Windsor Wedding - BBC
I am not the world's biggest fan of religion at the best of times; but people who just decide to "convert" because it suits them are possibly even worse. Quite how you are supposed to "convert" to something that's supposed to be a fervent belief I have no idea. Does she now agree she's been a silly thicko who was believing something untrue? If so, why change to something *right now* that *just happens* to have an impact on her husband's future?
Obviously this Peter chap is one hell of a persuasive guy.
Quote:
Princess Anne's son, Peter Phillips, is to marry Canadian management consultant Autumn Kelly at Windsor Castle later. Earlier this month, she announced she had given up her Catholic faith and converted to the Church of England to allow her future husband to retain his right to the throne.
Since 1701, heirs to the throne marrying Catholics cannot become sovereigns.
Since 1701, heirs to the throne marrying Catholics cannot become sovereigns.
I am not the world's biggest fan of religion at the best of times; but people who just decide to "convert" because it suits them are possibly even worse. Quite how you are supposed to "convert" to something that's supposed to be a fervent belief I have no idea. Does she now agree she's been a silly thicko who was believing something untrue? If so, why change to something *right now* that *just happens* to have an impact on her husband's future?
Obviously this Peter chap is one hell of a persuasive guy.
Am I the only one who's now thinking about 'Kind Hearts and Coronets'?
The fact we have succession laws based on religion is even better.
Is this not something they are doing/saying to avoid the media and religious kicking up a mighty stink should the 'catholic marrying prince' ever gain the throne? I'd wager neither of them give a fuck about religion at all and are saying whatever their shrewd advisors tell them to, in order to cause the least fuss over the long term.
Kern wrote:
Am I the only one who's now thinking about 'Kind Hearts and Coronets'?
"Kind hears are more than coronets, and simple faith than Norman Blood."
"From here, I think, the wound will be consistent with the story I shall tell."
"I must admit he exhibits the most extraordinary capacity for middle age that I've ever encountered in a young man of twenty-four."
"I shot an arrow in the air. She fell to earth in Berkley Square."
"I always say that my west window has all the exuberance of Chaucer, without, happily, any of the concomitant crudities of his period. Ha. Ha. Ha."
"Revenge is a dish that people of taste prefer to eat cold."
"I believe, in that case, a little developer..."
"I was sorry about the girl, but found some relief in the reflection that she had presumably during the weekend already undergone a fate worse than death."
Sorry, in my top ten films that one. I also always chuckle when Arthur Lowe says 'tit bits'.
I'd be very surprised about the media caring any longer as to a catholic gaining the throne.
Now a muslim, no matter how affable and wise...
Now a muslim, no matter how affable and wise...
They made enough of Blair switching, and that was after his tenure as PM.
Sheepeh wrote:
I am not the world's biggest fan of religion at the best of times; but people who just decide to "convert" because it suits them are possibly even worse.
It's just a different division of the same Jesus club. Hardly like someone converting to a totally different religion like with that woman who married that Indian cricketer a few years back.
I know quite a few people that have 'switched' religions, or factions within a religion, to be with a partner. I can't think of one of them that I truly believe was religious to begin with - I do not believe that any of them believed in the deities that they were singing/dancing/making offerings to at religious ceremonies, but that they were bought up by religious parents and carried that religion through to their adolescent and adult life as an extension of their cultural heritage. I think if I pressed my friends on the matter that the vast majority would admit to not truly believing that there is a flute playing elephant, a monkey nor a many headed many in control of their fate, but rather that being hindu was something that was passed down to them - their cultural festivals are part of their heritage, and their cultural festivals have their base in religion. Family gatherings centre around these festivals and this is where their claim to faith comes from.
I remember speaking to one of my friends when we were younger, and her stance was that there may or may not be something out there, she didn't know - she didn't believe in Ganesh, Hanuman and the like, she saw them more as fairytales. She didn't pray except at festivals when everyone was called to worship, but, mostly, she liked the food and dancing.
I think this is why some people find it so easy to switch - religion is often more of a cultural thing than an actual belief. It is more of a system of morals than an actual belief in a deity, or deities. This is why, I believe, my best friend found it so easy to suddenly announce herself as a Catholic after she ran away from her hindu family to marry a catholic man. She doesn't believe that, either, but she lives in ireland now and, you know, it's just easier to fit in. She may be 'catholic' insomuch as that is the culture she has now immersed herself in, but that seems to be about the extent of it.
