| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 02/05/2006 : 03:32:47
I'm sure most of you have heard the furore going on about these cartoons. If not: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682560.stm
So what does everyone think? Is this a simple exercise of press freedom, or is it purely for provoking anger amongst the Islamic world?
I'm siding with the latter. Relations between the Islamic world and the rest of the world aren't really fantastic at the moment, and this really does not help. I think the press have gone too far with this. Equally, I think the reactions in Syria and Lebanon are awful too. Whether or not anyone was hurt in the attacks on the embassies, those people --the country's government, even-- are not the responsible parties. I think certain factions within both the media and the islamic people need to express some common sense and savoir-faire, for they are only pushing the two worlds apart.
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| danjersey |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 22:29:16
Muhammad walks into a bar........
ssssshhhhhhhh.
dont you dare. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:56:32
It is completely reasonable to take offence.
It is fundamentally allowable to print the cartoons.
It is in poor taste to print the cartoons.
It is insane to resort to violence over the cartoons.
That's my synopsis in 4 lines or less. Well, not less. Plus, does this line count?
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:50:49
i love this controversy.
i've not read any of this thread but the last post.
i love how religion, politics and logic are all locked in this grand trainwreck over these cartoons.
BEAUTIFUL.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:45:11
EUGENE VOLOKH http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_12-2006_02_18.shtml#1139785395 :
"So I guess it's not just that we aren't supposed to draw pictures of Mohammed as terrorist, or of Mohammed at all; we aren't even supposed to draw pictures that are obviously not of Mohammed, and that are meant to mock the inability to draw pictures of Mohammed.
"Well, I have to admit: The folks who are offended by this have a First Amendment right to be offended. They should feel entirely free to be offended.
"The rest of us should feel entirely free, as a matter of civility as well as of law, to say: Your decision to be offended by this particular cartoon gives you no rights (again, as a matter of civility as well as of law) to tell us to stop printing it.
"More on the underlying conceptual issue — the difficult but necessary distinction between (more or less) reasonable taking of offense and unreasonable taking of offense — later; I also hope then to talk in some measure about the distinction between this cartoon and others that I do think can reasonably be found to be offensive, and that probably shouldn't (as a matter of civility) have been published in the first instance, though it is proper to publish them now in order to explain the controversy. For now, it seems to me that this incident does plenty to illustrate the danger of the "it's wrong to publish any cartoons that offend people" attitude.
"Particularly as those who espouse this attitude don't really mean it."
|
| Newo |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 03:19:36
I was feeling something more subtly in tandem with the release of the cartoons. I´m not resting blame solely by Arabs for anything, in fact those on the other end of the newspaper spoon don´t seem to feel affinity for any nationality (which is something I´ve got in common with them I suppose) except when stirring the occasinal race/religion war.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 05:08:28
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Erebus Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:04:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, since I wrote that paragraph I have learned things that convince me that the majority of the reaction in the streets is orchestrated for effect.
Now that´s something that resonates with me. What did you find out?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night.
How can anyone think there are spontaneous street riots in Syria?
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 15:10:54
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
Erebus Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:04:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, since I wrote that paragraph I have learned things that convince me that the majority of the reaction in the streets is orchestrated for effect.
Now that´s something that resonates with me. What did you find out?
Nothing conclusive but enough that I believe the most significant of the protests are coordinated. Hardly surprising given the historical pattern. I assume most know the cartoons were re-published in Egypt around last October, without discernable reaction. No outrage then, and no prohibition of printing the sacred image. But in December a group of Muslim clerics visited various regional capitals with the cartoons in hand, supplemented by three others of dubious lineage that were far more offensive. It was then that the reaction began to grow. It’s reasonable to assume that any demonstrations in Syria and Iran have government sanction and involvement. And it does seem strange that there’s no shortage of Danish flags, and the way the demonstrations dissolve after the photo ops have been achieved. Amir Taheri notes that Denmark is slated to “assume the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council — at the very time that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions. What better, for Tehran's purposes, than to portray Denmark as "an enemy of Islam" and mobilize Muslim sympathy against the Security Council?”
“To regain the initiative from the Sunni-Salafi groups, Ahmadinejad quickly ordered a severing of commercial ties with Denmark, thus portraying the Islamic Republic as the Muslim world's leader in the anti-Danish campaign.
