaneApache wrote:

Looks like those them there early Christians were very busy boys pinching ideas from older religions.

And then there's the myth of the flood. I'll let you 'google' that...you may be shocked and surprised.

Not sure where this is going exactly IA? We're all apes after all, don't you know? Neither am I sure why people (not you)read and object to a topic; just don't read it. Not at all as interesting as plastic-boob, airhead, naked female models I suppose.

I'm all for having everyone do as they please ...except the Post Ofiice of course. Passed my views, listened to everyone else's, no future converts here so....Merry Christmas, Sunmas, Historymas, Sciencemas, Moneymas or even RoyalMailmas, to you all.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:26 am

TANGODANCER wrote:Merry Christmas, Sunmas, Historymas, Sciencemas, Moneymas or even RoyalMailmas, to you all.

Cheers TANGO, and a Merry Christmas to you too!

First one I've had this year.

Little Green Man · Post by **Little Green Man** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:56 am

Happy Sproutmas to one and all!

http://www.eyegas.com/xmas05/

mofgimmers · Post by **mofgimmers** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:59 pm

I do like these debates that crop up on TW. Good work TD.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:17 pm

mofgimmers wrote:I do like these debates that crop up on TW. Good work TD.

Why thank you Mof. I enjoy them myself. Get's people talking at least, even if it's swearing at each other. Religion, Politics and even history is always ripe material for a good row. For every Yin, there's always a Yang.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:20 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
mofgimmers wrote:I do like these debates that crop up on TW. Good work TD.
Why thank you Mof. I enjoy them myself. Get's people talking at least, even if it's swearing at each other. Religion, Politics and even history is always ripe material for a good row. For every Yin, there's always a Yang.

no there isn't...

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:23 pm

For Insane Apache:

Appologies for the "Google" quip. It was out of order. What you submitted was highly interesting and quite a lot of people, myself included, are fascinated by history. My own favourite topic is the Templars, not altogether a totally complimentary topic for Christians. But then again, we're back with the old "In th name of God" etc, being used for the wiles of man. Keep posting the good stuff.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:24 pm

thebish wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
mofgimmers wrote:I do like these debates that crop up on TW. Good work TD.
Why thank you Mof. I enjoy them myself. Get's people talking at least, even if it's swearing at each other. Religion, Politics and even history is always ripe material for a good row. For every Yin, there's always a Yang.
no there isn't...

See what I mean. Nice one Bish.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:08 pm

Hey that's no problem TD, at least you play the ball not the man, ad hominem attacks just reduce the value of the debate to the level of the schoolyard.

The point I was making is that Christians in particular can't really moan about the secularisation of the mid-Winter festival, as they mis-appropriated older religions to prop up the early church. Now the new 'religion'* secularism is doing the same.

*EDIT: For the pedants I know that atheism is not a religion.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:08 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Agree with Cowdrill on one aspect, the whole thing has become just a commercial rip-off all round, with the root source conveniently ignored whenever it suits.

At least you appreciate that this is indeed the factual situation. You lament it as a bad thing, but increasing secularity is the reality.

If most people are running round 'conveniently ignoring' the 'root source' of Christmas, why is it that you think that the Royal Mail should swim against the tide?

And I'll answer my own question that I asked a while back - I would not like to use this stamp (that I associate with a violent, sexist, anachronistic religion) that was made in the USA in early 2001:

David Lee's Hair · Post by **David Lee's Hair** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:16 pm

Tarnishing every muslim abit there aren't you mummy? Some are like that but the vast majority are not that extreme (well not violent), and are all religions not anachronistic?

If anything Islam is the least so as it is the youngest of the 3 major old religions

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:21 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:Agree with Cowdrill on one aspect, the whole thing has become just a commercial rip-off all round, with the root source conveniently ignored whenever it suits.
At least you appreciate that this is indeed the factual situation. You lament it as a bad thing, but increasing secularity is the reality.

If most people are running round 'conveniently ignoring' the 'root source' of Christmas, why is it that you think that the Royal Mail should swim against the tide?

And I'll answer my own question that I asked a while back - I would not like to use this stamp (that I associate with a violent, sexist, anachronistic religion) that was made in the USA in early 2001:

The religion (Islam-Muslim) itself deserves the respect of any other. It's the misinterpretation practised by some of its devotees that is the real problem. You want to go kill someone, fine, have the balls do it in your own name and don't keep claiming you're doing it in God's. Worship your God at your discretion and let others do the same in a spirit of peace and friendliness. That should be the real Christmas message. "Peace and goodwill to all men"

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:23 pm

David Lee's Hair wrote:Tarnishing every muslim abit there aren't you mummy? Some are like that but the vast majority are not that extreme (well not violent), and are all religions not anachronistic?

