'Freedom' of speech

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

that's what I mean. Do you know how you sound when you talk about what 'Jesus' thinks? Mets worrying about what an imaginary person who lived 2,000 years ago would think about what stimulates humans sexual organs the hardest....

I don't think Jesus ever communicated his thoughts on homosexuality. Seems like now you are doing what you always say you hate other people in history have done with religion.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

that's what I mean. Do you know how you sound when you talk about what 'Jesus' thinks?

I would love nothing more than to not give a single shit about what Jesus would have thought. It's you assholes that spend so much time worrying about him. Get over it already. Live your own life, don't let some ancient history book tell you what is sinful and what isn't. Figure it out for yourself.

I'm done with you.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

that's what I mean. Do you know how you sound when you talk about what 'Jesus' thinks?

I would love nothing more than to not give a single shit about what Jesus would have thought. It's you assholes that spend so much time worrying about him. Get over it already. Live your own life, don't let some ancient history book tell you what is sinful and what isn't. Figure it out for yourself.

I'm done with you.

We don't need to re-invent the wheel here, pretty sure everyone is cool with agreeing murder is wrong, cheating on your spouse is bad, stealing is mostly frowned upon.

I don't worry about Jesus 1/100th the amount you seem to. How can you twist simple thing like that so morbidly?

[mrswdk]

I have a few good acquaintances who are quite religious and... I think a little less of them for it

That's cute.

[Donelladan]

The motives behind many Muslim terrorist attacks appear to be of the "we hate non-Muslims" variety. How many times do Islamic terrorists have to say that they want to kill people for not believing in Allah before we start accepting that this is an actual thing people believe?

The motive behind Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack was not "we hate non-Muslim".
And actually the high majority of victims of terrorism are muslim. Therefore most of terrorist attack are not of the kind " we hate non-muslim".
They are more in the kind " we hate people that thinks differently". It is simply intolerance. And if islam did not exist, intolerant people would still exist.

Can you imagine any individual actually flying a plane into a building full of innocent people, of their own volition, if they don't believe something so fanatically such as that their God literally commands them to do so?

What are you doing about kamikaze? I don't think religion was the reason for their suicide.

I think a lot of deaths are cause because of the religions, but if we didn't have religions, we would still be killing each other, we would only find another reason. Religion is only an easy way to chose who to fight.

[betiko]

The motives behind many Muslim terrorist attacks appear to be of the "we hate non-Muslims" variety. How many times do Islamic terrorists have to say that they want to kill people for not believing in Allah before we start accepting that this is an actual thing people believe?

The motive behind Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack was not "we hate non-Muslim".
And actually the high majority of victims of terrorism are muslim. Therefore most of terrorist attack are not of the kind " we hate non-muslim".
They are more in the kind " we hate people that thinks differently". It is simply intolerance. And if islam did not exist, intolerant people would still exist.

Can you imagine any individual actually flying a plane into a building full of innocent people, of their own volition, if they don't believe something so fanatically such as that their God literally commands them to do so?

What are you doing about kamikaze? I don't think religion was the reason for their suicide.

I think a lot of deaths are cause because of the religions, but if we didn't have religions, we would still be killing each other, we would only find another reason. Religion is only an easy way to chose who to fight.

the same way people die for their country. In the case of kamikaze and in the case of suicidal terrorists; they are both promised something after their death. Heaven with 12 virgins or being an eternal national hero. It's just about being brainwashed about something.
It's just about being fanatics, there's always been and there always will be, I agree on this. But religious fanatism is even more dangerous than extreme nationalism or political extremism. people are much less scared to die for someone they will join in afterlife.

[_sabotage_]

Those kamikaze fundamentalist were doing coke, earing pork, hanging with strippers and drinking alcohol just prior to the event.

Several field agents were running investigations on them but got called off. The guy who most resented being called off was dismissed, and got a new job in WTC security in September 2001.

There is more evidence linking them to the US than to any other group or organization.

