dragonhill
"Since you wanted proof from your fucking fairy tale you worship"
I didn't say I wanted proof that was in the bible because I know it's in there. I asked you what is the answer. The worst part is I even spelled it out for you. The N.e.w.c.o.v.e.n.a.n.t. Next time try the unicorn question. That one seems to work better.

"Where is that offer wife and daughter to stop a beating verse?"
Are you taking about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or the Levite from Gibeah?
Try Genesis 19 or Judges 19. You do seem to have a strange fixation with the book Leviticus as well as stories on Sodom. Hmmm.

"priests molesting boys is only about homosexuality."
Male heterosexuals don't sleep with little boys. It's all in the definition.

"It's called a fucking CRIME?"
Sure it's a crime. A heinous one at that but is it morally wrong what the priest did?

One last time: to dragonhill and Talmi, explain if what Salman Abedi did was morally wrong. Look, this board is not the right forum to debate theological matters. What you believe I could care less about but when you start attack Christians for their beliefs I care. So lighten up Francis.

 

No one attacked Christians for their beliefs. Any cult is respectable. I even respect people believing in alien, no sweat my friend.
But there are a lot of attacks against muslims, those are not acceptable according to our rules.
You're the only one feeling the need to quote Bible and to have a theological debate, no one else cares. We all know what sacred books are worth.
The thread is about paying respect to the dead, once again fallen in the name of a cult.
Which obviously is highly immoral. Any killing is despicable, but doing it in the name of a deity ? What a miserable twat indeed...Any f...s doing that is deserving of the worst. Religion/ideology leads people to terrible things, what a shame.
You should all make music or babies, whatever. Well...that's if your god let you, of course.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2017

Mister Bunford,


What I simply said, is not because the terrorists are killing people in the Middle East, which is okay, because, it is not a Westerner to do so and is not a Westerner to be killed.

Because this is only emotional and nice and full of political correctness.

What I have said is that men there are intentionally obliging (through DEATH - terrible!) That people flee from their natural regions and settle in other regions to dominate them over the years by the natural occupation, which will be Established by their offspring and their offspring,

This method is called Hegira.

This is an intentional plan that is being executed and is already a winner.

For it rests, as in the martial fights, in the own characteristics of the opponent: Emotion. Goodness. Political Correction.

It is not a judgment of value. It is self-evident.

It's not that it does not matter that Westerners are not going there. The concrete fact is that they are going there in a rush, however, to try to minimize these occurrences.

And the evil of all these political beings, transvestites under the generic fantasy of "Extremist Terrorist" is so much that it feels pleasure, or at least, the necessity to kill their children to attain certain emotional effect, good and full of political correctness in those who He intends to destroy, according to his superior plan, in the long run.

That is why all the kindly reasonableness that you genuinely use (for being a good-hearted person) amounts to a very beautiful philosophical elevation. But there is a much more prosaic and pragmatic reality going on.

It is a cold and natural cycle, like time, death and nature.

Before we go around the corners crying and accusing everyone with libels like "Who fucking cares who did this?!?! No child deserves to die so !!!!! It is unacceptable under ALL scenarios, for whoever it is, wherever it is and by whom it performs it for any reason, and we, as responsible human beings, must forgive all equally! WHAT. A. TOTAL. FUCK, this world came to !!!!!!!!!!!! "

It is urgent to discover and ...

Put into practice,

A method of rendering ALL, I SAID, ALL human beings fully elevated morally.

Before that, or, other than that, it is worth the barbarism as it has always been. And it is being.

It is no use for me and you to be good and just to fade for it, for there are those who have no goodness, not even the perception of what is.

 

Yeah , yeah big replacement theory, invasion of Europe, yadiyada, all objective talk based on facts...What a joke.
First you make it about morality, when it can't stand anymore it becomes about a secret plan to conquer...

You feel threaten ? You think people are invading you ? Well go make your little holy war by yourself...Apparently soldiers ain't lining up, despite your very unconvincing sale speech.

What a surprise, on a music forum...Go figure...

 

"No one attacked Christians for their beliefs."
Yes, yes they are. Here you go: "Since you wanted proof from your fucking fairy tale you worship"

"Any cult is respectable."
It can be but you are implying this definition: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

"But there are a lot of attacks against muslims, those are not acceptable according to our rules."
Your rules, really? These things must not be discussed at all cost?

