INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: purposefulinsanity on November 18, 2006, 11:52:17 AM
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18112006/325/dutch-ban-wearing-burqa-public.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18112006/325/dutch-ban-wearing-burqa-public.html)
The Dutch government has just banned the wearing of burqa in public, as an 'anti-terrorism' measure, does any potential risk jusitfy infringing people's personal and religious freedom like that?
-
WTF I thought the netherlands was liberal...
-
can you walk down the street in your country but naked?
-
can you walk down the street in your country but naked?
How is that in anyway the same as people wanting to cover their bodies for religious reasons?
-
Freedom. Why do people not complain about people not being allowed to go about naked? Sometimes as well if you go to work you must where a shirt and tie. Maybe EVERYBODY should be allowed to where what they want. what do you think?
-
I kinda think that comparing religious dress to having the right to go round with your tits out cheapens the issue. Besides as someone from Yorkshire its usually too cold for that (and I'd presume it is down south too).
By wanting to cover their bodies they are not infringing on anyone's personal rights, but being able to wonder round naked would be imo.
-
Well, the laws about people not walking around butt naked is simply a matter of societal preference, as there are groups that are offended by nudity. It has very little to do with trying to oppress any one particular group and more to do with the fact that it is medically proven that people go blind from seeing ugly old fat naked guys. If people do want to be naked in public though, there are communities to serve that purpose, such as nudist colonies. As well, there are in many cases nude beaches where people can let everything hang.
The reason why the banning of the burqa is wrong though, in my opinion, is that it is not as justifiable from societal preference as a burqa is not even what people consider offensive clothing and banning them does not improve security so much as antagonizing a group of people and attacking their religion, as I have never heard of a person weaponize their face.
So, in short, anti-nudity laws: somewhat totalitarian but to some extent we need easily enforceable laws to keep uggos from letting it all hang free, anti-burqa laws: totalitarian and designed to oppress people based upon religion.
-
Under certain circumstances, the government should have the right to tell people what not to wear, but this burqa ban goes too far.
For example, if someone wants a driver's license or another sort of identification like a passport, then they need to show their face for the photo, or else anyone else with the same burqa or niqab could use it and it would be completely meaningless as a form of identification.
My daughter and I were shopping a few years ago and we saw a woman whose face except for her eyes was covered with a hijab. My daughter, who I think was six or seven and did not know how to be quiet, started asking me why the lady's face was covered and very loudly said, "What's wrong with her face?" The woman was very kind and uncovered her face to show my daughter that there was nothing wrong with it, it was her religious custom to wear a veil to show respect because she was a Muslim. Starting then, my daughter has wanted to become a Muslim so she too could cover her face with a veil. When I told her I did not want to become a Muslim because Muslim men can have four wives and in some muslim countries, women are not allowed to drive a car, she thought that would be really cool to have a husband with three other wives.
-
The only justifyable reason I see for this is for purposes of identification. What if someone (muslim or not) runs around in a burka commiting crimes?? how do you id this person??
If I started my own religion that says I have to wear a ski mask in public, is it OK for me to wear it into a bank??
-
Starting then, my daughter has wanted to become a Muslim so she too could cover her face with a veil. When I told her I did not want to become a Muslim because Muslim men can have four wives and in some muslim countries, women are not allowed to drive a car, she thought that would be really cool to have a husband with three other wives.
:LMAO:
-
Rights are an illusion, there is only what we can enforce and what we can't.
-
Freedom. Why do people not complain about people not being allowed to go about naked? Sometimes as well if you go to work you must where a shirt and tie. Maybe EVERYBODY should be allowed to where what they want. what do you think?
I notice that you're using capital letters. Is this temporary or have you seen the light?
-
The only justifyable reason I see for this is for purposes of identification. What if someone (muslim or not) runs around in a burka commiting crimes?? how do you id this person??
If I started my own religion that says I have to wear a ski mask in public, is it OK for me to wear it into a bank??
Well, perhaps I need to fresh up on terrorism statistics. Like, I know that the Netherlands has some worries about terrorism but they also tend to have problems with antagonizing their Islamic populations. The only thing I remember happening to them involving terror recently though is just one artist being killed due to some insensitive comics but I don't think that banning the burqa will do much else than lend to the feeling of oppression that might be felt by Muslim minorities. Some attempts to ID the person can be gained by looking at height and depending on burqa design, skin and eye color, however, I would prefer that such crimes happen first before a pre-emptive ban as a lot of government action can be justified by "what if". A ban to burqas based upon your ideas would also have to follow onto halloween masks as well and dammit, I wanna be a gremlin for halloween!!