If anything Islam is the least so as it is the youngest of the 3 major old religions

The associations that are generated automatically in my head cannot be helped, given the number of cases I have read in the law reports that involve muslims and the things I have just mentioned. Although I do realise that the average muslim in the law reports is not the same as the average muslim.

I don't mind admitting that I am anti-Islam. Perhaps because I don't mind admitting that I am anti-religion in general.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:35 pm

The religion (Islam-Muslim) itself deserves the respect of any other. It's the misinterpretation practised by some of its devotees that is the real problem. You want to go kill someone, fine, have the balls do it in your own name and don't keep claiming you're doing it in God's. Worship your God at your discretion and let others do the same in a spirit of peace and friendliness. That should be the real Christmas message. "Peace and goodwill to all men"

Now to throw the bear into the pit.

Kindly explain to me, (being indoctrinated into Christianity and rejecting it wholesale), why I should 'respect' any religion. This mindset is one of the root causes of conflict in our times. Believe whatever you want to....but don't expect any respect for it.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:41 pm

The "respect" refers to any person's right to believe what they will in anything that involves faith rather than proof. One day we'll all die; what you choose to believe will happen next is your right. You'll know soon enough. Faith has no substance except that of it's practitioners.

David Lee's Hair · Post by **David Lee's Hair** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:42 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
David Lee's Hair wrote:Tarnishing every muslim abit there aren't you mummy? Some are like that but the vast majority are not that extreme (well not violent), and are all religions not anachronistic?

If anything Islam is the least so as it is the youngest of the 3 major old religions
The associations that are generated automatically in my head cannot be helped, given the number of cases I have read in the law reports that involve muslims and the things I have just mentioned. Although I do realise that the average muslim in the law reports is not the same as the average muslim.

I don't mind admitting that I am anti-Islam. Perhaps because I don't mind admitting that I am anti-religion in general.

Ah, but surely in law reports there are christians, jews, hindus and any other relgion you could want to add doing bad things too?

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:55 pm

David Lee's Hair wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:
David Lee's Hair wrote:Tarnishing every muslim abit there aren't you mummy? Some are like that but the vast majority are not that extreme (well not violent), and are all religions not anachronistic?

If anything Islam is the least so as it is the youngest of the 3 major old religions
The associations that are generated automatically in my head cannot be helped, given the number of cases I have read in the law reports that involve muslims and the things I have just mentioned. Although I do realise that the average muslim in the law reports is not the same as the average muslim.

I don't mind admitting that I am anti-Islam. Perhaps because I don't mind admitting that I am anti-religion in general.
Ah, but surely in law reports there are christians, jews, hindus and any other relgion you could want to add doing bad things too?

Sure.

But cases like this lodge in the mind - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1827623.stm

Read also about the influence of the bullying brothers in the well-known Denbigh High School "jibab" case. - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _1,00.html

After a while, a pattern emerges, believe me.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:08 pm

Whereas I don't think I've ever seen a newsreport about any crime or nastiness committed by any person who does not belong to a World Faith group.... errr.....

or rather.. most crimes are commited by people who profess no faith - does this mean that I should be naturally suspicious of people who don't belong to a faith group...

errrr.... no - but that's what happens when your logic goes bonkers...

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:11 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:The "respect" refers to any person's right to believe what they will in anything that involves faith rather than proof. One day we'll all die; what you choose to believe will happen next is your right. You'll know soon enough. Faith has no substance except that of it's practitioners.

No; I think you may well be being a tad disingenuous here. Respect for religion(s) implies that said religion(s) has a grain of empirical truth in there somewhere...not so. I, as a rational human being, wholeheartedly reject any such superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I also shudder to think why on Earth that deserves any sort of respect.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:13 pm

thebish wrote:Whereas I don't think I've ever seen a newsreport about any crime or nastiness committed by any person who does not belong to a World Faith group.... errr.....

or rather.. most crimes are commited by people who profess no faith - does this mean that I should be naturally suspicious of people who don't belong to a faith group...

errrr.... no - but that's what happens when your logic goes bonkers...

No need to try and be clever. It doesn't suit you. I am talking about cases which have an explicitly religious element to them.

Connect with your social network account

Here we go again

Who is online