Censorship or Righteous Upholding of Freedom?

shouldbeinbed

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

This is an old argument. In fact, I believe it was the 1755 tsunami/earthquake in Portugal which originally triggered a kind of re-assessment of God, and led to the "deity" view of God - as one who behaves like a clock-maker - rather than the full on micro-manager - the kind of view most of us recognise today. It's considered one of THE moments that changed spiritual thinking, along with the holocaust. There's a slightly rubbish Wikipedia entry on it.

Rick. Take your pick of any natural disaster that developed into tragedy and massive loss of life and I think there's perfectly sound reasoning for questioning just how much "he" loves us all down here on his little hobby planet.

He has a better hit-rate than Bush, Bin Laden and Hussein put together.

So have Mosquitos, the flu virus, TB and any number of other micro nasties - are you suggesting they have some god like status or that God is micro managing the insects and bactera who to cull on 'his' behalf?

you've had sound answers, theres a bell curve of religious and anti religious zeal, people at either end refuse to see any other way & make absolutely no sense with their blind anti/faith arguments - you're coming across as well into that gang.

Maybe everyone that has ever died in any sort of nasty way had simply picked the wrong God to believe in and the right one is seletively culling people in the hope that the rest will realise this and turn to him but he doesn't want to kill everyone unrighteous all in one go as that'd deprive him of potential followers, or the various divine entities are fighting and seeking to gain control of the keys of heaven by massacring followers of another one whilst they hold a position of power over the God that could have stopped it, who does his best to minimise it becomming a total annihilation or just as likely there is only Offler the Crocodie God, he likes to be worshipped with hippopotamus and zebra meat and he's happy to let some numbers of the 'unrighteous' suffer in natural disasters he could have prevented if he wanted to because he's not eaten well enough that day and is feeling a bit light headed.

or blah blah blah. long silly argument that the internet was designed for.

cooldad

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

This is an old argument. In fact, I believe it was the 1755 tsunami/earthquake in Portugal which originally triggered a kind of re-assessment of God, and led to the "deity" view of God - as one who behaves like a clock-maker - rather than the full on micro-manager - the kind of view most of us recognise today. It's considered one of THE moments that changed spiritual thinking, along with the holocaust. There's a slightly rubbish Wikipedia entry on it.

Rick. Take your pick of any natural disaster that developed into tragedy and massive loss of life and I think there's perfectly sound reasoning for questioning just how much "he" loves us all down here on his little hobby planet.

He has a better hit-rate than Bush, Bin Laden and Hussein put together.

Bit that always gets me is after every disaster there are a few people who got lucky - hung onto a tree, dug out of rubble, medical staff did a first class job, and a bunch of people praise/thank god for the 'miracle'.

cyclingprop

Can we shortcut arriving at a Godwin style cOnclusion?

Ben6899

Yes I'm right at the extreme of the bell curve. That comes with the Engineering/science territory in which I reside.

I won't tell anyone what and what not to believe, but I'll carry on asking questions and making clear my disbelief.

Paul E

I don't force my atheism onto people, I see plenty of religious people on the street or in the media telling me that what I am is wrong in the eyes of "god"

For example (this was pointed out to me on facebook)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -norm.html

About the norm for the Daily Hate.

Agent57

This reminds me of the humanist bus campaign: http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

This is an old argument. In fact, I believe it was the 1755 tsunami/earthquake in Portugal which originally triggered a kind of re-assessment of God, and led to the "deity" view of God - as one who behaves like a clock-maker - rather than the full on micro-manager - the kind of view most of us recognise today. It's considered one of THE moments that changed spiritual thinking, along with the holocaust. There's a slightly rubbish Wikipedia entry on it.

Rick. Take your pick of any natural disaster that developed into tragedy and massive loss of life and I think there's perfectly sound reasoning for questioning just how much "he" loves us all down here on his little hobby planet.

He has a better hit-rate than Bush, Bin Laden and Hussein put together.