I don't know why you don't educate yourselves on the event but instead continually spread whatever imaginings you have.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

that's what I mean. Do you know how you sound when you talk about what 'Jesus' thinks?

I would love nothing more than to not give a single shit about what Jesus would have thought. It's you assholes that spend so much time worrying about him. Get over it already. Live your own life, don't let some ancient history book tell you what is sinful and what isn't. Figure it out for yourself.

I'm done with you.

And I'll agree to take the smell test any time you say.

I am 100% in agreement about this with a real Liberal who gets it, A liberal that gave Obama a million dollars, a Liberal that regularly attacks many of my positions and beliefs. Yet, because I am not controlled by Political Correctness nor am I fresh out of the education system, I can still agree on core values with political opposition and admit when they are right, which is to say I don't just go along with the party partisanship or the popular opinion just cuz it's popular, while it seems to be all you care about.



Here is a Liberal and a Conservative, A Republican and a Democrat, fully in agreement that people like you are the problem.



and in this I am not saying which religion is better by comparison, I am saying that by looking at both of them I am able to make a conclusion based on events of the present and of my lifetime, that one deserves far more criticism than the other. And I am suspect about those who hold the popular opinion that Christianity can be 'fairly' judged on what's it's done in it's past but is not doing currently and hasn't done recently, while at the same time Islam is 'unfairly' judged by what a continuous string of Muslims who loudly do it in the name of their religion yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And the violence of the present is not even trying to 'get away with it', they are willingly recording it and posting it for everyone to see what they have done and are doing! ala the stoning of adulterers and forcing gays to jump off tall buildings. They are bragging about it on video, and you let them get away with it when you try to pull some bs about how one who isn't criticizing the crusades from 1,000 years ago is a hypocrite for criticizing the violent and bloody radical religious extremism of the present.

[_sabotage_]

According to most Christians, Jesus was God incarnate. God is all-knowing. He therefore would have known of the current situation. His silence on homosexuality would suggest he condemns it as much as he condemns eating lobster.

In fact, in several instances he can be seen as supporting it:

We aren't defiled by what goes into a man but by what comes out.

He without sin may cast the first stone. And then, sinless, Jesus does not cast a stone.

He places the golden rule as the central tenet: condemning homosexuality breaks that tenet.

But Mets is taking the new found scientific approach: pre-conceived position, unsupported by evidence, shouted loudly in PC.

[patches70]

I have a few good acquaintances who are quite religious and... I think a little less of them for it

That's cute.

Mets' hilarious statement there brings to mind a blast from the past by the name of James G Watt. Mister Watt speaking of his own staff said- "I've got a black, a woman and two Jews working for me!" Watt was at the time the Sec of the Interior and he resigned very soon after that statement for obvious reason. By general consensus he is regarded as arguably one of the worst cabinet holders in the history of the United States.
Mets reminds of of that guy. Heh, heh, good times, good times indeed.

But Mets is taking the new found scientific approach: pre-conceived position, unsupported by evidence, shouted loudly in PC.

It's all good, Mets is entitled to his beliefs. Freedom of speech means having to put up with bigoted, intolerant assholes from time to time. I'm sure Mets believes his opinion is right and proper, just like every other bigot thinks their opinion is right and proper.

I find it strange in France that they declared that attack as "an attack on free speech" and then the French immediately start on a path to limit more speech. The toss the comedian in jail for "inciting terrorism" (whatever that means) while Charlie is the hero. But didn't Charlie incite terrorism by using free speech to insult the Prophet? The proof that they incited terrorism is right there, a terrorist attack was actually carried out because of Charlie's actions, thus Charlie incited terrorism.

Apparently it's all right to insult Islam in France but it's not all right to criticize those doing the insulting. As far as I'm concerned just about everything is fair game to mock and insult. Of course, if one says the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time, one might find themselves getting punched square in the face, so it's probably a good idea to use some modicum of tact and wisdom. The one exception I could make is politicians. They should be and deserve to be mocked and insulted relentlessly and without any fear of any reprisal from anyone or any institution at all.