"You're the only one feeling the need to quote Bible and to have a theological debate"
If you paid attention, I never quoted the bible, take that up with dragonhill. I don't believe I even mentioned the bible. I only pointed out where passages are that dragonhill is trying but failing to use against me.
As far as theological debate goes, you are the expert because "I've read a bit of all of them, well regarding the three monotheisms". Ok, please tell me more about what the koran says about jihad or holy war.

"Religion/ideology leads people to terrible things, what a shame."
Which religion has killed more people than communism? Am I right comrade?

"The thread is about paying respect to the dead, once again fallen in the name of a cult. Which obviously is highly immoral."
Strange it took you this long to mention morals. Morals are transcended, so you have no way of grounding your beliefs in whether something is moral or not. Under your world view, you have no justification to argue whether something is right or wrong. There are no objective moral values. Just blind pitiless indifference.

 

There is no big conspiracy theory that 1.8bn Muslims are trying to take over the World except for in a certain type of person's head. Take off your foil hat and go and learn some Middle Eastern history and learn why power vaccums were left for terrorist to capitalise and who is funding and arming these terrorists.. And while you're at it, have a look at the multiple articles about the Muslim medical workers who all came into Manchester hospitals voluntarily to help out in whatever way they could on Monday night, or the Muslim taxi drivers who gave whoever that needed it free taxi rides to wherever they wanted to make sure they got home safe, the Muslim faith leaders who instantly came out to condemn Monday's attack, the Muslim organisations that have already built up donations worth thousands to give to the victims and their families, or the thousands of Mancunians who have actively spoke out against nonsense like this in defiance of their diversity and acceptance of those Muslim people within their community. Stop talking shit, learn facts and quit the nonsense conspiracy theories.

PS - I am no longer going to read anything in this thread or reply, just to save you wasting your time replying with more nonsense.

 

I did sociology of religions for a while. Very formaly "religions" are called "organised cults", at least in some schools of thought. It doesn't aim at all to be demeaning, it's just how the discipline coined what came out of observation of general qualities all movements - that include a bureaucraty and are organised around the belief in a deity - share. I know it doesn't fit with your beliefs, your definition of your own movement probably for you relies on elements of faith, historical or symbolical events, a mythology, etc. All those things have a meaning for you and people who share your beliefs, a minority of the world population, but that's not how they are perceived by others.

With the morality thing it's the same. Religion didn't invent it. Far from it. Specialy not any monotheism, so yours which only came second didn't invent anything.
In fact before we can find any trace of belief in a god, any trace of organised cults, in ancients societies that archeologists and anthropologues have studied, we can find trace of morality. Incest for example has always been a red line, in any society we have traces of. As soon as we come togeither, god or not, rules and morality appear.
But that was in primitives societies. Evolved ones have chosen to be moral and to implement a civic morality a while back. Often we even chose to implement rules that go strongly against what religions hold for dear. As this discussion shows, it's usually what's contained in sacred books that go against civic morality.
Going against tradition is in itself also a tradition. We have been doing it for almost 300 hundred years.

Not my rule. OURS : https://audiosex.pro/threads/world-news-and-political-posts-and-discussions.26167/ https://audiosex.pro/threads/audiosex-rules.19991/ . You should read them. Because here, it's not god and the bible that rules. Like in most places in the world. We have our own rules and our own morality.

 

First of all, the plan is not secret: it is visible. Just have some neurons spinning and looking around to notice.

And morality, which you speak so superficially, is deeply present in all this, or do you confuse morality, arising from the fact that we are alive according to this, with a simple political correctness (of boutique)?

There is no one invading me in my city or island of isolation: at the same time they are invading the land of the joke where you always live smiling (your Jokeland).

If, by chance, or even if, you do not know to do mathematical calculations, but put in countries, with average birth rate below 1.5 child per woman, other families holding a solid identity as people, with birth rate 8 Children by woman, you will recognize that after some time a population will be close to five and a half times greater than the other.

Where is the evil in this, you tapir? It's a fact. Not a belief.

And also that 1.5, roughly speaking, indicates that after a while it will no longer be possible to pair pairs for procreation (as in the jocular example of the Coala bears, of course not wanting to compare people and animals) and, in short, This original population is already destined to inevitable extinction.