Not really what I was getting at :P

Point is, you're right in that those kinds of disasters DO make people question faith - like I said that particular 1755 Tsunami/Earthquake was pretty important for spiritual/philosophical thinking - however, thinkers within the church (as more or less everyone was then!) have already come up with a reasoning to deal with this kind of thing.

Presumably though if you decide to hold whatever deity you believe in or not accountable for all that is bad, you also have to hold them accountable for all that is good too?

I don't think the 'natural disaster' argument's particularly persuasive.

Anyway, point is, we're all agreed that the mayor got it right, right?

rolf_f

BillyMansell wrote:

The religionist's case isn't helped by this sort of utter rubbish by George Carey;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/14/christians-persecuted-archbishop-canterbury-carey

In the four employment cases cited, two relate to clear discrimination and all four relate to breaches of employment contract. No case was brought in the grounds of the people's religions and to claim so just shows their sheer level of ignorance to their behaviour and intolerance to people who are different from, yet equal to, themselves.

Have to say it is somewhat ironic to find the leader of a church complaining about being persecuted by secularists........ Makes a change anyway (or it might if it were actually true).

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

<facepalm> You can't leave this one alone can you?

It's the first time in ages, mate. I'm entitled to ask questions.

In all fairness, I don't think it warrants a <facepalm>.

I thought I remembered you going on about it on another thread a couple of weeks back; my mistake. Maybe I should have just gone for a rolly-eyes smiley . I just find it irritating when people use a simplistic, straw-man view of religion to denigrate something that they appear to have not looked into in any real depth. It's as lazy as the stuff you hear about cyclists: "they all run red lights, don't pay road tax, etc. ".

Paul E wrote:

The bible is a nice collection of stories and hearsay and that's it, created in 6 days, what a load of total rubbish (I would use stronger words but this forum is almost as controlling as most religions)

So it says the earth and it's contents were created in 6 days, well science has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the earth (and entire universe) is a lot lot older than the bible says and that evolution took place over millions of years and that we did not spring from two people but evolved gradually from apes (I know shocking isn't it), nice story but not true in the slightest. How anyone in the modern world can still believe that is staggering.

Well, you're talking about one part of one book of the Old Testament there. There's quite a lot more to the Bible than the first three pages. There are those that take the Bible as a literal and absolute historical document, and there are those who look for a bit more interpretation. Whether you view the Bible as divinely inspired or not, it has been subject to quite a bit of human interference since the text was first written down. It certainly wasn't originally written in English, or even Latin, so that's at least two lots of interpretation involved in the translation - languages never exactly translate, word for word, and meanings of words change over time. In fact, some Bibles have footnotes giving alternative translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Also, at various points through history, religious authorities of different branches of Judaism and Christianity have decided which writings are part of the Bible(s)*, and which are not. Archaeological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided earlier, different versions that previous biblical scholars have not had access to. On top of this, you have the fact that the Bible is made up of a large number of books written by different authors over a very long period of time. It's no surprise that the Bible is not absolutely consistent throughout all 39-51 (depending on denomination) books of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha (ditto), and 27 books of the New Testament.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Anyway, to try and bring all that vaguely back on topic, the trouble is, with a book that big and that open to interpretation, anyone can find something somewhere within it to 'back up' pretty much any prejudice they choose. From the way some Christians bang on, you'd think 'no gays' was *the* central message.

Jay dubbleU

As far as I'm concerned any religion is just another way of causing division based on bigoted interpretation of mythological writings

Proof to my way of thinking is not based on ancient writings poorly translated and rewritten to suit whoever happened to be in control at the time

veronese68

Getting back on topic for a moment. I must say I admire Singleton. He stuck his head over the parapet, stated his belief, then carried on to say that in spite of this he didn't agree with the message or believe it helped anything.
Surely the fact that a man of his firm convictions believes this must mean something? I believe he, and RJS, speak for the vast majority of Christians that are tolerant and inclusive. They should be applauded, not shot down.

byke68

Are these buse "adverts" just on London buses or are they nationwide?
If one side has their say, then is it not fair for the other side to have their say?
As for me, I couldn't care less what they say about each others cause or issue, I'm not gay or religious so is the issue about freedom of speech? It certainly opens up a can of worms.