The biggest shocker out of this sad affair in France is the so called "Solidarity March" by many world leaders. How all those world leaders showed up arm in arm to lead march. It was a touching and powerful photo-op, but it hid the reality-

Does this look familiar? It should...




Yeah...a photo op on an empty and guarded street. Even more hilarious is that in the throng of world leaders in solidarity for not just Charlie and France, but also for Freedom of Speech, is wedged representatives and leaders for Algeria, Mali, Ukraine, Tunisia. Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Russia, Turkey and Bahrain. Nine of the worst offenders of Freedom of Speech in the world.

Absolutely deliciously hilarious and filled with ironic hypocrisy.
Those world leaders didn't lead shit, one shouldn't expect such great men and women to actually have to get close to the plebes after all. I'm actually kind of glad Obama didn't entangle himself in this shit sandwich, he's got enough bad publicity as it is now.

[_sabotage_]

Far be it from me to stop Mets from exposing his hypocrisy. I'd be happier if he was as open all the time.

He uses a wide brush to paint all of Christianity inherently homophobic and in doing so is using the same approach that the Christians who are homophobic use to be homophobic.

[Metsfanmax]

He uses a wide brush to paint all of Christianity inherently homophobic and in doing so is using the same approach that the Christians who are homophobic use to be homophobic.

That would be a legitimate analogy if my dislike of Christians was the result of a book I read that said that if I do not stone Christians for expressing their faith, I will burn in hell for eternity.

Yes, I do find it problematic that there are Christians of the type that are perfectly fine with homosexuality. I respect their views because they understand that this is a view that is not compatible with things we value in modern times like freedom of expression. But they still praise the text of an ancient fantasy novel that does say in it that stoning gays is the appropriate thing to do. There are people who don't reach the conclusion that that part of the text can be ignored, and they basically have as much legitimacy as the ones who do ignore it, because it has become almost a faux pas in modern society to dare to criticize someone for their religious beliefs.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry, I'm not a Jew, nor do I esteem Paul's writings as anything other than Roman revisionism of Christianity.

And you didn't say a book, you referred specifically to Jesus. As you are suggesting he is promoting hate crimes, you could be sued for libel and for making false accusations.

[Dukasaur]

There's no direct evidence of anything Jesus said or did. All we have is third-hand and fourth-hand testimony, and since Paul produced more of it than anyone else, he (largely by default) has defined what Christianity is. Whether you "esteem" him or not makes no difference. He is the leader of your movement, in all his misogynistic twisted hate-filled glory.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry cowboy, but Jesus said to be aware of those who came in his name and that we shall know them by their fruits. Paul's one of yours, enjoy him as you will.

[Dukasaur]

Sorry cowboy, but Jesus said to be aware of those who came in his name and that we shall know them by their fruits. Paul's one of yours, enjoy him as you will.

Again, there's no direct evidence Jesus said that, or anything else he is reported to have said. Jesus left no inscriptions, no writings, no videotape, not even a bit of graffiti in the sand.

Any words reported to us as the words of Jesus came from (maybe) second-hand, and (mostly) third-hand and fourth-hand sources. The line you cite came from someone who wrote anonymously. The name "Matthew" was not ascribed to him until sometime in the 2nd Century; he certainly did not claim to be the apostle Matthew, nor did he write any events in the first person. He was a third-hand source at best, and his reporting of what Jesus may have said is highly suspect.

[_sabotage_]

Sure, but we can compare earlier Christian writings, those that are in tact and kosher and those that were repressed. We can date, analyze, look up references, and come to our own conclusions about what the likely source was and the type of leader that Jesus was.

As for your demand that Paul be equally esteemed...several of his letters mysteriously appeared centuries later purporting to maintain the same position as the person who discovered them. There is even less evidence of a historical Saul and what evidence there is suggest he was perhaps generally hated by the existing Christian groups. His letters are inconsistent. He writes to Churches he apparently set up in rather odd terms.

