It's good to mock religion! - Page 5

Hom3r · 25-10-2005, 17:40

Quote:

Check Leviticus for the list of things *Christians* are forbidden from eating some time

I don't have a copy of the Bible at hand can somebody say what is forbidden

Jon M · 25-10-2005, 18:07

Lots (but not all) of the Levitical law was superceeded by the New Covenant.

All food restrictions were lifted, for example.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/compare.html
__________________

Basically, a lot of what we consider "Jewish" today was the norm for the Christians of the time of Christ.
Since the New Covenant, however, Christians don't have to be circumcised

or practice other ceremonial laws because they obey them in their hearts.

cookie_365 · 25-10-2005, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

The headline is "It's good to mock religion". This thread is to debate that, going on what is said in Graham's link.

Ah, OK then. Point taken. I'm a

!

Graham · 25-10-2005, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by basa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

:
What did Matthew say in Chapter 7, Verse 1...?!

As a non believer and infidel, can I ask 'What DID Matthew say in C7V1 ?'

is your friend!

ADDENDUM: Except others have saved you the effort

(Oh and I'm a non-believer and infidel too

)
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Judge not, less you be judged yourself.

What that means is you are permitted to judge as long as it is done fairly. If you then judge with prejudice or unfairly, you shall be judged in the same way.

Which was rather the point I was trying to make about the claim that they had produced "dispassionate a piece of research as possible and what is contained is a true reflection on the beliefs of Islam."
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Whilst is obviously impresses me to see lots of positive comments directed at the Bible, please bear in mind this thread is about the original article posted by Graham about whether or not it is 'good' or 'right' to mock religion.

Well anyone who makes claims about "dispassionate research" or that what they have written is a "true reflection" of another faith, when anyone with half a brain can see that it's sheer biased bigotry *needs* to be mocked IMO

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Judge not, less you be judged yourself.

P.S. Had to Google that aswell.

Well that's ok, it was more than half an hour after the initial post

BBKing · 25-10-2005, 19:14

Quote:

Christians don't have to be circumcised or practice other ceremonial laws because they obey them in their hearts.

I don't suggest anyone try this particular legal argument with, say, a speeding fine...

Stuart · 25-10-2005, 19:45

Good to mock religion? As stated before, depends on the intent. If the intent was nasty, then it's bad. If the intent is good natured mickey taking, that may not be so bad (joking with mates about their religion if the mate in question doesn't mind for instance).

Good to question religion? Yes. Questioning is good. Questioning is how we learn.

Xaccers · 25-10-2005, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon M

Lots (but not all) of the Levitical law was superceeded by the New Covenant.

All food restrictions were lifted, for example.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/compare.html
__________________

Basically, a lot of what we consider "Jewish" today was the norm for the Christians of the time of Christ.
Since the New Covenant, however, Christians don't have to be circumcised

or practice other ceremonial laws because they obey them in their hearts.

Exactly, and until the Jews revolted against the Romans and picked someone else as the Messiah, followers of Rabbi Joshua were just a jewish sect.
Not having to have the snip is one thing I'm very grateful to Paul for!

I suppose one could argue that without testing faith you cannot prove you have it, and mocking religion tests one's faith, and therefore ultimately good for religion.
If you can't handle being mocked, then your faith can't be that strong, especially when you consider how many people have died for their beliefs (without knowing before hand if they'd come back or not)

25-10-2005, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Good to mock religion? As stated before, depends on the intent. If the intent was nasty, then it's bad. If the intent is good natured mickey taking, that may not be so bad (joking with mates about their religion if the mate in question doesn't mind for instance).

Good to question religion? Yes. Questioning is good. Questioning is how we learn.

Here, here !

Graham · 26-10-2005, 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Good to mock religion? As stated before, depends on the intent. If the intent was nasty, then it's bad.

Except that it's not going to be easy to codify that into law.

And the Lords agrees, having just kicked the bill out...

"Peers have inflicted a heavy defeat on government plans to create a new offence of inciting religious hatred, despite strong hints of a climbdown from the Home Office.

"They voted by more than two to one to back opposition to attempts to redraw the plans, amid claims that it was a bad law that would stifle freedom of speech."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle322304.ece

Xaccers · 26-10-2005, 03:48

And people say the house of lords is a bad thing

Jon M · 26-10-2005, 08:20

good news that

There have been many destructive bills proposed and passed under our current government, but this one had the greatest potential IMO.

BBKing · 26-10-2005, 08:38

Quote:

And people say the house of lords is a bad thing

Interesting statistics here:

Commons - Labour have 35% of the vote (22% of the electorate) but 55% of the MPs
Lords - Labour have 29% of the Lords as have the Tories with the LDs on 10%

Hence the Lords is more representative of how the country voted in May :P

Question for you - does this give the Lords the right to ignore the convention that, because they're unelected, they eventually defer to the elected Commons?

NitroNutter · 26-10-2005, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

What that means is you are permitted to judge as long as it is done fairly. If you then judge with prejudice or unfairly, you shall be judged in the same way.

But no being on this planet is capable of fair judgement, yet most do on a daily basis.

**Chris** · 26-10-2005, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Question for you - does this give the Lords the right to ignore the convention that, because they're unelected, they eventually defer to the elected Commons?

No it doesn't, because the operation of the house of Lords is ultimately decided by the Commons. Every time the Commons dabbles in 'Lords Reform', the outcome is, effectively, a legitimisation of the Lords in its resulting form. So the Lords, as it is currently set up and operated, is entirely democratic, because it operates the way the elected house says it should.

BBKing · 26-10-2005, 13:43

But the boot is firmly on the other foot, in that, *because* of the reforms Parliament has put in (like removing a lot of hereditary, i.e. Tory, peers), the Lords is now *more* representative of the will of the people than the *unreformed* Commons. Hence, IMHO, the Lords can tell the Commons to beggar off, without that being an affront to democracy, until such time as the Commons reforms itself to be more representative. Ironic, eh?

The 'Lords defers to Commons' thing, incidentally, was a result of Labour getting 48% of the vote in 1945 and having to deal with a Lords that was about 90% Tory...