Where was Jesus. . .

between being born in a cowshead, until making magic miracles and finally getting crucified? Where was he as a child, a teenager, surely the son of God had a life being so famous.

Spent his early childhood as an exile in Egypt because of death threats from the mad King Herod. When Herod died his family moved back to Israel and settled in Nazareth where his father set up business as a carpenter and the young Jesus helped and became an accomplished carpenter in his own right. The family were, of course, Jewish and were regulars at the local synagogue where Jesus became respected as a rabbi. It was not until nearly 30 years old did start preaching more widely and became an itinerant teacher and prophet. The rest, as they say, is history. It's all in the gospels in the new Testament, give them a read, they are very interesting but they are not biographies as such.

Just wondered where the Jesus went to school, where he learnt to fish and make furniture, who taught him his magic, and who was he boning through his years or did he die a virgin unlike his mother who loved a bit of Roman cock.

Just wondered where the Jesus went to school, where he learnt to fish and make furniture, who taught him his magic, and who was he boning through his years or did he die a virgin unlike his mother who loved a bit of Roman cock.

Dan Brown has probably covered all of those questions in one or other of his books.

Why is it that homophobic or racist posts would be considered unacceptable but anti-Christian posts are not?

Does this sort of thing not count as an infraction?

Because homophopic or racist posts are against a real life human. Jesus is imaginary and does not exist

So Christians are not real life humans?

Just wondered where the Jesus went to school, where he learnt to fish and make furniture, who taught him his magic, and who was he boning through his years or did he die a virgin unlike his mother who loved a bit of Roman cock.

Attention seeking again Dog?

So Christians are not real life humans?

So Christians are not real life humans?

They are, but they're prone to the weird logical fallacy that any suggestion that the object of their worship is imaginary means they are too.

Why is it that homophobic or racist posts would be considered unacceptable but anti-Christian posts are not?

Because they're not the same things. People cannot change the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.

The 'facts' of Christian belief are highly disputed. However, you need not feel left out. Pretty much every belief system which promotes an imaginary sky lord as the explanation for everything gets an equal amount of respect, at least from me.

Does this sort of thing not count as an infraction?

No, and to be honest, don't think it is a very Christian thing to try and get one's brother into some kind of trouble.

Upset? Forgive them - it's what you're supposed to be about.

Why is it that homophobic or racist posts would be considered unacceptable but anti-Christian posts are not?

 

Does this sort of thing not count as an infraction?

What a bizarre comment.

People's religious "faith" is one of choice and normally an accident of birth into that culture. There are thousands of religions you could choose to follow, you dismiss the thousands of others but not Christianity, despite having the same amount of evidence for all of them. People do not chose their family of birth or sexual orientation, to insult that is wrong hence why it is against the law.

If your faith is hurt by questions, does it really stand up? There really is very little evidence of Jesus even existed, let alone is the son of God.

What a bizarre comment.

 

People's religious "faith" is one of choice and normally an accident of birth into that culture. There are thousands of religions you could choose to follow, you dismiss the thousands of others but not Christianity, despite having the same amount of evidence for all of them. People do not chose their family of birth or sexual orientation, to insult that is wrong hence why it is against the law.

 

If your faith is hurt by questions, does it really stand up? There really is very little evidence of Jesus even existed, let alone is the son of God.

Theres is no evidence he existed at all. The Romans were compulsive recorders of information even about thier opponents and thier is NO written recording of "Jesus" at all at the time he was supposed to off existed. Most writing about Jesus started about a century later. If you closely analyse most of the myths about him you soon realise they are based and adapted from various pagan gods.

If you closely analyse most of the myths about him you soon realise they are based and adapted from various pagan gods.

Exactly, there are many "Messiah's" (like in Monty Python's Life of Brian) recorded in the Middle East that pre date Jesus. They have similar stories to Jesus of a virgin birth, resurrection, miracles etc. The Jesus story is by no means original, it is just one that caught on. The Bible is inconsistent in its accounts of his life, is riddled with historical errors and self fulfilling prophecies.

Can't believe some people waste so much of their life believing in this pile of sh*t.