“Syria was next to jump on the bandwagon, again for mercenary reasons. The United Nations wants Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and five of his relatives and aides, including his younger brother, for questioning in the murder of Lebanon's former premier, Rafiq al-Hariri. (Assad has tried to negotiate immunity for himself and his brother in exchange for handing over the others — but the U.N. wouldn't play.) As with Iran's nuclear program, the Syrian dossier will reach the Security Council under Danish presidency. To portray Denmark as "an enemy of the Prophet" would not be such a bad thing when the council, as expected, points the finger at Assad and his regime as responsible for a series of political murders, including that of Hariri.” http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61596.htm
So, all this adds up to orchestration, at least to my eye.
This site has been covering the story for months and has a lot of great articles: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 12:06:00
quote:
worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers
So, like, Leonardo DiCaprio is a recognized god now? What?
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 06:38:02
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
I have no problems with them cartoons, the few lines underneath each are written as if the writer is shocked.... Each has an ounce of truth... |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 02:09:00
quote:
Erebus Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:04:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, since I wrote that paragraph I have learned things that convince me that the majority of the reaction in the streets is orchestrated for effect.
Now that´s something that resonates with me. What did you find out?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 20:04:56
OK. I wrote: “The more I learn about the Islamic world view, the further apart the better I say. If a group can be prompted to mass violence by cartoons, give us more cartoons. As it stands now, the price of acceptance of Islam into the world community is too high. These people are lunatics.”
As others have similarly, VoVat expressed this opinion, which I take to be in reply to what I wrote, at least in part: “Also, it always bugs me when people take the actions of a radical, violent minority to relect the opinions of a large group. I know plenty of people have already said this, but I'd like to express my agreement with it.”
First, the last sentence I wrote was poorly crafted, but even so I cannot believe anyone who knows me on the basis of my participation in this forum could think I meant to dismiss a billion people as mentally ill. I was speaking strictly about those moved to violence on the basis of cartoons, regardless of their content. Second, since I wrote that paragraph I have learned things that convince me that the majority of the reaction in the streets is orchestrated for effect. The reaction has little to do with the cartoons and everything to do with the war of cultures, a war which is real. Third, in saying “give us more cartoons” I was speaking along the lines of Nietzsche’s aphorism “If it topples, push it.” It is my opinion that the problems of the Middle East have been handled for too long with too much “subtlety”. For years the West has bent over backwards to accommodate with little to show for it. Enough. I agree with those who say our adversaries respect strength and force but feel contempt for those who would accommodate. Fourth, if we are willing to surrender freedom of the press to print materials offensive to anybody, we might as well put our heads on the blocks of Islamic “justice”. During the last week, as a show of solidarity behind press freedom, every newspaper in the West should have printed all of those cartoons. Instead, the NY Times felt comfortable reprinting the image of the Virgin Mary made from elephant dung, of year 2000 infamy, while making excuses for not publishing the Danish cartoons. One presumes the salient difference being that Christians don’t burn embassies, or press offices. If this is American, maybe the “radical” Islamists are right: we do deserve to fall. It may be New York, but it’s not America, at least not yet.
I realize that columnist opinions have been all over the political map, and you needn’t expect a representative sample from me, but perhaps these that I have found helpful will be new to some:
“What’s noteworthy about the latest violence is not that it is unusual — but how very ordinary in so many ways it has become. .... The Danish drawings did not trigger some previously nonexistent fury. They have simply become the latest litmus test of how very much the worst thugs of the Islamic world believe they are entitled to get away with, whatever the pretext.” - Claudia Rossett
“Some news outlets are updating their procedures so as not to offend "religious" sensibilities in the future. The quotation marks around the word "religious" should say it all. We're not talking about "religion." We're talking about a specific religion — Islam. Does anyone truly think that the burning of Danish embassies and calls for the "slaughter" of those responsible by Muslim protestors have really taught the BBC or the New York Times to be more polite to evangelical Christians or Orthodox Jews? Does anyone really think that Arabic newspapers — often state-owned — are going to stop recycling Nazi-era images of Jews as baby killers and hook-nosed conspirators because they've become enlightened to the notion that words can hurt?” ..... “Around the world, Muslims suffer from a mixture of legitimate grievances and an enormous inferiority complex. Muslim, and particularly Arab, governments have a vested interest in stirring up this sort of thing because it distracts from their own corrupt regimes. And the Muslim "street" seems to fall for it every time. And so does much of the Western press. Sure, this is about freedom of expression, but it's also about so much more. Journalists just love to talk about freedom of the press. But they don't like to talk about that enormous chip on the shoulder of the Muslim world, and they really hate to say anything offensive to "oppressed" peoples.” - Jonah Goldberg
“Check out this CNN story on the cartoon controversy: ‘CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.’ Question: Has CNN ever chosen to censor the news "out of respect for" a religion before now?” - John J. Miller
“The New York Times, CNN and a host of other media organs say they won't publish the Danish cartoons because they don't want to offend Muslims. That's sheer deception. They are all being prudent about not placing their employees in danger from Islamic fanatics, and that is perfectly acceptable. But to pretend they are doing what they are doing because they are so high-minded is really sickening, especially since by publicly acknowledging their concern they would be telling the truth and also implicitly explaining just why Islamic radicalism is so dangerous.” - John Podhoretz
“Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.” “.... we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.....”