Well, I'd say that'd be up to the bank. Banks are private areas and should be able to make their own rules for the head gear that can be worn there.
Rights are an illusion, there is only what we can enforce and what we can't.
Rights are not so much an illusion as they are principles that we would desire that authorities act upon. There can be no objective view saying that rights exist, however, we can easily state that as a society we should have these things enforced and try to keep from infringing upon them. Pretty much, rights are desirable because we want to have a basis for freedom, and because we want to have something definite to protect from infringement. Most rights are ultimately based upon general principles anyway where it follows that since this is good and should not be violated then these being derived from that are good as well.
-
The only justifyable reason I see for this is for purposes of identification. What if someone (muslim or not) runs around in a burka commiting crimes?? how do you id this person??
If I started my own religion that says I have to wear a ski mask in public, is it OK for me to wear it into a bank??
:green:
The French have banned burqas, niqabs, hijabs etc in schools. 8)
-
Well, I'd say that'd be up to the bank. Banks are private areas and should be able to make their own rules for the head gear that can be worn there.
If that's the case, why does the Arizona State Government ban people from bringing guns into banks if they are a private institution??
-
If that's the case, why does the Arizona State Government ban people from bringing guns into banks if they are a private institution??
I did say "should be" if we assume that banks are private institutions. The question comes in if we say that banks are not entirely private if there is government intervention involved there in which case I would say that perhaps you have some justification, however, your statement isn't an argument as it merely appeals to the authority of the government of Arizona, which I have no experience with and have little reason to trust. However, banning guns in a bank and banning a form of headgarb worn by a religious group are slightly different issues as one encroaches on religious expression, while with the other we can assume no religious requirement on the part of any major religions to carry a gun and banning it does not cause issues with the right to gun ownership. I might feel more positive about this ban on religious garb if the muslim communities felt no antagonism about this, however, this could well backfire.
-
public schools are a governmental institution and they routinely tell the kiddos how to dress, or even have uniforms.
just like communist russia and nazi germany.
-
public schools are a governmental institution and they routinely tell the kiddos how to dress, or even have uniforms.
just like communist russia and nazi germany.
Public schools do tell kids how to dress while on the school grounds. I would not compare this too much to communist russia and nazi germany though, as children have few rights of their own, and the right to how children dress really belongs to a great extent to the parents. Now, if a government mandates school and mandates a dress code to parents that they cannot approve of for legitimate religious reasons then we have a problem that should be resolved in a non-dictatorial manner if possible.
-
i view the school dress code as a conditioning towards the future adults being conformists.
but back to your argument.
basically what you are saying is that the original ban (per this discussion) is an agregious violation in the seperation of church and state?
-
Until I get a memo from god, i am going to assume our opinion on what rights exist are just guesses that aren't essentially rights, but wants.
-
i view the school dress code as a conditioning towards the future adults being conformists.
but back to your argument.
basically what you are saying is that the original ban (per this discussion) is an agregious violation in the seperation of church and state?
Possibly true, I really don't know. I think that individualism is something outside of the clothing that a person wears but it is hard to say. I suppose that parents may have some right to reject the dress code though.
Yes, I'd say that it is a violation of the freedom of religion and one that should not be taken under the circumstances. A less heavy handed approach should be taken with the goal being to integrate muslim populations in with the rest of the population and perhaps there should be a reduction of islamic immigration for that purpose. The issue really comes down to a fear of the immigrant populations and their non-integration. Banning burqas is not going to help integration very much, and might hinder it due to the negative feelings felt by the Islamic communities about this, not only that but at a more fundamental level it is preferable that governments let religions go their natural course. I believe that this action will not be beneficial but more beneficial acts can be found.
-
Until I get a memo from god, i am going to assume our opinion on what rights exist are just guesses that aren't essentially rights, but wants.
Well the only thing is that most conceptions of rights are similar because due to the common ideological background behind them. You can easily just ignore everything said about rights, however, it comes down to this: who do you want to run your life? It may be a want to have control over your life, but ultimately most of us can come to the conclusion that such should be given to the individual and not infringed upon by outside forces. Ultimately our desire for this and for governments to respect this does not exactly come from rights per se, even though we might call these things rights, but rather from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_Utilitarianism) as we recognize that the best way to secure our welfare is to essentially set up boundaries on what can be done and what cannot be done as we know that even well-intentioned acts can lead to bad consequences.
-
I know that it is important to fire up your base by saying things like god given rights, but it kind of annoys me that they arent more honest about it.
-
I know that it is important to fire up your base by saying things like god given rights, but it kind of annoys me that they arent more honest about it.