Because homophopic or racist posts are against a real life human. Jesus is imaginary and does not exist

This

It is about respect and anybody who says things to deliberately offend is a c*ck in my book. Looks like they are well represented here.

It is about respect and anybody who says things to deliberately offend is a c*ck in my book. Looks like they are well represented here.

Who has said something offensive in this thread?

If anyone has been offensive, it is you for calling people "cocks"!

It is about respect and anybody who says things to deliberately offend is a c*ck in my book. Looks like they are well represented here.

You say it is about respect. Perhaps you would like to qualify that statement, particularly as you have vaguely termed the "well represented" as cocks.

So let me get this straight. You haven't pulled anyone up individually to challenge their statements, yet you are quite happy to label (again unspecified) people as cocks. Not really a great way to attract respect, in my opinion.

I'm not calling you a cock, btw. Just wondering how you can square it all up in your head, because really, that's a rather remarkable thing you just did there.

OK I will phrase it like this - if somebody starts a thread that deliberately sets out to offend people then I think that person is a cock. When somebody rightly questions it and people set out to ridicule and make fun of them then I think they too are cocks. Its a sort of cyber bullying especially when people's faith is as important to people as their race or their sexuality.

Its a sort of cyber bullying especially when people's faith is as important to people as their race or their sexuality.

- You choose your religion from the many thousands there are in human history.

- You cannot choose your ancestry or sexuality.

There is a significant difference between the two!

If a choice you make cannot stand up to questioning or mockery, you should surely question if you should put as much faith in it as you do. Especially if it influences large parts of your life.

- You choose your religion from the many thousands there are in human history.

- You cannot choose your ancestry or sexuality.

 

There is a significant difference between the two!

 

If a choice you make cannot stand up to questioning or mockery, you should surely question if you should put as much faith in it as you do. Especially if it influences large parts of your life.

You seem to suggest that mocking people's faith is fine. I do not. Debate is healthy but people who mock in groups are bullies.

You seem to suggest that mocking people's faith is fine. I do not. Debate is healthy but people who mock in groups are bullies.

I would categorise mocking faith with mocking someones political beliefs. I see no problem with mocking either as they are personal choices. Mocking sexuality or ethnic background is completely different as these are not choices.

If your faith or political beliefs can't stand up to mockery or questioning you should really have a long hard look at them and think if it is worth continuing.

I would label mocking faith with mocking someones political beliefs. I see no problem with mocking either as they are personal choices. Mocking sexuality or ethnic background is completely different as these are not choices.

 

If your faith or political beliefs can't stand up to mockery or questioning you should really have a long hard look at them and think if it is worth continuing.

If somebody's faith is as important to them as their race then mocking them will cause the same distress. I respect that you clearly do not.

If somebody's faith is as important to them as their race then mocking them will cause the same distress. I respect that you clearly do not.

Please answer these three questions...

1) Do you have a choice of religion?

2) Do you have of your ethnic background or sexuality?

3) Why does someone mocking your faith cause "distress"?

If you were confident in your faith it shouldn't matter to you. Maybe your faith isn't as watertight as you first thought. To blindly have faith isn't healthy, if faith withstands mockery and questioning then it strengthens it. If you feel "offended" or "distressed" then you should really question why it does and it is most likely because your faith doesn't stand up to even the most basic logic and questioning.

Please answer these three questions...

 

1) Do you have a choice of religion?

2) Do you have of your ethnic background or sexuality?

3) Why does someone mocking your faith cause "distress"?

 

If you were confident in your faith it shouldn't matter to you. Maybe your faith isn't as watertight as you first thought. To blindly have faith isn't healthy, if faith withstands mockery and questioning then it strengthens it. If you feel "offended" or "distressed" then you should really question why it does and it is most likely because your faith doesn't stand up to even the most basic logic and questioning.

You are hardly Christopher Hitchens and I really do not have time to answer your questions. Shall we just conclude with the fact that I believe that people who set out to cause distress are cocks and if you do not understand why mocking somebody's faith distress's people then ask Salman Rushdie.

