Criticising the Prophet Mohammed is now illegal.

[The Agrarian]

Shameful that the UK has not offered asylum.

Please sign the petition.

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/give-the-whole-of-asia-bibis-family-asylum-in-the

 

[wanton dwarf]

Oooooh. Now thats only a matter of opinion. The basic teachings of Jesus remain as relevant and revolutionary in this selfish and corrupt world than they were 2000 years ago. For all man's scientific advances, he has learnt very little.

My world isn't selfish. I guess most normal people are not selfish.

Those that are selfish are those that are in power. How much land and money do religions hold in the UK ? You won't see anyone in the clergy going through the eye of a needle.

I've learnt enough to know Religion is used as a weapon of control on the masses and justification for all kinds of human abuse. Mentally and physically.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Shameful that the UK has not offered asylum.

Please sign the petition.

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/give-the-whole-of-asia-bibis-family-asylum-in-the

Yes and No.

Yes, she has been abused.

But the UK government give £100s of million to Pakistan. Pakistan helped Alquida and funds terrorism. Pakistan also persecutes non muslim religions on a large scale. Osama Bin Laden hid in a region of Pakistan before he was executed.

All this helping our enemies has to end.

 

[The Agrarian]

She isn't our enemy. We can help her. We aren't talking about her having been abused. We are talking about a real and imminent threat to her and her family's lives. There is absolutely no doubt that they will be murdered by a headcase if found. Pakistan can't and won't prevent that.

 

[Danllan]

Oooooh. Now thats only a matter of opinion. The basic teachings of Jesus remain as relevant and revolutionary in this selfish and corrupt world than they were 2000 years ago. For all man's scientific advances, he has learnt very little.

So glad to discuss this again. None of what you are likely to term the positive 'teachings' were original apart from his personal claims, and they were only original about 'him', loads of other loonies before - and since - have claimed the same.

Edit: and that all presupposes that 'Jesus' was not a fictional character, which is unlikely.

 

[The Agrarian]

Which brings us full circle to the original topic. While speaking against an historical (and/or religious) figure should never, ever be illegal, your post branding Jesus as a loony shows that neither will there ever be a way of legislating for that which is disrespectful to others and in poor taste. An important part of education which is clearly lacking.

 

[arcobob]

Shameful that the UK has not offered asylum.

Please sign the petition.

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/give-the-whole-of-asia-bibis-family-asylum-in-the

I tend to agree that asylum should be offered but then she should be advised against accepting. I am sure there are safer places to hide.

 

[Hindsight]

I tend to agree that asylum should be offered but then she should be advised against accepting. I am sure there are safer places to hide.

I have read your post several times now in past few minutes. I actually went away had a mug of coffee and came back to it again. My recurring thought initially was hypocrisy then I thought again and concluded sanctimony. Good day for it too. Cheers.

If the UK cannot offer a safe place with the supposed rule of law in our democracy where can?

 

[Hindsight]

Yes and No.

Yes, she has been abused.

But the UK government give £100s of million to Pakistan. Pakistan helped Alquida and funds terrorism. Pakistan also persecutes non muslim religions on a large scale. Osama Bin Laden hid in a region of Pakistan before he was executed.

All this helping our enemies has to end.

You have a point. Afraid she is I suppose caught up in geopolitics. What a complicated world.

 

[Danllan]

Which brings us full circle to the original topic. While speaking against an historical (and/or religious) figure should never, ever be illegal, your post branding Jesus as a loony shows that neither will there ever be a way of legislating for that which is disrespectful to others and in poor taste. An important part of education which is clearly lacking.

Jesus, if he existed, is dead and therefore past caring and anyone who claims 'divine' heritage is a loony. Your revolting religions have shown more disrespect and poor taste than anything else in human history - all based on unsubstantiated claptrap which doesn't bare up to the most casual rational examination.

And you, presumably, want a society based upon - if not ruled by - 'Christian' values? The so called 'golden rule', which I would hope we can agree is just that, was around millennia before your chosen messiah; it is simple common sense and human decency.

A wee bit of virtue flagging at the end there? Tell us, please, of the respect and taste of your particular delusion of choice, if you have the moral courage to name it...

 

[wanton dwarf]

She isn't our enemy. We can help her. We aren't talking about her having been abused. We are talking about a real and imminent threat to her and her family's lives. There is absolutely no doubt that they will be murdered by a headcase if found. Pakistan can't and won't prevent that.

Whilst I have sympathy for the plight of Christianity in the UK .. I do so from the wish to have a greater coherence against the threat of Islam.