"Jesus loves Amerika/but I don't love neither" - The Shamen

cyclingprop

byke68 wrote:

Are these buse "adverts" just on London buses or are they nationwide?
If one side has their say, then is it not fair for the other side to have their say?
As for me, I couldn't care less what they say about each others cause or issue, I'm not gay or religious so is the issue about freedom of speech? It certainly opens up a can of worms.

"Jesus loves Amerika/but I don't love neither" - The Shamen

They're not on buses at all because they were stopped. They were due to be London only, on selected routes.

Freedom of speech is fine so long as it isn't at one groups expense. One of these campaigns was, one wasn't. Therefore one permitted, one not.

It's like someone saying being one sex or another can be 'cured'. I.e not possible.

singleton

We live in a country where people are free to hold to any belief system they choose - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Angostic, Athiest or any other you care to mention.

Of course, since these faiths claim different and often contrasting things, it stands to reason that they cannot all be true and that leads to some keen discussion and debate. After investigation and around thirty years of personal experience, my personal conviction is that the Christian faith as outlined in the bible is true.

My reason for joining the forum here was not to try to convince anyone else to change their views to match mine. It's a cycling forum and so I'm basically here for cycling reasons - loving my new caad 10 105 and still training for a few triathlons this year.

Paul E

Jay dubbleU wrote:

As far as I'm concerned any religion is just another way of causing division based on bigoted interpretation of mythological writings

Proof to my way of thinking is not based on ancient writings poorly translated and rewritten to suit whoever happened to be in control at the time

Perfect way of putting it.

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... video-game

Hmm. Edited the quote - y'know. Seems quite aggressive on a Monday morning.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/15/charlie-brooker-gay-video-game

Hmm. Edited the quote - y'know. Seems quite aggressive on a Monday morning.

Read that this morning while I ate my weetabix; some amusing imagery.

EKE_38BPM

Singleton wrote:

My reason for joining the forum here was not to try to convince anyone else to change their views to match mine. It's a cycling forum and so I'm basically here for cycling reasons - loving my new caad 10 105 and still training for a few triathlons this year.

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.


A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

singleton

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.

A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

:shock:

jonginge

Singleton wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.

A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

:shock:

Welcome, Singleton. Cycling's a broad church

tgotb

JonGinge wrote:

Singleton wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.

A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

:shock:

Welcome, Singleton. Cycling's a broad church

Cycling's a broad church, but regardless of your particular persuasion the appropriate thing to do after cycling is always to eat cake. Definitely not go running. And as for swimming, WTF?

I'm with EKE on this one; anyone see where I left my pitchfork?

cyclingprop

TGOTB wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Singleton wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.

A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

:shock:

Welcome, Singleton. Cycling's a broad church

Cycling's a broad church, but regardless of your particular persuasion the appropriate thing to do after cycling is always to eat cake. Definitely not go running. And as for swimming, WTF?

I'm with EKE on this one; anyone see where I left my pitchfork?

The swim is before the bike...

EKE_38BPM

cyclingprop wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Singleton wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I knew you were a wrong'un. Nothing to do with your religious views though.

A triathlon?! BURN HIM!!!

:shock:

Welcome, Singleton. Cycling's a broad church

Cycling's a broad church, but regardless of your particular persuasion the appropriate thing to do after cycling is always to eat cake. Definitely not go running. And as for swimming, WTF?

I'm with EKE on this one; anyone see where I left my pitchfork?

The swim is before the bike...

I think I'd understand triathlon more if triathlon had evolved from a bloke who had cycled to the pool, gone for a swim and when he got out to ride home he found out that his bike had been nicked so had to run home. Even if that was the original premise of a triathlon, I'd still give it a miss as I don't really like swimming much and I hate running.

veronese68

My knees aren't up to running. As for swimming, where's the fish puns thread?
But, as JG said. We're a broad church, even if tongues are firmly in cheeks a lot of the time.

tgotb

cyclingprop wrote:

The swim is before the bike...

Hmmm... You seem to know quite a lot about triathlons...

He's another triathlodite! Burn him!