You seem to suggest that mocking people's faith is fine. I do not. Debate is healthy but people who mock in groups are bullies.

You're not only being pretty dismissive, but you seem to be creating a conspiracy where none exists.

Having not received messages from fellow conspirators on how we might dismantle all of Christendom, I can only speak for myself.

First, the only reason I got involved in this thread was to point out the obvious differences between the things one can change (faith) with those that someone generally cannot (race, sexual orientation). I know you would like to think that all those who dismiss the supposed veracity of holy texts are in cahoots, but the truth, and something that will scare you much more, is that people arrive at their conclusions more or less independently, and that they have posted their earnest views on here in the same spirit.

Next, I don't believe that you think debate is healthy, or not entirely anyway. You seem happy to debate within a certain framework, but somewhat less happy to participate when people choose to remove that framework entirely.

I don't agree with MLG on all he says, but I've a lot of sympathy for him when he says religion is "normally an accident of birth into that culture". I'd actually go further myself - I don't see religion as accidental at all. It was carefully cultivated from the outset as a means to create tribalism along non-racial lines. It's a mechanism to create an empire in the mind, transcending national boundaries. It's a hereditary disease passed on from parent to child, causing death and war since time immemorial. Most of all, its a set of uneducated answers aimed at uneducated people created in a time when we lacked the wit to describe the universe we lived in.

Right now, the problem that all religions have is that they have been utterly countermanded by the things we have discovered for ourselves. David Cameron calls this a Christian country, but he's wrong to do so. While many of us might respect the traditions that religion has bestowed upon our society, we have no obligation to follow the dogma - or support the views of those that do. That's not being disrespectful. That's making the best use of the information we have to date.

You are hardly Christopher Hitchens and I really do not have time to answer your questions. Shall we just conclude with the fact that I believe that people who set out to cause distress are cocks and if you do not understand why mocking somebody's faith distress's people then ask Salman Rushdie.

And you are hardly Peter Hitchens!

You talk of "offence", yet call people "cocks" quite happily.

I set out an argument why I see religious mockery no different to political mockery. Should we ban "Have I got News for You"? Both religion and political persuasion are personal choices. You have made no attempt to counter that.

Can you explain how the "The Satanic Verses" actually caused distress to anyone? They didn't even have to read the book if they didn't want to, quite how it impacts their lives I don't know. All it does is raise questions, questions it seems the Ayatollah didn't want people to think about. It really isn't a healthy mindset.

And you are hardly Peter Hitchens!

 

You talk of "offence", yet call people "cocks" quite happily.

 

I set out an argument why I see religious mockery no different to political mockery. Should we ban "Have I got News for You"? Both are personal choices. You have made no attempt to counter that.

 

Can you explain how the "The Satanic Verses" actually caused distress to anyone? They didn't even have to read the book if they didn't want to. All it does is raise questions, questions it seems the Ayatollah didn't want people to think about.

Well, I know replying to you directly will fan the flames of a global "not-bothered-ist" conspiracy, but my genuine conviction is that Sergei just wanted to call us all cocks and didn't really expect any follow-up questions

You're not only being pretty dismissive, but you seem to be creating a conspiracy where none exists.

 

Having not received messages from fellow conspirators on how we might dismantle all of Christendom, I can only speak for myself.

 

First, the only reason I got involved in this thread was to point out the obvious differences between the things one can change (faith) with those that someone generally cannot (race, sexual orientation). I know you would like to think that all those who dismiss the supposed veracity of holy texts are in cahoots, but the truth, and something that will scare you much more, is that people arrive at their conclusions more or less independently, and that they have posted their earnest views on here in the same spirit.

 

Next, I don't believe that you think debate is healthy, or not entirely anyway. You seem happy to debate within a certain framework, but somewhat less happy to participate when people choose to remain that framework entirely.

 

I don't agree with MLG on all he says, but I've a lot of sympathy for him when he says religion is "normally an accident of birth into that culture". I'd actually go further myself - I don't see religion as accidental at all. It was carefully cultivated from the outset as a means to create tribalism along non-racial lines. It's a mechanism to create an empire in the mind, transcending national boundaries. It's a hereditary disease passed on from parent to child, causing death and war since time immemorial. Most of all, its a set of uneducated answers aimed at uneducated people created in a time when we lacked the wit to describe the universe we lived in.