I have no problem with this woman switching to maintain the extremely improbable chance that whoever this guy is will ever see the throne, though, frankly, I think all religion is nonsense. There seems to be a fear of public figures saying so, though.
Wasn't there recently a poll in America to find out the likelihood of people electing a president according to different criteria such as race and religion? Yes, here it is
Sorry, I am sidetracking.
I remember speaking to one of my friends when we were younger, and her stance was that there may or may not be something out there, she didn't know - she didn't believe in Ganesh, Hanuman and the like, she saw them more as fairytales. She didn't pray except at festivals when everyone was called to worship, but, mostly, she liked the food and dancing.
I think this is why some people find it so easy to switch - religion is often more of a cultural thing than an actual belief. It is more of a system of morals than an actual belief in a deity, or deities. This is why, I believe, my best friend found it so easy to suddenly announce herself as a Catholic after she ran away from her hindu family to marry a catholic man. She doesn't believe that, either, but she lives in ireland now and, you know, it's just easier to fit in. She may be 'catholic' insomuch as that is the culture she has now immersed herself in, but that seems to be about the extent of it.
I have no problem with this woman switching to maintain the extremely improbable chance that whoever this guy is will ever see the throne, though, frankly, I think all religion is nonsense. There seems to be a fear of public figures saying so, though.
Wasn't there recently a poll in America to find out the likelihood of people electing a president according to different criteria such as race and religion? Yes, here it is
Code:
The poll finds Americans most likely to believe that the country is ready for a female president. Sixty-one percent say
Americans are ready to elect a woman, while 38% disagree. A majority also believes the country is ready to elect an
African American or black (58%) or a Jewish (55%) president.
On the other hand, fewer than half of Americans think the country would be willing to elect presidents with other
background characteristics, including a Hispanic (41%), Asian (33%), Latter-Day Saint or Mormon (29%), Atheist
(14%), or gay or lesbian (7%).
Americans are ready to elect a woman, while 38% disagree. A majority also believes the country is ready to elect an
African American or black (58%) or a Jewish (55%) president.
On the other hand, fewer than half of Americans think the country would be willing to elect presidents with other
background characteristics, including a Hispanic (41%), Asian (33%), Latter-Day Saint or Mormon (29%), Atheist
(14%), or gay or lesbian (7%).
Sorry, I am sidetracking.
Sheepeh wrote:
Windsor Wedding - BBC
I am not the world's biggest fan of religion at the best of times; but people who just decide to "convert" because it suits them are possibly even worse.
Quote:
Princess Anne's son, Peter Phillips, is to marry Canadian management consultant Autumn Kelly at Windsor Castle later. Earlier this month, she announced she had given up her Catholic faith and converted to the Church of England to allow her future husband to retain his right to the throne.
Since 1701, heirs to the throne marrying Catholics cannot become sovereigns.
Since 1701, heirs to the throne marrying Catholics cannot become sovereigns.
I am not the world's biggest fan of religion at the best of times; but people who just decide to "convert" because it suits them are possibly even worse.
We-el, if they need to switch (stated) allegiance in one set of silly traditions in order to meet the arbitrary rules of another set of silly traditions (the monarchy / archaic English law) then good luck to them. As you say it sort of underlines the daftness of being a devout believer in made up nonsense, and I suspect the canny Canadian lassie knows this
As Mimi says, it's more of a cultural thing for a lot of people. Sort of like football teams. In a lot of circles you're _expected_ to support a football team, even if you don't care about football.
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Not really. Many people are bought up in a particular religion since birth. By the time they are old enough to make real choices it is often part of the very person that they are. On top of that many people fear being disowned if they abandon a religion, so even though they may not 'believe' as such they still attend and enjoy the cultural side of the religion on their families.
Not to mention that some areas of the world are so poor that believing in something is a relief from the awful world around you. I don't consider it weak.
Dudley wrote:
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Because, of course, religion is something horrible to believe in, and ruins your life?
Yes, I was thinking of people in the western world, not of less developed countries, where such beliefs can be a really important mental aid for survival in hard times.
Of course, for some people religion can be a horrible thing to believe in, and definitely can ruin lives, but for others it can be a very positive thing. In my ideal world there'd be no such thing as religion. Or countries. Nothing to kill or die for. Oooh oooh-oooh, oooohooooohoooohhhh.....