Some people believe that rights are real and true and the only issue of any importance, I don't and you don't. This does not mean that rights are a dead concept to us, but rather that they must be seen from a more utilitarian/consequentialist perspective.
-
What I can't stand is when sometimes people will be close minded and follow and defend certain ideas of rights blindly and it somehow justifies doing something harmful. And you can't fucking argue with them about it because rights are supposedly above the physical, given to us by god.
But otherwise I do find it touching when people really do value some rights and to what lengths theyll go to defend them.
-
What I can't stand is when sometimes people will be close minded and follow and defend certain ideas of rights blindly and it somehow justifies doing something harmful. And you can't fucking argue with them about it because rights are supposedly above the physical, given to us by god.
But otherwise I do find it touching when people really do value some rights and to what lengths theyll go to defend them.
True, especially given the different views of rights in existence, which is what I wanted to explore with my positive and negative rights thread. One person's positive right is often a violation of another person's negative right, so there cannot even be agreement by believers in rights on what these rights really are.
-
What I can't stand is when sometimes people will be close minded and follow and defend certain ideas of rights blindly and it somehow justifies doing something harmful. And you can't fucking argue with them about it because rights are supposedly above the physical, given to us by god.
But otherwise I do find it touching when people really do value some rights and to what lengths theyll go to defend them.
like the abortion issue?
-
That's one of em. One I particularly despise is one of my friends belief that they have the right to believe that god is above logic, and therefore his beliefs don't need to be logical. Makes me want to lobotomize myself with a shotgun.
-
I think God has problems making eye contact and prefers to keep to himself. I'll bet he's easily distracted and impulsive also. None of that is logical.
-
IMO the government shouldn't tell people what they can wear, however its the government's obligation to restrict who can enter the country in the first place.
Why did they ever let these fuckers in in the first place?
I do not believe their culture is at all compatible with western culture. >:(
From another point of view, how can the arsehole countries they came from ever imnprove if a "brain drain" of more educated people flow from them. They should do everyone a favour and stay where they are and improve their own country.
-
I do not believe their culture is at all compatible with western culture. >:(
You mean apart from the stupid things some westerners insist on, like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, that sort of thing?
-1
>:(
-
I do not believe their culture is at all compatible with western culture. >:(
You mean apart from the stupid things some westerners insist on, like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, that sort of thing?
-1
>:(
exactly :laugh: I tolerate anything except intolerance :laugh:
PS - wearing a hijab or burka (sp?) is not a religious requirement. IMO it is a statement that I do not like your culture and I will not assimilate. Its also a reminder that moslems regard women as inferiors and that some moslem men regard "immodestly clad" western women as "fair game" and their own fault if raped. This is a sentiment expressed by Australia's "leading moslem cleric".
-
I know it isn't a religious requirement; rather, it's a cultural one. Also, it has NOTHING to do with the few muslims that regard western women as fair game, any more than our sinful codes of clothing have any bearing to some of the troops in Iraq regarding the local women as fair game.
I take it you'd be the one to stay at home and take care of the kids?
-
I take it you'd be the one to stay at home and take care of the kids?
:laugh: No - I had several years in the Infantry ARES, only because I was not accepted into the regular army officer training. I still regret I was too young for Vietnam. :laugh:
Your not one of those who tipped disabled vets out of their wheelchairs and spat on them are you?
-
I take it you'd be the one to stay at home and take care of the kids?
:laugh: No - I had several years in the Infantry ARES, only because I was not accepted into the regular army officer training. I still regret I was too young for Vietnam. :laugh:
Your not one of those who tipped disabled vets out of their wheelchairs and spat on them are you?
Nope, no need to. Usually I just leave them on the landing. ;D
-
I agree with Bazza. I think it's a kind of demonstratively showing that they don't accept our western countries and think it's their right to do whatever they please. It's like gay people demonstratively demanding to be "married" in church. It's just for the sake of provocation. If you're gay, you don't fit in the "normal" society anyway, so why the hell insisting on marrying in church? It's just to provoke and show disrespect for anything that has some integrity. I don't insist on all NTs being interested in my obsessions. Why the hell would I?
-
Actually, there are other reasons for gays to want a church wedding, such as having God bless their marriage. To most Christians, that is--or used to be--the point with a church wedding. Are you saying that there are no gay Christians?
As for "accepting our western countries", bollocks! You can't have it both ways, Litigious; either you accept and endorse the freedoms we've been able to attain, or you stop wearing the shorts and the t-shirt during summertime, because they are in bad taste and bother me a lot! They show that you disrespect your elders. There ought to be some laws about what you can wear in public!
Sarcasm warning above. Can you guess which part(s)?