 

Right now, the problem that all religions have is that they have been utterly countermanded by the things we have discovered for ourselves. David Cameron calls this a Christian country, but he's wrong to do so. While many of us might respect the traditions that religion has bestowed upon our society, we have no obligation to follow the dogma - or support the views of those that do. That's not being disrespectful. That's making the best use of the information we have to date.

I think that statements about the Virgin Mary liking Roman Cock and Christianity being a pile of **** are not really contributing to the debate.

If the distress is the same then why is one acceptable and one not?

Virgin Mary liking Roman Cock

You should ask yourself which is more likely...

Mary having an extramarital affair and telling a lie to a gullible husband or the laws of biology being suspended with a virgin birth?

And you are hardly Peter Hitchens!

 

You talk of "offence", yet call people "cocks" quite happily.

 

I set out an argument why I see religious mockery no different to political mockery. Should we ban "Have I got News for You"? Both religion and political persuasion are personal choices. You have made no attempt to counter that.

 

Can you explain how the "The Satanic Verses" actually caused distress to anyone? They didn't even have to read the book if they didn't want to, quite how it impacts their lives I don't know. All it does is raise questions, questions it seems the Ayatollah didn't want people to think about. It really isn't a healthy mindset.

I do not just randomly call people 'cocks', I call people who set out to offend people 'cocks'. Saying the Virgin Mary liked Roman Cock falls into my definition.

You should ask yourself which is more likely...

 

Mary having an extramarital affair and telling a lie to a gullible husband or the laws of biology being suspended with a virgin birth?

 

You seem to think I am deeply religious; I am not I just do not like the double standards. I think that unprovoked offensiveness to Christians makes the offender as big an idiot as a racist.

I think that statements about the Virgin Mary liking Roman Cock

Quite agree, which is precisely why it generated 2 replies ( 1 of which was your own ).

and Christianity being a pile of **** are not really contributing to the debate.

So where was that said? It was suggested that Christianity was invented at least 100 years after the events, was a hodge-podge of various pagan legends, etc.

If the distress is the same then why is one acceptable and one not?

I think people have already given this question far too much 'respect', and have answered it directly.

How do you determine that the distress is "the same"? Are you gay or black?

Theres is no evidence he existed at all. The Romans were compulsive recorders of information even about thier opponents and thier is NO written recording of "Jesus" at all at the time he was supposed to off existed. Most writing about Jesus started about a century later. If you closely analyse most of the myths about him you soon realise they are based and adapted from various pagan gods.

Ehrman, Bart D. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions. The Death Sentence of Jesus Christ.

"This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people."

http://aheathensday.com/2011/08/bart-d-ehrmans-forged-a-review.html

Dog must be p*ssing himself as the easily offended have swallowed his bait.

PS - I am Jesus reborn and if anyone mocks my beliefs and causes me distress I WILL call the police.

Quite agree, which is precisely why it generated 2 replies ( 1 of which was your own ).

 

 

 

So where was that said? It was suggested that Christianity was invented at least 100 years after the events, was a hodge-podge of various pagan legends, etc.

 

 

 

I think people have already given this question far too much 'respect', and have answered it directly.

 

How do you determine that the distress is "the same"? Are you gay or black?

What would upset a Muslim more - criticising his God or his race?

What would upset a Muslim more - criticising his God or his race?

Allah is a f*cknut.

What would upset a Muslim more - criticising his God or his race?

You are not getting off that easily, son.

Why not try addressing some of the points that have already been made or the questions that have already been put to you?

For my part, I've attempted to cover everything you've raised. Don't debase this 'debate' further by asking yet another question when you know full well you won't like the answers.

What would upset a Muslim more - criticising his God or his race?

Islam isn't a race. Anyone can be a Muslim, it is a choice that can be made at any point in anyones life.

Do you really not know the difference between a religious choice and genetic ancestry?