Unfortunately if we allow Blasphamy then how do we stop or get amended the horrendous and disgusting aspects of Sharia Law ?

Personnally I think that those who follow Islam will never bend.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Jesus, if he existed, is dead and therefore past caring and anyone who claims 'divine' heritage is a loony. Your revolting religions have shown more disrespect and poor taste than anything else in human history - all based on unsubstantiated claptrap which doesn't bare up to the most casual rational examination.

And you, presumably, want a society based upon - if not ruled by - 'Christian' values? The so called 'golden rule', which I would hope we can agree is just that, was around millennia before your chosen messiah; it is simple common sense and human decency.

A wee bit of virtue flagging at the end there? Tell us, please, of the respect and taste of your particular delusion of choice, if you have the moral courage to name it...

Intellectually I think you are correct.

However I don't think you are allowing for those that need religious emotional support in their lives. IMHO too much knocking of christianity has gone on, far better it was supported by everyone BUT most levers of power removed.

Create a gap and something moves in to fill it ..

 

[The Agrarian]

Jesus, if he existed, is dead and therefore past caring and anyone who claims 'divine' heritage is a loony. Your revolting religions have shown more disrespect and poor taste than anything else in human history - all based on unsubstantiated claptrap which doesn't bare up to the most casual rational examination.

And you, presumably, want a society based upon - if not ruled by - 'Christian' values? The so called 'golden rule', which I would hope we can agree is just that, was around millennia before your chosen messiah; it is simple common sense and human decency.

A wee bit of virtue flagging at the end there? Tell us, please, of the respect and taste of your particular delusion of choice, if you have the moral courage to name it...

Um. You wouldn't be well versed then on the life of Jesus, because you would know it's one of the best documented lives of ancient history. Anyway, I have no intention of persuading you to change your own chosen delusion, be that atheism or humanism, or anything else. Only to say that your disrespectful attitude to people of other delusions shows again the immediate relevance of the teachings found in the gospels.
A core principle is to love your enemies and your neighbours more than yourself, putting the needs of others selflessly before your own. Common sense and decency? Very good of course, but Jesus went far beyond that.

You haven't a clue what my religion is, in order to be disgusted at it. But it's note worthy that Jesus shared the very same disgust at the way Jewish organised religion had become a human corruption of what their understanding of God should have been. He tore into the religious heirarchy at almost every turnaround, and of course they hated him for exposing their corruption and hypocracy. It's no surprise they had him executed. Men of God they were not. No, Jesus didn't have time for religion. He gave himself to ordinary people, the sick, the grieving, the broken. Read about him in the four Gospels - he's hard to fault.

So should we be careful of organised religions? Absolutely. They are built and maintained by humans - and history shows time and time again that, far from adding your 'ancient' concepts of common sense and decency to the example of the life and teachings Jesus, people usually bring corruption. Corruption of what is right and good, and corruption and misrepresentation of Jesus. There's a good reason for that. We are all selfish by nature, which is why we mess things up, and why the best of us fail to adequately follow the example of Jesus.

That's why I wouldn't recommend any Christian denomination by name to you, because they are only collections of fallible people, trying (and failing) to understand the path they should take through their lives. And yet, that's exactly what life's all about.

The four Gospels aren't owned or created by any church or denomination or religion. And that's a truely great thing. Because we can read about the life and teachings of Jesus all by ourselves, and form our own opinions. And during the Reformation in Europe, that's exactly what Martin Luther and the subsequent reformers advised people to do. To compare the practices and teachings of organised religion (in that case, the Roman Catholic Church) to the actual teachings of Jesus, and make up their own minds! A mirror of what Jesus himself did.

So by all means, have a healthy scepticism of religions if you wish. I know I do. It's engrained in us descendants of the reformers to constantly question the words, actions, motives of everyone in positions of teaching and leadership, that it concurs with what Jesus said, though not without first holding ourselves to account. But hold off if you will on the ridicule of Jesus. Unless you can find fault with his words or actions, have the common sense, decency, and might I add respect, to leave alone what is sacred to others.

 

[Macsky]

Jesus, if he existed, is dead and therefore past caring and anyone who claims 'divine' heritage is a loony. Your revolting religions have shown more disrespect and poor taste than anything else in human history - all based on unsubstantiated claptrap which doesn't bare up to the most casual rational examination.

And you, presumably, want a society based upon - if not ruled by - 'Christian' values? The so called 'golden rule', which I would hope we can agree is just that, was around millennia before your chosen messiah; it is simple common sense and human decency.

A wee bit of virtue flagging at the end there? Tell us, please, of the respect and taste of your particular delusion of choice, if you have the moral courage to name it...