More than likely Saul was a concoction of the stoics with the help of Josephus. There are many parallels with Saul and Josephus.

Sorry for your limited world where you feel I'm required to do something that I'm not required to do. I'm got required to engage in blind faith, I'm free to dismiss the Pope and his predecessors, I don't need to learn Latin, I can go through the Dead Sea scrolls. I'm free to say that Jesus was a mushroom.

[Endgame422]

Sorry, I'm not a Jew, nor do I esteem Paul's writings as anything other than Roman revisionism of Christianity.

And you didn't say a book, you referred specifically to Jesus. As you are suggesting he is promoting hate crimes, you could be sued for libel and for making false accusations.

Your first statement makes me wonder, since you recognize that modern christianity and essentially all its practices are heavily influenced by roman revisionism, how can you be a believer?

This is something i have discussed a little with some of the christians i actually know and thus far i hane yet to get an explanation.

And as to your second statement,
Come on man. Your just straight up trolling mets on semantics with this one because you know you got him on the ropes so to speak.
I disagree with mets on many things including this but come on. You know when he said jesus he meant whosoever you relate as your divine being(or whatever).

Now as far as the french aspect of this thread if its the law of the land than so be it.
if this is how the law is written than im sure this comedian was well aware of those laws, and if he chose to ignore the law he gets arrested. Thats how laws work. Do i need to say duh?
If he is a nutjob like betiko says all the better if not oh well thats his mistake.
He could have published anonymously or even in another country thats less restrictive to Jew bashing(idk maybe iran they might give him a job working for the state lol)
But he choose to do this kind of thing knowingly and because he thinks he was going to get something out of it. Be it fame(check),better exposure for his work(check),to make himself look like a martyr to his fans(check) or even just to stir up a shitstorm(doublecheck) he knew full well what he was doing. And is probably whistling "La Marseillaise" from his secluded cell.

And patches thank you for posting that picture. When i heard that and saw the pic i thought holy shit what giant security risk theres no fucking way. It really brought a good laugh amongst all of this somber talk, i mean shits real in france and i sympathize with the victims and their families, but the obvious PR grab by these "world leaders" is so ironic in its demonstration that they dont really give a damn that its just funny to me.

[_sabotage_]

It's not too hard to believe in the golden rule. "Jesus" doesn't make too many demands, is widely recognized and doesn't promote hate.

I don't need Jesus to be divine, capable of performing miracles or to have come back to life. I just need a simple moral code that I can live by and that others can live by. For the great majority of people, they may need the miracles.

It would be rather redundant attempting to reinvent the wheel and since we already have Jesus and at the core there is already a moral code that is hard to improve on, then I promote living according to the words of Jesus.

I don't fully live up to his teachings (and when I say his teachings, I mean the source of the teachings). I support the death penalty in some circumstances, I choose to ignore his call to follow church leaders after describing them as eternal hypocrites, I choose to call all people my brothers. Some of it is personal interpretation and some is avoiding logical fallacy.

I would expect similar deviations from others in what they deem source material but generally expect decent outcomes if that person is sticking to the main body of the teachings. The Catholic Church has far overstepped any authority they have derived from their claim on Jesus and are a good example of why his simple moral code is valid.

And for me saying the Bible or Jesus is not just a question of semantics. I don't think you'd consider it a question of semantics if I said Obama strangled Garner, rather than saying a police officer did.

[Endgame422]

It seems to me that compartmentalizing your religion into what works for you and discarding the rest makes you not a christian but just a reasonable non believer.
Not that i can make better judgements about your beliefs then you can it just seems strange to admit your not all good with what constitutes Christianity but still call yourself a Christian.