-
Actually, there are other reasons for gays to want a church wedding, such as having God bless their marriage. To most Christians, that is--or used to be--the point with a church wedding. Are you saying that there are no gay Christians?
there are plenty og ghey priests.
-
As long as i can wear a balaclava while at work in a bank and can talk to muslim women through the letterbox. We are required to respect local customs whilst over there so they should do the same here. Whilst in Rome, do as the Romanians do and all that.
-
As long as i can wear a balaclava while at work in a bank and can talk to muslim women through the letterbox. We are required to respect local customs whilst over there so they should do the same here. Whilst in Rome, do as the Romanians do and all that.
What are the local customs regarding clothing where you live?
-
As long as i can wear a balaclava while at work in a bank and can talk to muslim women through the letterbox. We are required to respect local customs whilst over there so they should do the same here. Whilst in Rome, do as the Romanians do and all that.
What are the local customs regarding clothing where you live?
Everyone just wears what they want except unlike muslims, i dont get to cover my face if i want a job or the law off my back.
-
Actually, there are other reasons for gays to want a church wedding, such as having God bless their marriage. To most Christians, that is--or used to be--the point with a church wedding. Are you saying that there are no gay Christians?
There are gay people believing in God, yes, but according to the Bible gays should be burned alive, so either should the Bible not be interpreted litterary or have gays misunderstood something. How can God bless a gay "marriage" if his will is that gays should be burned alive? I find all religions stupid, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but I find it even more stupid for people who these religions condemn demanding to be blessed by them. By the way, why don't they demand to be married in a synagogue or mosque? Why should just Christian churches show "tolerance" by giving up what their so called "holy books" say? Gays demanding to be married in a church is like me demanding to be member of honour in some stupid NT social club. I don't see the point.
As for "accepting our western countries", bollocks! You can't have it both ways, Litigious; either you accept and endorse the freedoms we've been able to attain, or you stop wearing the shorts and the t-shirt during summertime, because they are in bad taste and bother me a lot! They show that you disrespect your elders. There ought to be some laws about what you can wear in public!
Sarcasm warning above. Can you guess which part(s)?
I can see the sarcasm, yes, but you still don't seem to understand that bad taste is one thing and dressing to suit a certain religion is another. In a so called free society intolerance must be banned, and to ban intolerance, you have to act a bit intolerant yourself, like forbidding female circumcision or dress codes invented to oppress women.
-
the bible states that they should burn like soddom and gomhorra, and the faghags be turned into a pillar of salt.
-
Something like that, yes. ;)
-
So the treatment of homosexuals should be according to the literal interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, etc? Is that what you're saying?
What other parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally? The treatment of women? Slavery? Genocide? The killing of insubordinate children?
Freedom, indeed. ::)
-
sic him litigious. sic him.
-
sic him litigious. sic him.
Should gheyness also be punished with death? If so then......
-
sic him litigious. sic him.
Should gheyness also be punished with death? If so then......
shut the fuck up. shouldn't you be choking on a cock right about now?
-
shut the fuck up. shouldn't you be choking on a cock right about now?
But ascan says he's busy correcting you again. He's already owned you in posting so it's only fair that you practice your yoga, as it'were, for him.
-
shut the fuck up. shouldn't you be choking on a cock right about now?
But ascan says he's busy correcting you again. He's already owned you in posting so it's only fair that you practice your yoga, as it'were, for him.
and you can practice your humming.
-
So the treatment of homosexuals should be according to the literal interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, etc? Is that what you're saying?
What other parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally? The treatment of women? Slavery? Genocide? The killing of insubordinate children?
Freedom, indeed. ::)
I'm not Christian, but if one should be ridiculously enough to be religious, one should follow the words of the "holy books", yes. One of the reasons that the "Christian" priests are not respected in the first place is that most of them don't believe in their own holy book.
-
So the treatment of homosexuals should be according to the literal interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, etc? Is that what you're saying?
What other parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally? The treatment of women? Slavery? Genocide? The killing of insubordinate children?
Freedom, indeed. ::)
I'm not Christian, but if one should be ridiculously enough to be religious, one should follow the words of the "holy books", yes. One of the reasons that the "Christian" priests are not respected in the first place is that most of them don't believe in their own holy book.
So why the fuck do you use their holy book as an argument when you don't believe a word of it? But tell me now, which other parts of the bible should we interpret literally? Or is that a question you'd rather avoid?
Or is it just that you are a homophobic? Because if you aren't a Christian, and if you think practising Christians are "ridiculous", why do you care what happens in their churches?
Any other minorities you want to bash, now that we're talking?