Of course, for some people religion can be a horrible thing to believe in, and definitely can ruin lives, but for others it can be a very positive thing. In my ideal world there'd be no such thing as religion. Or countries. Nothing to kill or die for. Oooh oooh-oooh, oooohooooohoooohhhh.....
Mr Dave wrote:
Dudley wrote:
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Because, of course, religion is something horrible to believe in, and ruins your life?
To cut a long story very short, yes.
Mr Dave wrote:
Dudley wrote:
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Because, of course, religion is something horrible to believe in, and ruins your life?
He was clearly only referring to bending the knee to 'expectation', mate...
I assume you are not being wholly serious, but that's a sweeping generalisation that you can't, or really shouldn't, make.
I think many people may find their lives wholly enriched by holding religious beliefs, I also think that it may make some believers better people. Where I think there is a problem is when people do not sin not because they use religion or their own common sense as a set of guidelines to a good life, but where they only withhold from doing bad things because of a fear of repercussions either in the afterlife or through some divine justice that they fear from their god(s).
EDIT: that was in response to SteONorDar. Klatrymadon's post popped up whilst I wasn't looking and there wasn't a 'oh look, someone's beaten you to it' warning this time.
I think many people may find their lives wholly enriched by holding religious beliefs, I also think that it may make some believers better people. Where I think there is a problem is when people do not sin not because they use religion or their own common sense as a set of guidelines to a good life, but where they only withhold from doing bad things because of a fear of repercussions either in the afterlife or through some divine justice that they fear from their god(s).
EDIT: that was in response to SteONorDar. Klatrymadon's post popped up whilst I wasn't looking and there wasn't a 'oh look, someone's beaten you to it' warning this time.
SteONorDar wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
Dudley wrote:
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Because, of course, religion is something horrible to believe in, and ruins your life?
To cut a long story very short, yes.
If you can find a single way that being religious has managed to ruin my life, I'd be seriously impressed.
Satan made you miss that headshot last night.
Remember how your milk keeps disappearing from the office fridge? That's not your co-workers, that's Jesus, that is.
Mr Dave wrote:
If you can find a single way that being religious has managed to ruin my life, I'd be seriously impressed.
I can think of an incident involving religious terrorism making it rather awkward for you to pop to the shops, among other things.
I was specifically refering to my life. The best thing I ever did was to stop worshipping God. I've yet to encounter a Christian organisation* that is not judgemental, controlling, and detrimental to my personal mental wellbeing.
Islam and Judaism are worse even than Christianity for this. I have no interest in eastern religions, at least on a personal level, but my experience with the middle-eastern ones has put me off all of them for life.
Also, I would find worshipping a God that created this world, and this species, hypocritical in the extreme, as I dislike most of it, to put it mildly. Again, this is personal opinion, I'm not saying anyone who worships is a hypocrite.
I could also enumerate the vast damage done by religion to many individuals and communities, in the form of abuse and war, but it's all been done before, and I imagine everyone knows this viewpoint.
@Mr Dave, if it enriches your life, go for it. I had a very different experience.
@Mimi, I was serious. Re-reading some of your earlier posts, I should clarify that it's the belief I have a problem with, rather than the communal aspect.
I've tried hard to phrase this so I'm not attacking anyone for believing in a religion, if I come across as though I am, apologies.
*Added because I don't want anyone to think all (or indeed many) individual Christians to be like this.
Islam and Judaism are worse even than Christianity for this. I have no interest in eastern religions, at least on a personal level, but my experience with the middle-eastern ones has put me off all of them for life.
Also, I would find worshipping a God that created this world, and this species, hypocritical in the extreme, as I dislike most of it, to put it mildly. Again, this is personal opinion, I'm not saying anyone who worships is a hypocrite.
I could also enumerate the vast damage done by religion to many individuals and communities, in the form of abuse and war, but it's all been done before, and I imagine everyone knows this viewpoint.
@Mr Dave, if it enriches your life, go for it. I had a very different experience.
@Mimi, I was serious. Re-reading some of your earlier posts, I should clarify that it's the belief I have a problem with, rather than the communal aspect.
I've tried hard to phrase this so I'm not attacking anyone for believing in a religion, if I come across as though I am, apologies.
*Added because I don't want anyone to think all (or indeed many) individual Christians to be like this.
CUS wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
If you can find a single way that being religious has managed to ruin my life, I'd be seriously impressed.
I can think of an incident involving religious terrorism making it rather awkward for you to pop to the shops, among other things.
Which has nothing to do with me being religious ruining my life.