“One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons. No doubt he's similarly impressed by the "sensitivity" of Anne Owers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he's impressed by the "sensitivity" of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script. I don't know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be "sensitive." And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the "sensitivity" of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the "sensitivity" of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't want a knife in my chest" -- which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ''right to dissent'' all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they're just being "sensitive,'' too.”
“Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.” - Mark Steyn
“The issue, though, is much larger than the question of how to balance press freedom with religious sensibilities; it goes to the heart of the conflict with radical Islam. The Islamists demand no less than absolute supremacy for their religion--and not only in the Muslim world but wherever Muslims may happen to reside. That's why they see no hypocrisy in their demand for "respect" for Islam while the simple display of a cross or a Star of David in Saudi Arabia is illegal. Infidels simply don't have the same rights.” .... “Using their combined economic muscle, death threats and street protests, a combination of state and nonstate actors are slowly exporting to Europe the Middle East's repressive system. What Jyllands-Posten's editors are enduring is not unlike what dissidents under communism had to go through. The Islamists can't send the journalists to a gulag but they can silence them by threatening to kill them. Bomb threats twice forced the journalists to flee their offices last week.” - Daniel Schwammenthal
“Suppose both sides listen to these calls for restraint. What would happen? I suppose that one side would stop burning embassies and murdering people and the other side would no longer publish cartoons to which the murderers might object. That would mean the murderers had obtained their objective and the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons had been defeated in its campaign against the unofficial Islamist censorship that in recent years has spread across Europe by murder and intimidation.” “Three cartoons were more harsh and insulting than the rest. But these had not been published originally in Jyllands-Posten. They were added by the radical Islamists who distributed the cartoons around the Muslim world. Vile though it is, this trickery by radical Islamists at least demonstrates the uselessness of appeasing their demands for censorship. If they are granted, our concessions will merely be the springboard for a further attack on Western liberty. And if we disobligingly refuse to furnish them with a pretext, the Islamists will manufacture one. We might as well fight in the first ditch rather than the last.” “The secondary argument that we must all censor ourselves to avoid offending others in a multicultural society is a highly ironic commentary on the liberals' promise that multiculturalism meant a more lively, colorful and argumentative society. We are now told that it means holding our tongues on sensitive issues.” - John O’Sullivan
“The initial provocation came from Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 when he pronounced a death sentence on the author Salman Rushdie for having a written a novel that contained another Islamic taboo, that of disrespecting the Koran. This was a stroke of genius. Whereas critics of repugnant ideologies were only in peril when they acted openly in the country guilty of the tyranny, and were free to express their disgust from the safety of a civilised country, Khomeini came up with the brilliant Mafia-like scheme of recruiting his foot soldiers everywhere.
“Knowing that there are now Muslims in almost every country in the world, he removed that safety net once offered to people such as critics of the USSR or Idi Amin, so that even in safe, tolerant Britain, nobody would ever again dare write, paint, broadcast, film or lecture on anti-Islamic views for fear of their lives. Of course most Muslims, being sane, peaceful human beings, simply ignored the psychotic Khomeini. But tragically the subsequent brutal murder of Theo Van Gogh, the deadly riots sparked by journalist Isioma Daniel’s article about Miss World in Nigeria, and the threats to people like author Irshadi Manji for writing a witty book about reforming Islam, have had such an effect that they have bought Islam immunity from criticism, not through respect, but through fear.” “This may seem a storm in a teacup, but it is in fact a profoundly serious moment in our history. Fundamentalism, utterly at odds with the Western values so vigorously and courageously fought for over two bloody world wars, has successfully undermined the very linchpin of our freedom.” “But what of moderate Islam? British Muslims are represented by the unelected Sir Iqbal Sacranie, a man at the forefront of the book-burning mob who threatened Rushdie’s life, when Sacranie declared: ‘Death, I think, is too easy for him.’ For this part in incitement to murder, Sacranie was awarded not the stiff custodial sentence one might expect, but a knighthood. Now this hypocrite says that he ‘believes in freedom of speech’, although he was complicit in attempting to destroy it, and we must all “respect other people’s beliefs”.” “This paper’s belief in freedom of speech is paramount. The decision not to reprint the cartoons, not to declare ourselves another Spartacus in support of our European colleagues, was taken, at least partly, out of consideration for the safety of the staff, and the safety of Scottish people here and abroad, and I fully support it. But the extremists, who created the fear that made that decision a foregone conclusion, must understand that if they think the UK press have done this out of respect, they are so very wrong. They have undoubtedly won this battle hands down. Well done. We are afraid. But do they think people neutered and silenced by fear are going to work at embracing their culture, their religion or their values? Clearly, they don’t care.” - Muriel Gray http://www.sundayherald.com/
|
| Newo |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 11:09:21
quote:
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
3651 Posts
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:35:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, but i see a lot of the discussion becoming an us vs. them scneraio, with people just trying to prove others wrong, and not actually discuss, and i don't really feel like getting into that right now. it's been a shit week, and i'm looking to just participate in things that i enjoy/that won't get me defensive, so i'm choosing to back out.