Ill agree the general ethical code of Christianity is not too difficult and certainly teaches some values everyone can get behind (family,respect,the golden rule youve mentioned).
These are values i try to exercise in my own life and beliefs that i fundamentally agree with you on(though im admittedly human and prone to failing)

I feel like you and i have made the same conclusion but for some reason your self identifying as Christian, while i have never felt like there was any value in labeling my beliefs as anything but my own.

Is it just easier to tell people your christian?
Or is because you want the community?
The social networking aspect of it?
Something im missing entirely?

Any of you like 5 people who 4were bashing mets for being anti religion got some answers? Im interesed in a little cross section here as opposed to putting sabotage on trial here.

And the issue with the obama police officer comparision is that god is reported as being omnipotent and has complete control over the situation whilst obama was likely balls deep in licking international boots to further some private agenda at the time dude was strangled.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify what Christianity means to me.

Christianity is a simple moral code passed on by Jesus. His code cannot be added to or seen as an extension of what came before.

When Jesus told Peter, you are the rock I build my church, I believe he meant that faith in him would be denied or admitted at the convenience of the individual, as Peter did, not that he was passing on authority.

There is no evidence that such authority was passed on. There is no sign of Peter in Rome. The first popes happened to be close to the Roman emperor.

Jesus was a prophet who culminated a body of knowledge into a basic series of principles. These principles were in regards to human interaction with the realization that certain things won't change. We will feel joy, hate, jealousy, pride, etc. The energy we have may be moulded by by our outlook, thoughts, experiences and will be passed on in many ways through eternity. This is something you should be far more concerned about than your credit rating.

Failing to engage in the correct activities to be harmonious needs to be remedied.

I believe that there is too much temptation towards engaging in disharmonious activities. That's the forbidden knowledge we acquired.

There are many who would call this the wrong interpretation, but if have studied the issue to the point where I'm quite comfortable with my position for myself.

The truth about Jesus is that he can bloom in a billion different manifestations, and be equally true to the person who believes. I would hope that that manifestation is a positive influence.

Mets has chosen a negative manifestation and slapped it on a group and blames Jesus. Well, he is what you make him, and Mets has made him as he will.

[betiko]

I have a few good acquaintances who are quite religious and... I think a little less of them for it

That's cute.

Mets' hilarious statement there brings to mind a blast from the past by the name of James G Watt. Mister Watt speaking of his own staff said- "I've got a black, a woman and two Jews working for me!" Watt was at the time the Sec of the Interior and he resigned very soon after that statement for obvious reason. By general consensus he is regarded as arguably one of the worst cabinet holders in the history of the United States.
Mets reminds of of that guy. Heh, heh, good times, good times indeed.

But Mets is taking the new found scientific approach: pre-conceived position, unsupported by evidence, shouted loudly in PC.

It's all good, Mets is entitled to his beliefs. Freedom of speech means having to put up with bigoted, intolerant assholes from time to time. I'm sure Mets believes his opinion is right and proper, just like every other bigot thinks their opinion is right and proper.

I find it strange in France that they declared that attack as "an attack on free speech" and then the French immediately start on a path to limit more speech. The toss the comedian in jail for "inciting terrorism" (whatever that means) while Charlie is the hero. But didn't Charlie incite terrorism by using free speech to insult the Prophet? The proof that they incited terrorism is right there, a terrorist attack was actually carried out because of Charlie's actions, thus Charlie incited terrorism.

Apparently it's all right to insult Islam in France but it's not all right to criticize those doing the insulting. As far as I'm concerned just about everything is fair game to mock and insult. Of course, if one says the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time, one might find themselves getting punched square in the face, so it's probably a good idea to use some modicum of tact and wisdom. The one exception I could make is politicians. They should be and deserve to be mocked and insulted relentlessly and without any fear of any reprisal from anyone or any institution at all.

The biggest shocker out of this sad affair in France is the so called "Solidarity March" by many world leaders. How all those world leaders showed up arm in arm to lead march. It was a touching and powerful photo-op, but it hid the reality-

Does this look familiar? It should...