Of course it does. If the likes of you were Muslim instead, we'd not be in this mess. Can you not change? It's the same basic God. etc.
I see - it wasn't clear that you were referring only to your life, Ste. Of course, I believe that many people do have their lives ruined by their religion, and I am glad that you have found happiness away from religion, it seemed that you were saying that religion ruins lives as part of it's natural course, but I see you didn't mean that at all.
This may be too personal a question, Mr Dave, and if it is please ignore it, but have you ever questioned your faith?
This may be too personal a question, Mr Dave, and if it is please ignore it, but have you ever questioned your faith?
Mimi wrote:
I see - it wasn't clear that you were referring only to your life, Ste. Of course, I believe that many people do have their lives ruined by their religion, and I am glad that you have found happiness away from religion, it seemed that you were saying that religion ruins lives as part of it's natural course, but I see you didn't mean that at all.
I agree it's damaged other lives than mine... The example of religious terrorism earlier is an example of that. I'm aware, of course, that that isn't the totality of religion, but it quite clearly does ruin peoples lives in that case, and it appears that God does nothing to stop it. That's not a God I will worship. Again, though, if religion works for people, that's good for them. It often seems to me that, on an individual level, religion can be a good thing, but on a group level, a very bad thing.
That's all separate from the issue of whether any of it's true or not, about which I have some massive confusion. I don't think this is the best place to sort it out though...
Mr Dave wrote:
Dudley wrote:
And if they're weak enough to fall for that, more fool them.
Because, of course, religion is something horrible to believe in, and ruins your life?
Pretty much, it's easier of course if you quietly edit those bits you don't like of course, like hating gay people and not doing anything on Sunday.
I was however refering to following a religion because of expectation.
But everyone in England has their lives made worse by relgion if they want to go shopping on a Sunday evening only to find other people's beliefs make that illegal.
SteONorDar wrote:
The example of religious terrorism earlier is an example of that. I'm aware, of course, that that isn't the totality of religion, but it quite clearly does ruin peoples lives in that case, and it appears that God does nothing to stop it. That's not a God I will worship.
Absolutely, we're still left with the inescapable truth that one of these 3 things is true.
1 - There is no God.
2 - There is, but he's not all powerful.
3 - He's a CUNT.
All of which seem like good reasons not to be a cult-sheep.
Since I was about 15, I've been unavoidably forced to imagine that God has the voice of Richard Herring at this most irritating. I don't *think* because of any specific sketch.
"But why, God? Why do you let all this suffering happen? Why must there be so much death - in wars, in tsunamis, in earthquakes?"
"Ahhhhhhh!"
"No, NOT Ahhh! Why? Explain yourself! Why do you deserve to be worshipped?"
"Ahhhhh but I made the Earth and all of you Ahhhhh!"
"Yeah, says YOU. The only power you've ever actually demonstrated is your power of being stroppy. In fact, in all representations of you throughout the Bible, you seem like a right crybaby."
"What? No it doesn't! Anyway, they were metaphors anyway Ahhhhhh!"
edit: also, when I was about 10, I was told off in front of the whole school, and 'rulered', because I contradicted the village vicar. He was doing a reading ,and mentioned Joseph 'the Father of Jesus', coming to him at the crucifixtion blah blah holy grail. "Excuse me, sorry Father, but I thought that was Joseph of Arimathea?" "No." "But it says..." "No, now shush." "But..." "Come here! Stand up! Hands out! *SLAP*"
Later, I was 'summoned' to the headmaster's office, where said vicar rather brusquely says 'Yes, it was Joseph of Arimathea* obviously, we all make mistakes sometimes." I then was given detention for a week for speaking out during the sermon. Cunts. But anyway, mostly the Richard Herring thing.
* or however it's spelled.
"But why, God? Why do you let all this suffering happen? Why must there be so much death - in wars, in tsunamis, in earthquakes?"
"Ahhhhhhh!"
"No, NOT Ahhh! Why? Explain yourself! Why do you deserve to be worshipped?"
"Ahhhhh but I made the Earth and all of you Ahhhhh!"
"Yeah, says YOU. The only power you've ever actually demonstrated is your power of being stroppy. In fact, in all representations of you throughout the Bible, you seem like a right crybaby."