Okay. I wish your next week is better.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 10:35:36
To get back to the original topic, trying to force people who don't follow your religion to obey its rules strikes me as a futile and pointless exercise. So if people really ARE getting worked up about this because images of Muhammad are forbidden in Islam, then I agree with Jediroller's opinion on the first page.
I remember hearing on NPR that, since a lot of Middle Eastern nations don't have freedom of the press, some of the people there figured that the cartoons reflected the opinions of the Danish government. Makes sense, I suppose.
Also, it always bugs me when people take the actions of a radical, violent minority to relect the opinions of a large group. I know plenty of people have already said this, but I'd like to express my agreement with it.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 10:30:14
nothing wrong with prefering to dish it out rather than receive it! love you really, brian.
so yeah, muhammed cartoons..... this been posted? http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
Your mum |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 10:12:07
Steve, he just gave you a taste of the humour you often dole out.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:29:06
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
i often wonder what it would be like to have a child; thank you for giving me a hint
-Brian
no brian, i'm sure you'd force catholicism on your child. best way to ensure someone doesn't grow up fucked in the head, right?
Your mum |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:35:13
no, but i see a lot of the discussion becoming an us vs. them scneraio, with people just trying to prove others wrong, and not actually discuss, and i don't really feel like getting into that right now. it's been a shit week, and i'm looking to just participate in things that i enjoy/that won't get me defensive, so i'm choosing to back out.
-Brian
|
| Newo |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 05:47:15
quote:
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
3647 Posts
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:26:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much to my chagrin, this has turned into a typical believers vs. non-beleivers thread
Brian, I´m not here to ask you to justify your belief in God, cause Frankly what you believe isn´t important to me (if it was, twould be tough for me as it´s none of my business anyway), but just to ask are believers vs. nonbelievers the only colours you see in this thread?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 04:17:35
i often wonder what it would be like to have a child; thank you for giving me a hint
-Brian
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 01:49:47
your mum's hardly relevant
Your mum |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 01:07:01
I meant that you're hardly relevant, young'un.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 18:54:27
because brian only meant that science changes and evolves... that point specifically wasn't so important.
Your mum |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 10:01:21
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
i know, it's hardly relevant that i pulled it up.. but that's me :P
Your mum
Hardly relevant?
There's a verse in Isaiah mentioning him that sits "on the circle of the earth" which was written approx 600BC - it's better translated into English as 'globe', or 'sphere'.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:57:36
I heard it from a few friends and this week I saw this Mutwa fellow recount he´d visited over 500 African tribes and that was the one he had the most stories about.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:47:50
I read that stuff about the Dogon tribe a long time ago. Didn't they also have knowledge of Sirus C as well? Do you know the book and who wrote it Newo, or is it general knowledge?
May the immortal Amma keep you seated.
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:30:14
The Dogon tribe of Sudan knew that Sirius was a twin star system for centuries before it was officially announced. I saw an interview with a Zulu sanusi called Credo Mutwa in which he said the Zulus were able to grasp an idea attributed to Einstein much later, that space and time were one, as expressed by the similarities of the names for space (umkhati) and time (esikhati). At the end of the 19th century a stone tablet was found in Minnesota with Hittite writing (Hittite writing was not officially identified until 1908 and the discoverers invited everyone to take a piece of the tablet home with them if they wanted so it was destroyed). Dynastic Egyptian reed boats were built with techniques from Bolivian reedworkers and I´ve seen Mayan script with timecodes carved into walls in Egypt. According to Mayans when they came from the Pleiades they went to four corners of the world, one was Mexico and one was N Africa where they were known as the Nagamaya (nag = tribe, maya = water in Arabic, so nagamaya = tribe that came from across the water), the idea that we only discovered there was another half to the planet 500 years ago is only so much garbage.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:39:42
i know, it's hardly relevant that i pulled it up.. but that's me :P
Your mum |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:38:38
it was just an arbitrary example steve
-Brian
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:37:39
just a little point, i'm pretty sure people thought the world was ROUND (i typed flat before) before the 14th century...