If you do not understand these points of view, and come with this whole clownery you wrote, one word of consolation for you:

(In this case, at least), YOU ARE ACTING LIKE A TOTALLY DONKEY..

 

Ok!

 

The figure illustrates the aggressive and threatening Islamophobic stance of Western society.

 

That position is the exact one which Muslims take five times a day! Hilarious.

Bunford, as soon as I saw your link to the liberal propaganda of the Sikh taxi driver, I knew what kind of person you were. Sikhs aren't Muslims. You're getting this stuff from the mainstream media. Look up David Wood and educate yourself on what the Koran actually teaches. It's not just about a power vacuum. These people have been killing each other for a thousand years.

 

The big problem in our world is that we're trying to cure terrorism, while not trying to cure the cause of terrorism. We should leave the Middle East and African countries alone. Then we will find peace. It's as simple as that. But nooooo... we are so used to exploiting the poorer countries around us we can't even think of leaving them alone. We are the bad guys, mates. We are the bad guys. Remember that.

 

Terrorism is violence of the weak and we condemn it
War is violence of the strong and we glorify it.


Listening to Brian Williams jizz all over the 'beautiful' bombs recently should be enough evidence concerning most media and their bias.

 

Talmi, finally a polite argument.
I'm not going beat a dead horse but I'll try one last time since you where kind enough to write your post.

"As soon as we come together, god or not, rules and morality appear."
The argument is not whether people can be moral without believing in God. They can. It's whether objective morals exists without God. They don't.

"We have our own rules and our own morality."

Well put. You have your own morality and so did Salman Abedi. You can't argue that he did anything morally wrong. Who are you to tell him he is wrong? That is just your opinion. As you said, "our own morality". The radical islamist would say what he did was morally right. After all, morals just appeared, right?

I would argue that what Salman Abedi did was morally wrong no matter who believes it. Objective morals are transcendent, not subjective to the whims of man.

Just imagine if the radical islamist win the war and kill everybody that disagrees with them. Under your world view, then, the islamist would have been morally correct to blow up children. After all, that's what they believe. Totally subjective morals.

Under my world view, it would still be morally wrong to blow up an 8 year old girl with a nail bomb whether anyone on earth believed it or not. Objective morals. Some things are just wrong whether any one believes it or not. I hope I made that clear enough.

PS. I don't think I ever mention what my religious beliefs are much less quoted the Bible.

 

I don't get to say what's right or wrong. On this forum, or in my country. We have rules in a society, laws and yes moralities (which aren't the same for every one, we all have different backgrounds, some thing shock our morality but don't go against the law, others do both). If you can't pick what's wrong in what that dude did outside the scope of your own beliefs, if you think only a belief in god can lead to not accept his act, then I'm sorry but it's not the muslims I'm afraid of, because they all go against those crimes except the fanatics ones, it's people like you.
Your reasoning by absurdity shows how little those conversations can bring. You can't even own your faith.
Atheism doesn't lead to relativism in all things. Understanding the constructed nature of some moral standarts do not cancel them just like understanding the laws of the universe do not undermine them.
There is no need for godly transcendence to be moral, you have no base for feeling superior to anyone here, weither they share your beliefs or not.

 

Arguments aren't polite. They are right or wrong. Weither you feel good about them or not.

 

Talmi
"If you can't pick what's wrong in what that dude did"

According to your world view, that is just your opinion. Once again, who are you to decide what is morally right or wrong? Because you feel it's wrong? Your feelings? What's that, now society decides what is moral?

Like I said, imagine if the radical islamist win the war and kill's everybody that disagrees with them about bombing children. Under your world view, then, the islamist would have been morally correct to blow up children. After all, that's what society would believe. Society decides what is moral, right? Totally subjective.

Again, I would argue that it is morally wrong to blow up an 8 year old girl with a nail bomb whether anyone on earth believed it or not. Some things are just wrong whether any one believes they are or not.

Sad thing is I know your faith better than you do. Stalin also had the same beliefs as you. Bodies stack up like cord wood, yes?

"Arguments aren't polite."
Defend you position then! Your can't.

 

Just like I knew, you can't explain why blowing children is objectively morally wrong. There is just no way you can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God. Sad little atheist.