"What? No it doesn't! Anyway, they were metaphors anyway Ahhhhhh!"
edit: also, when I was about 10, I was told off in front of the whole school, and 'rulered', because I contradicted the village vicar. He was doing a reading ,and mentioned Joseph 'the Father of Jesus', coming to him at the crucifixtion blah blah holy grail. "Excuse me, sorry Father, but I thought that was Joseph of Arimathea?" "No." "But it says..." "No, now shush." "But..." "Come here! Stand up! Hands out! *SLAP*"
Later, I was 'summoned' to the headmaster's office, where said vicar rather brusquely says 'Yes, it was Joseph of Arimathea* obviously, we all make mistakes sometimes." I then was given detention for a week for speaking out during the sermon. Cunts. But anyway, mostly the Richard Herring thing.
* or however it's spelled.
Quote:
The only power you've ever actually demonstrated is your power of being stroppy.
8/10.
Funny you should mention unjust clergy. There was a preist in my school who taught music, and once, during a part of the lesson where everyone was allowed to walk around for some reason, I brushed my fingers over the keys of the huge piano at the back of the room as I walked past it - just brushed them lightly, not intending to press them at all. My mate Terry saw me do this and pounded the keys and walked off. The priest turned round and shouted at me for doing it. I explained what had happened (while Terry laughed, the sod) and that I hadn't pressed the keys. "YES YOU DID, I SAW YOU!" He shouted.
"You had your back to me. You had to turn round to talk to me - how could you have seen me?"
You can guess how well a schoolboy reasoning with a catholic priest turned out. Wanker. I didn't mind the accusation, but it was totally circumstantial, and then he tried to support it with outright lies! Hmph.
sinister agent wrote:
it was totally circumstantial, and then he tried to support it with outright lies! Hmph.
Yeah, that sounds like Catholicism to me.
sinister agent wrote:
There was a preist in my school who taught music, and once, during a part of the lesson where everyone was allowed to walk around for some reason, I brushed my fingers over the keys of the huge piano at the back of the room as I walked past it - just brushed them lightly, not intending to press them at all. My mate Terry saw me do this and pounded the keys and walked off. The priest turned round and shouted at me for doing it. I explained what had happened (while Terry laughed, the sod) and that I hadn't pressed the keys. "YES YOU DID, I SAW YOU!" He shouted.
Are you the Man with the Stick?
I had to look that one up on altavista, then wikipedia.
Obscurity bonus: 7
Obscurity bonus: 7
It made sense at 5am.
CUS wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
it was totally circumcised, and then he tried to support it with outright lies! Hmph.
Yeah, that sounds like Catholicism to me.
Sounds more like Judaism to me. Ah.
Cripes, that was a bad, forced pun. Think we'll move swifly on from that.
Anyway, G K Chesterton was a Christian, and he was famously dead clever and ace, so it can't all be bad.
Anyway, G K Chesterton was a Christian, and he was famously dead clever and ace, so it can't all be bad.
nervouspete wrote:
Anyway, G K Chesterton was a Christian, and he was famously dead clever and ace, so it can't all be bad.
So are Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams...
For a force that some claim is for good, it's done a hell of a lot of bad in the world.
I'm an atheist and in many ways I despise religion however as I get older things seem less black and white, I'm rather unconvinced for example that religion is the main reason for so much unrest, I suspect that dangerous cretins will always rise to power and find some cause or other to rally people around.
At a very local level I have seen that religion and religious people often can do a lot of good. I know of some people, turfed out of residential care and into the 'community' who would be completely neglected by all of society if it weren't for the fact that they had the support of the other people in their church. In short if religion disappeared overnight I don't believe that the world would be in any way transformed, without religion people are just as likely to group together and fall out with the other groups. It's a nice fantasy to suppose that if (when) everyone in the world becomes rational enough not to believe in a god that they won't be just as selfish and violent as they are now, but that's all it is, a fantasy.
At a very local level I have seen that religion and religious people often can do a lot of good. I know of some people, turfed out of residential care and into the 'community' who would be completely neglected by all of society if it weren't for the fact that they had the support of the other people in their church. In short if religion disappeared overnight I don't believe that the world would be in any way transformed, without religion people are just as likely to group together and fall out with the other groups. It's a nice fantasy to suppose that if (when) everyone in the world becomes rational enough not to believe in a god that they won't be just as selfish and violent as they are now, but that's all it is, a fantasy.
Agreed. When religion is the cause of bad things, it's because bad people are using it as a tool to manipulate others, not because of anything inherent to religion.
markg wrote:
I'm an atheist and in many ways I despise religion however as I get older things seem less black and white, I'm rather unconvinced for example that religion is the main reason for so much unrest, I suspect that dangerous cretins will always rise to power and find some cause or other to rally people around.