Why is it that homophobic or racist posts would be considered unacceptable but anti-Christian posts are not?

 

Does this sort of thing not count as an infraction?

Wrong wrong wrong. People can chose to be Christian or not Christian. It's a belief system and no idea can be sacred or untouchable. You can not chose your skin colour or sexuality.

Thor is a dickwad

Zeus is a total *****

Venus is a slut

Apollo is a ******

Yahweh I am not supposed disparage in any way because a lot of people (still) believe in him. Although there is no more evidence for his existence than any of the aforementioned fictional characters, I can't call Yahweh a ***** because some people still believe in that particular invisible friend.

I respect that some people have delusions, and I respect their right to have them, but I don't have to respect the delusions themselves.

When and where did Mary die?

I can't ever recall anyone ever telling me this.

Wrong wrong wrong. People can chose to be Christian or not Christian. It's a belief system and no idea can be sacred or untouchable. You can not chose your skin colour or sexuality.

Is there not a difference between debating and deliberately causing distress?

Is there not a difference between debating and deliberately causing distress?

Are you honestly distressed by the comments that have been made on here?

Are you honestly distressed by the comments that have been made on here?

Yes.

Are you honestly surprised by that?

And you are hardly Peter Hitchens!

 

You talk of "offence", yet call people "cocks" quite happily.

 

I set out an argument why I see religious mockery no different to political mockery. Should we ban "Have I got News for You"? Both religion and political persuasion are personal choices. You have made no attempt to counter that.

 

Can you explain how the "The Satanic Verses" actually caused distress to anyone? They didn't even have to read the book if they didn't want to, quite how it impacts their lives I don't know. All it does is raise questions, questions it seems the Ayatollah didn't want people to think about. It really isn't a healthy mindset.

Yes.

 

Are you honestly surprised by that?

If you don't mind me asking, how has this distress manifested itself?

Are you having trouble sleeping? Panic attacks? Mental suffering?

I think you see the point I'm getting at here. I think you're over-egging your rhetoric when you throw in terms like distress. You may be offended, but I very much doubt that these comments have actually distressed you. I apologise in advance if I'm wide of the mark.

Regardless of whether it is distress or simple offense, I don't believe that these forum posts stand alone in causing offense. For them to even register, there has to be an element of doubt on your part. Why? Well, if you're so convinced of the veracity of your faith, what does a bit of background noise on an Internet forum matter?

between being born in a cowshead, until making magic miracles and finally getting crucified? Where was he as a child, a teenager, surely the son of God had a life being so famous.

Jesus was born in a cow's head?

Wow.

You seem to think I am deeply religious; I am not I just do not like the double standards. I think that unprovoked offensiveness to Christians makes the offender as big an idiot as a racist.

No, that can't be right. You only ever seem to post on threads about Christianity, and always strongly in defence of the mythological bearded one (no, not Zeus, that other fictional chap). I find your stoic defence of Christianity rather illogical if you are indeed not a believer.

Why don't you defend the rights of other religious beliefs? Afterall, there is nothing stupid about worshipping an invisible made up magical entity, for whom there is absolutely no evidence of their existence.

I respect your right to think whatever you wish to, but if you believe in fairies, goblins, jesus, posidon, the great spaghetti monster or some other made up nonsense, I reserve the right to publicly ridicule your beliefs. Especially when our messed up society allows schools to indoctrinate the innocent and naive into believing such nonsense; when our political debates seek the views of these mythbelieving clerics; and when the whole unsubstantiated nonsense is thrown down our throats at this time of year (apparently our winter celebrations, have nothing to do with the Winter Solstice, but are about some boy who was born in the middle east or something).

If I ever find out that my tax has been used to bolster the coffers of these myth believers in will be furious.

I am genuinely offended by religion on a daily basis.

It's just a lack of respect for someone's beliefs really. Well done, you should feel very proud.

Sorry mate, but this is complete bunk.

There is no reason to respect the beliefs of others wholesale, and every reason to question them when they seem so incongruent with our own understanding of the world, especially when those beliefs have been catalysts for murder in the past and sources of tension in the present.