If Jesus was dead, Christianity would never have existed.

 

[Danllan]

Um. You wouldn't be well versed then on the life of Jesus, because you would know it's one of the best documented lives of ancient history...

Jesus... show me a verifiable account of this fellow outside of your religious tomes. There is no historical record of him and we know that a huge amount involving him is inarguably fiction.

Let's start with his birth - parthenogenesis in a mammal? - to a supposed virgin. What is more likely, a total contradiction of the natural order or a frightened little Jewish girl getting pregnant and, knowing that she was liable for execution for it, making up a story? In Bethlehem... where it had to be to fulfil Jewish prophecy, so they couldn't have him stick in Nazareth. There wasn't a Census, as claimed in your Bible, and there wasn't the Roman administration claimed in it either. Claims of divine parentage, certifiable in an individual nowadays, and with no proof offered.

Happy to move on to the 'gospels' when you clear these up and can suggest many more that need explaining too. The gospels are so full of holes and contradictions that it beggars belief. None of the 'four' - there are loads of others too - were or could have been written by the supposed authors and none offer any proof of either the existence of Jesus or the claimed divinity.

I note that you haven't had the courage to admit your own persuasion yet still demand respect. For what, giving up the use of your critical faculties and falling for stories that a young child can see through? All you claim for Jesus is laughable; you think I am ignorant of your scriptures, sadly not. But you seem entirely unaware of ancient texts by verifiable authors ranging form Ashurbanipal and Acrion, to Confucius and Ptahhotep. Take a squint at ancient Babylonian ethics, why don't you? The Jews plagiarised most of their 'good book' from them and other Babylonian stories, and your pal Jesus was equally keen on 'adopting' the ideas of others.

I do respect anybody's right to believe whatever they want, and this must be the case in a liberal democracy. But the corollary to this is that there is no necessity to respect what anyone believes, only their right to believe it. If you want your beliefs respected, make them respectable or choose ones that are respectable.

If Jesus was dead, Christianity would never have existed.

I really am unsure as to whether or not that's written with a sense of irony and / or humour...

 

[Macsky]

Jesus... show me a verifiable account of this fellow outside of your religious tomes. There is no historical record of him and we know that a huge amount involving him is inarguably fiction.

Let's start with his birth - parthenogenesis in a mammal? - to a supposed virgin. What is more likely, a total contradiction of the natural order or a frightened little Jewish girl getting pregnant and, knowing that she was liable for execution for it, making up a story? In Bethlehem... where it had to be to fulfil Jewish prophecy, so they couldn't have him stick in Nazareth. There wasn't a Census, as claimed in your Bible, and there wasn't the Roman administration claimed in it either. Claims of divine parentage, certifiable in an individual nowadays, and with no proof offered.

Happy to move on to the 'gospels' when you clear these up and can suggest many more that need explaining too. The gospels are so full of holes and contradictions that it beggars belief. None of the 'four' - there are loads of others too - were or could have been written by the supposed authors and none offer any proof of either the existence of Jesus or the claimed divinity.

I note that you haven't had the courage to admit your own persuasion yet still demand respect. For what, giving up the use of your critical faculties and falling for stories that a young child can see through? All you claim for Jesus is laughable; you think I am ignorant of your scriptures, sadly not. But you seem entirely unaware of ancient texts by verifiable authors ranging form Ashurbanipal and Acrion, to Confucius and Ptahhotep. Take a squint at ancient Babylonian ethics, why don't you? The Jews plagiarised most of their 'good book' from them and other Babylonian stories, and your pal Jesus was equally keen on 'adopting' the ideas of others.

I do respect anybody's right to believe whatever they want, and this must be the case in a liberal democracy. But the corollary to this is that there is no necessity to respect what anyone believes, only their right to believe it. If you want your beliefs respected, make them respectable or choose ones that are respectable.



I really am unsure as to whether or not that's written with a sense of irony and / or humour...

Apart from there is historical record of him, namely and not only from the Roman politicians Tacitus and Pliny, who held high office at the beginning of the 2nd century AD, neither of which liked Christians.

My previous comment was serious. If Jesus had died his utterly humiliating and shameful death and not risen again, would his few close followers really have gone on to face further scorn and hardship, with no hope of any worldly gain (and almost to a man face very grizzly endings) to preach his message? I highly doubt it.

No resurrection = no hope = no Christianity.

 

[Danllan]

Apart from there is historical record of him, namely and not only from the Roman politicians Tacitus and Pliny, who held high office at the beginning of the 2nd century AD, neither of which liked Christians.