Your mum |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
Btw, if God exists, how come Regina is still the capital of Saskatchewan?
Now in a few moments it will be time to wake up and feel refreshed and content.
I will count from five to one and when I get to one you will be wide awake, feeling happy and refreshed as if you have slept for eight hours.
5 fell every muscle in your body relaxed
4 Your body feels good ready to wake up
3 Your Eyes fell as if they bathed with fresh cool spring water
2 You are getting ready to wake up
1 Wake up, wake up.
-----
"I want to change the world but it's changing me!" |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:26:39
Cassandra Is, i was not meaning to single you out in this thread, but your posts have been quite strong and not very concilatory to anyone else's feelings on the subject. I know that a few people have been taken aback by them. Much to my chagrin, this has turned into a typical believers vs. non-beleivers thread, and so i'm going to peace out of it. But first...
LonelyPursauder - hopefully by people being trained in a more scholarly and accepting way, the respective faiths will start to implement more progressive thought and sensitivity when dealing with their dogma.
Llama Steve - I believe that it is a genuine case of enlightenment that causes new teachings. Think of it this way - we have been living on this planet for millions of years, and we are always learning new things about it and 'truths' that we once knew are being tossed out. Go back 700 years and talk to a scientist about the world being round and you'd have been called a nut. But through time and study, new things are exposed. The same is true for the Bible, and many other, literary texts. A lot of this is done in Christian cirlces to reconcile the Old Testament to the Gospels. A lot of people have a hard time reconciling a God who kills because he is angry and who nearly destroys existance to prove a point to the God that St. John says is love. However, clearly Christ and those who called themselves followers saw the correlation, so theologians are going back to the original texts and working with the languge and the cultural and historical contexts to try and fully understand the texts.
I hope that makes sense...
-Brian
|
| Llamadance |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:04:21
Brian, it seems to me that if that's what the trainee priests/ministers are being taught, then that's a departure from days gone by, and is a more liberal (or as you put it, scholarly) approach to the Bible. Is this a genuine case of enlightenment as to the Bible's teachings? Or maybe it's an attempt by the Church at broadening it's appeal instead of alienating minority groups. It's a genuine question, as it seems to me that the Church has to change to survive.
I've not read all of cassandra is' posts, but certainly the Leviticus excerpts do seem to prohibit homosexuality. You used a passage 10 verses before which used 'intercourse' to illustrate the explicit meaning of sex, but it would seem to me that a better gauge would be the surrounding text, which appears fairly straightforward and uncomplicated in its meaning.
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 08:01:32
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
Btw, if God exists, how come Regina is still the capital of Saskatchewan?
-----
"I want to change the world but it's changing me!"
Now in a few moments it will be time to wake up and feel refreshed and content.
I will count from five to one and when I get to one you will be wide awake, feeling happy and refreshed as if you have slept for eight hours.
5 fell every muscle in your body relaxed
4 Your body feels good ready to wake up
3 Your Eyes fell as if they bathed with fresh cool spring water
2 You are getting ready to wake up
1 Wake up, wake up.
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 07:59:14
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
quote:
Originally posted by jediroller
Re: cartoons. I've just read this story in a French weekly called Le Canard Enchaîné. When the cartoons were published on Sept. 30, it triggered a demonstration by Danish Muslims. Then a group of ambassadors from 11 muslim countries asked to meet the Danish Prime minister, but he refused. A delegation of Danish imams then started touring Muslim countries to ask for support from religious groups, apparently showing them "fake" cartoons that they had commissioned themselves, including one that depicted Muhammad as a pig.
Aaah, at last, an answer to my burning question :) Thanks Jedi. I must say I suspected something like that.
-----
"I want to change the world but it's changing me!"
If that's true its unbelievably gross.
I can't believe how many people have died over this.
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 06:49:11
yo cassandra_is,
don't leave the thread dude, its a good discussion and your providing good points... we're all hunky dory here, right broken_face... we're hardly going to resolve the age ole question within this thread.. some of the posts are getting a bit long though and i dont have the time to read alot of the long quotes etc... |
|
|