Ben6899

If it’s preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run, it is not called a bike race, it is called duathlon or a triathlon. Neither of which is a bike race. Also keep in mind that one should only swim in order to prevent drowning, and should only run if being chased. And even then, one should only run fast enough to prevent capture.

I should add that I do run (quite well actually), but I'd never do so in a pair of freakin cycling bibs or a skinsuit!

SimonAH

Back on topic for a moment...

This does bring a very tricky ethical clash to the fore with two almost incompatible tenets;

1) Freedom of speech, religious and political practice and expression.
2) Prevention of offensive material

You get to the position where you can ban the 'hello boys!' Wonderbra posters for being offensive, but you cannot prevent a person / group from espousing messages and points of view that are far more offensive because they are presented from a religious standpoint.

The classic example is the Westboro Baptist Church in the States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Their message is repugnant, but you have to allow them to state it.

This is in the same country that banned Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - far less offensive, but not presented by a religious group and therefore bannable.

With the greatest respect to Singleton I find this pussyfooting around religious beliefs thoroughly nauseating. I don't give two hoots if you want to sacrifice chickens to Baron Samedi in your garage or sniff a rug five times a day whilst facing in the direction of Marble Arch - but I think that your public actions should be judged in precisely the same way as those of nonreligious groups or corporations.

If Audi started an advertising campaign stating that homosexuals were abberations and an affront to nature I suspect that not even a nanosecond of doubt would cloud the action of shutting it down instantly.

If a fundamentalist christian group does the same then we have to allow them in the current climate. Why? This to me is where the wrong lies.

Believe in whatever deity or deities you wish, enjoy your religious practices with only two constraints;

1) Your religious practices may not inconvenience anyone else - do it behind closed doors please
2) Do not expect the rest of us to treat you any differently to anyone else. Your choice of god does not make you special regardless of what your choice of supporting literature says.

...............wow, that turned into a ramble. Sitting watching little bits of paper fly from one file icon to another as I run updates to SAP. Hour two and counting.........bored.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Back on topic for a moment...

This does bring a very tricky ethical clash to the fore with two almost incompatible tenets;

1) Freedom of speech, religious and political practice and expression.
2) Prevention of offensive material

You get to the position where you can ban the 'hello boys!' Wonderbra posters for being offensive, but you cannot prevent a person / group from espousing messages and points of view that are far more offensive because they are presented from a religious standpoint.

The classic example is the Westboro Baptist Church in the States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Their message is repugnant, but you have to allow them to state it.

This is in the same country that banned Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - far less offensive, but not presented by a religious group and therefore bannable.

With the greatest respect to Singleton I find this pussyfooting around religious beliefs thoroughly nauseating. I don't give two hoots if you want to sacrifice chickens to Baron Samedi in your garage or sniff a rug five times a day whilst facing in the direction of Marble Arch - but I think that your public actions should be judged in precisely the same way as those of nonreligious groups or corporations.

If Audi started an advertising campaign stating that homosexuals were abberations and an affront to nature I suspect that not even a nanosecond of doubt would cloud the action of shutting it down instantly.

If a fundamentalist christian group does the same then we have to allow them in the current climate. Why? This to me is where the wrong lies.

Believe in whatever deity or deities you wish, enjoy your religious practices with only two constraints;

1) Your religious practices may not inconvenience anyone else - do it behind closed doors please
2) Do not expect the rest of us to treat you any differently to anyone else. Your choice of god does not make you special regardless of what your choice of supporting literature says.

...............wow, that turned into a ramble. Sitting watching little bits of paper fly from one file icon to another as I run updates to SAP. Hour two and counting.........bored.

The issue in this case though is WHERE the view is expressed.

i.e. not on public transport.

SimonAH

I'm not sure it matters a hang if it's on a billboard or the side of a bus, or a banner draped on the front of your own private building.

Surely it's the message rather than the medium?

cyclingprop

TGOTB wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

The swim is before the bike...

Hmmm... You seem to know quite a lot about triathlons...

He's another triathlodite! Burn him!

Hahahahahhahahahaha. No.