Yeah...a photo op on an empty and guarded street. Even more hilarious is that in the throng of world leaders in solidarity for not just Charlie and France, but also for Freedom of Speech, is wedged representatives and leaders for Algeria, Mali, Ukraine, Tunisia. Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Russia, Turkey and Bahrain. Nine of the worst offenders of Freedom of Speech in the world.

Absolutely deliciously hilarious and filled with ironic hypocrisy.
Those world leaders didn't lead shit, one shouldn't expect such great men and women to actually have to get close to the plebes after all. I'm actually kind of glad Obama didn't entangle himself in this shit sandwich, he's got enough bad publicity as it is now.

What s hilarious is to read this type of shit. Dieudonné sent to jail? Lulz. He got sued. There will be a trial (another one..) and he ll get a fine at worse.
Charlie hebdo has had a few fines after being sued as well, they are sued twice a year on average, and most of the prosecutions are from muslims while they attack anything in religion and politics. Just stop writing shit if you are just coming to vomit your biaised opinion will you?

And regarding the world leaders... Of course there was an empty street behind. Are you that stupid? Do you not understand the level of security needed? What you don t see there is the crowd they were facing.

And according to you drawing a prophet is an incitation to terrorism? Of course it s the cause of what happened, but is it justified? If i fart on your kid for fun and the next day you come at my house with an AK47 to murder me and my family, would your defense be "he incited me to murder"?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets' hilarious statement there brings to mind a blast from the past by the name of James G Watt. Mister Watt speaking of his own staff said- "I've got a black, a woman and two Jews working for me!" Watt was at the time the Sec of the Interior and he resigned very soon after that statement for obvious reason. By general consensus he is regarded as arguably one of the worst cabinet holders in the history of the United States.

Religion is something you choose to do. It is a belief you have, and it is a nonsensical one at that. Just as you would think less of people who believe in invisible garden gnomes without any evidence of their existence, I think less of people who believe in invisible gods without any evidence of their existence. The only difference between the two beliefs is that you grew up in a society where believing in invisible gods is common and believing in invisible garden gnomes is not, so you feel entitled to hold the common absurd belief and feel insulted when I call it out.

Unless your comment is that we shouldn't make fun of religious people -- it's not their fault, they were raised that way by their parents and didn't know any better. And actually, I agree with that, that's why I don't hate religious people. It is hard to break out of a belief system that is so deeply baked into your upbringing and your society. But black people didn't choose to be black and at any rate have no reason to be ashamed about it. A religious belief is an intellectual position that can be changed at any time if you have the fortitude to do so, and stupid intellectual positions should be called out so that society can move forward.

But Mets is taking the new found scientific approach: pre-conceived position, unsupported by evidence, shouted loudly in PC.

Again, I don't care what Jesus says. I'm not the one who started talking about Jesus and what Jesus means to people. My point is that there are people who read the Bible and find in it examples of reasons to be opposed to homosexuality, and then use those as justifications for opposing homosexuality. I have zero interest in whose interpretation of an ancient fantasy novel is more theologically sound, because even if you are correct, these other people think they are correct, and the best you can do is fight with them over interpretations. But that's not what most Christians spend time doing anyway. And as a result, there is general understanding that it is ok to be a Christian in this society, even though some Christians hold beliefs that are completely incompatible with the freedoms we value in modern society. So when I call out people who are homophobic, look at how the Christians aren't going "you know what, you're right, maybe there's something wrong with my religion," they're going "no, those people are just not interpreting Christianity correctly. By the way, stop assaulting Christians, I feel offended!"

The one exception I could make is politicians. They should be and deserve to be mocked and insulted relentlessly and without any fear of any reprisal from anyone or any institution at all.

Meanwhile, patches, the man who stands up so strongly for freedom of beliefs and against bigoted attacks on anyone just because they belong to a particular group, says that politicians should be insulted relentlessly. See, we're not so different, you and I.