Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:49 pm

Daxter wrote:
qwertywarrior wrote:
don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop
Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

ditto there is a difference in my view between certain ridiculous elements of PC such as telling children they have acheived 'deferred success' as opposed to failure, and calling somewhere a 'paki shop' which in my view is racist and unnecessary.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.

It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:59 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?

i dont understand this argument, its like blaming a communist for all the people Stalin killed, its ludicrous.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:01 pm

George Bush speaks to God. I can only imagine he speaks quite inaudibly;

God (for it is he)"George, you f*ckwit, what in the world are you doing, I'd like to put your arms in a rack and stretch you"

Dubbya:"Will do boss"

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:09 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?

Again, not necessary Bruce. Most of the planet accepts Sutcliffe's mind was seriously disturbed. Hardly rational or normal behaviour murdering thirteen people,despite whatever his calling. So are we blaming all Christians for one lunatic individual or God for being responsible? Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Mugabwi, were they all Christians?

"One of yours"? That borders on "ism" does it not?

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:12 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?

I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:15 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?
I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....

Prove it

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:21 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote: Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?
I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....
Prove it

I don't have to, it went before a jury, which is how we determine "proof beyond reasonable doubt"...it's already been proven.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:22 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?
I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....

the only reason anyone would need to prove anything would be for what they say to be considered factually correct. to say either there is a god, or there isnt is not a fact, it is a belief. to try to steer this thread back whence it came. There are stories that L.Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology has admitted he made it up for tax breaks. Now Scientology has a reputation for being litigious, and such allegations have always been legally challenged (i think). But if hypothetically, it were true, would this change our opinions of those who beleive it?

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:08 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?
I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:15 pm

communistworkethic wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote: Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.
Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.
It's for you to prove that there is a God, Sunshine. Not for me to prove that there isn't. Peter Sutcliffe's one of yours. He took his lead from God, or so he says. Who are you to say otherwise? You can't pick and choose, Tango. You're in for a penny and you're in for a pound. If Peter Sutcliffe say's that he acted upon the instructions of God then who the feck do you think that you are to disagree?
I'm really trying not to get involved but...No-one has to prove anything. It's about belief not proof. If someone believes there is a God then what's the problem with that? If they don't fair play to them too. If you believe in the teachings that go with God's word, then Peter Sutcliffe obviously broke a number of Commandments, which in your belief came from God, therefore, he couldn't have been acting on God's word....
which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

No, you're seeing a difference because of interpretations being given by the living not God. His Commandments have not changed. You need to look somewhere else for your consistency.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:22 pm

And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:25 pm

What a breathtakingly boring and pointless thread! Nobody will change their views on religion by tub-thumping posts on here. That's irrespective of whether they come from religious zealots, atheists, or any shade of opinion in between.

Get out more! Drink beer! Kiss girls!

Zulu out.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:30 pm

Zulus Thousand of em wrote:What a breathtakingly boring and pointless thread! Nobody will change their views on religion by tub-thumping posts on here. That's irrespective of whether they come from religious zealots, atheists, or any shade of opinion in between.

Get out more! Drink beer! Kiss girls!

Zulu out.

Hallelujah!

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:31 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:
Zulus Thousand of em wrote:What a breathtakingly boring and pointless thread! Nobody will change their views on religion by tub-thumping posts on here. That's irrespective of whether they come from religious zealots, atheists, or any shade of opinion in between.

Get out more! Drink beer! Kiss girls!

Zulu out.

Hallelujah!

Beware of worshipping false idols

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:32 pm

I'm not false, me!

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:25 pm

communistworkethic wrote:And who said they are his commandments? A man. Only witness to the creation of the tablets, moses.

But moreover, some pope, who is apparentlty god's mouthpiece on earth, said that Joan was ok, overruling a bishop after he'd covicted her of heracy. And the Pope is infallible, so therefore she must have been sane and did hear God who told her killing the English was ok. There's the lack of consistency.

Then if killing the English was OK, why not prostitutes, after all they are sinners.

Ok lets do the scientific approach. Only witness to the Big Bang theory? errr no-one.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:34 pm

I once witnessed a big bang at half three in the morning on the beach in Benidorm but I'm not sure that's important right now...

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:39 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:I once witnessed a big bang at half three in the morning on the beach in Benidorm but I'm not sure that's important right now...

And realistically, if it involved you Crayz, I'm probably glad I didn't witness it.....no offence meant mate

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:48 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:I once witnessed a big bang at half three in the morning on the beach in Benidorm but I'm not sure that's important right now...
And realistically, if it involved you Crayz, I'm probably glad I didn't witness it.....no offence meant mate

Good God no! It didn't involve me; I was there purely by chance for voyeuristic purposes. Funniest moment was when I heard a girl (who was a scouser) angrily ask who'd just f**king come in her mouth.

Who did she think it was? Was it not obvious?

Connect with your social network account

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Who is online