Yes but they'd probably have to do without without the people who aren't evil, just mildly simple.
Quote:
Agreed. When religion is the cause of bad things, it's because bad people are using it as a tool to manipulate others, not because of anything inherent to religion.
Indeed, there are perfectly nice religious people teaching that homosexuality is wrong.
There's plenty of evil inherent in religions unless you're telling me the bible isn't inherent to Christianity.
The bible teaches that slavery is ok, and that homosexuality should be punished by death. It also teaches that women are fundamentally inferior to men. These are inherent to Christianity, and no amount of cultural relativism or playing with words can change that.
markg wrote:
At a very local level I have seen that religion and religious people often can do a lot of good. I know of some people, turfed out of residential care and into the 'community' who would be completely neglected by all of society if it weren't for the fact that they had the support of the other people in their church.
The two largest charities in this country working with the homeless, Shelter and the Big Issue Foundation, are secular. It's simply not the case that only religious people will help others, if that's what you meant. Your phrasing suggests that.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that religious people are "bad" or "wrong", what I am claiming is that religious organisations are no better than secular ones, and demonstrably often worse.
SteONorDar wrote:
The bible teaches that slavery is ok, and that homosexuality should be punished by death. It also teaches that women are fundamentally inferior to men. These are inherent to Christianity, and no amount of cultural relativism or playing with words can change that.
Ahh yes, 'wacky' Leviticus. On the list of people I'd like to go back in time and have a serious talking to, Leviticus ranks quite highly due to his incredibly twattish laws. Him and his fellow Priestly Source.
Wiki sez:
Quote:
Priestly Sourse [P] is notable for its repetition of lists, long, unexciting, interruptions to the narrative, cold unemotional descriptions, and the lack of a high literary standard. While P uses Elohim and El Shaddai as names of God, unlike the Elohist, P treats God as transcendental, and distant, acting only through priests, and communicating only via the priesthood. In P, while God is just, God is also unmerciful, and applies brutal, and abrupt, punishment when laws are broken, such as killing 12,000 people with an instant plague, merely because they complained. P is regarded by the majority of scholars as particularly inelegant, and most think themselves able to recognize a text from P on sight due to this.
Plus he was always knocking Moses, which can't have helped long-term interfaith harmony. Leviticus, you twat. Remove him, and it's a better read.
You can't just "remove" part of the divine word of god because it's convenient.
"Yeah, we ignore the bits of religion that confuse or annoy us"
Dudley wrote:
You can't just "remove" part of the divine word of god because it's convenient.
That, however, is precisely what many religious people do. This was one of the things that drove me away from religion, not that these are necessarily irreconcilable with a "good" god, but that most people didn't even try, and indeed would get upset when it was pointed out. That lack of intellectual rigour really did for me.
Indeed, I've always said that while I hate the anti-gay etc policies at least I can respect it as an intelectual position, and one that takes courage to maintain in today's world.
To edit it just to be convenient is cowardly and (this is the good bit) to THEN have the audacity to quote random other parts of said tome as unquestionable divine world (as plenty of religious people do) is staggering.
To edit it just to be convenient is cowardly and (this is the good bit) to THEN have the audacity to quote random other parts of said tome as unquestionable divine world (as plenty of religious people do) is staggering.
nervouspete wrote:
CUS wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
it was totally circumcised, and then he tried to support it with outright lies! Hmph.
Yeah, that sounds like Catholicism to me.
Sounds more like Judaism to me. Ah.
"Judaism-FTFY", I think you mean. It took TWENTY MINUTES before I noticed you had altered the quote of me. WHERE IS YOUR NETIQUETTE????
Also, I largely agree with SteONorDar. That said, I have absolutely no problem with a person being very strong in their religious beliefs. There's a lot of excellent stuff in e.g. The Bible. Unfortunately, there's a lot of dreadfulness. If you were to distill it, you'd get a lovely, small book of helpful proverbs and fables, a thicker book of rather nastier stuff, and a far thicker book of Appendices e.g. "Here are the bits Luke seems to have just copied wholesale from elsewhere", and perhaps a nice graphical representation of all the 'X beget Y' bits.
Someone really needs to make an engineer's version of the Bible, removing the inefficiencies and converting into graph form where necessary. Seriously, and not as a summary, but a 2008 Remix or something.
Page 1 of 3 [ 101 posts ]