My previous comment was serious. If Jesus had died his utterly humiliating and shameful death and not risen again, would his few close followers really have gone on to face further scorn and hardship, with no hope of any worldly gain (and almost to a man face very grizzly endings) to preach his message? I highly doubt it.

No resurrection = no hope = no Christianity.

Apologies, my error regarding your first point, I meant to and should have written that there was no contemporary historical record - which is surprising; but I note that the sources you mention do dwell on 'Christianity' rather than Jesus.

Where is the evidence a) for his having died and b) for his having being resurrected? You are going to have a very hard time adducing any from outside of your scriptures, a bit of a circular situation there, 'it is true because it was written and it was written because it was true'.

 

[Macsky]

Apologies, my error regarding your first point, I meant to and should have written that there was no contemporary historical record - which is surprising; but I note that the sources you mention do dwell on 'Christianity' rather than Jesus.

Where is the evidence a) for his having died and b) for his having being resurrected? You are going to have a very hard time adducing any from outside of your scriptures, a bit of a circular situation there, 'it is true because it was written and it was written because it was true'.

What you have to also consider as well is that there is no contemporary historical record refuting his existence.

Evidence for his resurrection would have been, and was, actively covered up. The truth of it posed far too much risk for the established authorities at the time.

 

[alex04w]

Apologies, my error regarding your first point, I meant to and should have written that there was no contemporary historical record - which is surprising; but I note that the sources you mention do dwell on 'Christianity' rather than Jesus.

Where is the evidence a) for his having died and b) for his having being resurrected? You are going to have a very hard time adducing any from outside of your scriptures, a bit of a circular situation there, 'it is true because it was written and it was written because it was true'.

You were a barrister. You know the rules of Court. The evidence of witnesses that agree is the strongest evidence there is.

In the four gospels we have four separate witnesses giving evidence that agrees. What more do you want? We have four people who say he died and who say he was resurrected again and was seen of them, they spoke to him, etc. They say he was seen of over 500 after his resurrection. I think you would have loved to go into Court to try a case where you had 4 clear written witness statements and the backing of 500 others.

There are none so blind as those that do not want to see.

 

[Danllan]

You were a barrister. You know the rules of Court. The evidence of witnesses that agree is the strongest evidence there is.

In the four gospels we have four separate witnesses giving evidence that agrees. What more do you want? We have four people who say he died and who say he was resurrected again and was seen of them, they spoke to him, etc. They say he was seen of over 500 after his resurrection. I think you would have loved to go into Court to try a case where you had 4 clear written witness statements and the backing of 500 others.

There are none so blind as those that do not want to see.

Am still a Barrister, not having been disbarred, but am admittedly well over a decade away from the coalface; I know / knew the rules in the Anglo-Welsh jurisdiction, can't vouch for what they may be in NI, but suppose they are similar.

Witness evidence can carry great weight but, as we know, can be remarkably unreliable too and is often, in fact regularly, trumped by video or audio recordings as well as forensic evidence. What we think we remember and what is precise fact are not often one and the same.

As for the Gospels, four separate fairy stories don't add up to anything; however, if you want to give them credit - which I would say was unwise for someone on your side of the debate - how do you reconcile their contradictions, both internal and between one another; will you just pick and choose what is convenient for your argument? What about all the verifiable historical inaccuracy and fiction?

Hearsay is admissible where necessary but, as we know, it doesn't carry much weight and the 'witness statements' you refer to were not made by the so-called 'witnesses', but were written down by others well over a century after their deaths. This would mean that, even if there had been some genuine events, it would have been at best third or fourth hand accounts that were recorded, tenuous...

I do want to see and, fortunately, by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' I am able to see beyond the backward fantasies of our primitive forebears. And you could too, if you were to reassume the control of your critical faculties.

What I can't see - note the can't - is why you need a load of supernatural rubbish to give you permission or reason to use some pretty basic and decent rules that we all share in a common humanism (small 'h' there).

What you have to also consider as well is that there is no contemporary historical record refuting his existence.

Evidence for his resurrection would have been, and was, actively covered up. The truth of it posed far too much risk for the established authorities at the time.

'...there is no contemporary historical record refuting his existence.' There is no contemporary historical record refuting the existence of Enoch the flying donkey seller, because he didn't exist. We don't - well I don't - spend my time now refuting the existence of the non-existent because it would be both daft and time consuming, why would the ancients have been any different in this?

'The truth of it posed far too much risk for the established authorities at the time.' Hmm... could that possibly be why, now that we as a species have left our ignorant childhood, the religious don't like having their stories questioned and criticised?