-
So why the fuck do you use their holy book as an argument when you don't believe a word of it? But tell me now, which other parts of the bible should we interpret literally? Or is that a question you'd rather avoid?
No, I'm not interested in interpreting any part of the Bible, I just say that according to the Bible, Christian gay people is a self-contradiction.
Or is it just that you are a homophobic? Because if you aren't a Christian, and if you think practising Christians are "ridiculous", why do you care what happens in their churches?
I don't really give a fuck but it's just stupid political correctness when gays insist on marrying in the church. That's what really annoys me. I really don't think that most of them do it because they believe in God.
Any other minorities you want to bash, now that we're talking?
No, because it's not the minorities but the stupid acting that pisses me off.
-
Or is it just that you are a homophobic? Because if you aren't a Christian, and if you think practising Christians are "ridiculous", why do you care what happens in their churches?
I don't really give a fuck but it's just stupid political correctness when gays insist on marrying in the church. That's what really annoys me. I really don't think that most of them do it because they believe in God.
Exactly how do you know that this is the case? And if you don't give a fuck, why act as if you did? You are not a Christian, you are most likely not gay, and you certainly aren't interested in interpreting (or living by) the Bible. How dare you question their faith when you have none?
Any other minorities you want to bash, now that we're talking?
No, because it's not the minorities but the stupid acting that pisses me off.
Just the Muslims and the gays, then. ::)
Do I need to point it out to you that you (claim to) have a neurological disorder where one of the main criteria - indeed the first listed - is a "qualitative impairment in social interaction". Perhaps what you regard as stupid is merely something you cannot relate to and therefore do not understand. ToM and all that shit.
-
jews for jesus is a contradiction as well. according to the bible, jews are going to hell.
-
jews for jesus is a contradiction as well. according to the bible, jews are going to hell.
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that?
-
I can't remember, but I know it's there.
-
jews for jesus is a contradiction as well. according to the bible, jews are going to hell.
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that?
Jesus says, "but by me will you enter the kingdom of heaven."
jews reject Jesus. so how can they enter the kingdom of heaven.
and the idea that they are the chosen people. of course they are, they are the ones who wrote the old testament.
-
Jesus was a Jew, you know. ::)
Jews for Jesus are, in fact, the early Christians.
-
Yes, but only Jews who have converted to Christianity can enter Heaven, once again according to the Bible.
-
I believe it will be only a few Christians where every go to Heaven.
-
most Christians I know (and i do know a wide variety from liberal to fundamentalist) believe that a Jew will go to hell unless they are a Christian (Messianic?) Jew.
-
I don't even believe in a Hell either.
-
Yes, but only Jews who have converted to Christianity can enter Heaven, once again according to the Bible.
It's actually not quite that simple. In the original Christian concept, and in some variations today, there is a purgatory to help decide these things, and no-one enters heaven until the end of time. In others, a more predestined view is held (if you were a Christian when born, etc...), and in still others, it is God alone that decides. Jehova's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that only a select few actually enter heaven; they then rule over the remaining people, left on Earth for eternal life.
Remember that all of these variations of Christianity get their interpretations from the Bible, in one way or another, so to actually prove that the Bible says one thing or another, you'll have to put a lot more effort into it. Start by studying theology, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew so you can read a Bible untainted by translations.
Obviously, the issue of what will happen to jews and others) is not as clear-cut as it would seem at first glance.
-
For sure I do not believe also in a purgatory or predestination either.
-
pffft.
If people in other countries tell us what to wear (like when you have to wear sleeved shirts in some other countries or you get spat on) why shouldn't they be told what to wear here?
If we try to fit into their culture, they should try and fit into ours.
nuff said.
-
Jesus was a Jew, you know. ::)
Jews for Jesus are, in fact, the early Christians.
12 to spread the word. minus judas, then add paul.
-
Jesus was a Jew, you know. ::)
Jews for Jesus are, in fact, the early Christians.
12 to spread the word. minus judas, then add paul.
Not true it was Matthais was selected next because of Judas needed to be replace and He took Judas place instead as a Apostle. Acts1:23-26.
Paul became came a Apostle later and a different way instead.
-
Jesus was a Jew, you know. ::)
Jews for Jesus are, in fact, the early Christians.
12 to spread the word. minus judas, then add paul.
Not true it was Matthais was selected next because of Judas needed to be replace and He took Judas place instead as a Apostle. Acts1:23-26.
Paul became came a Apostle later and a different way instead.
paul was chosen personally.
he was a persecutor of christians and became the most influential apostle.
-
Jesus was a Jew, you know. ::)
Jews for Jesus are, in fact, the early Christians.
12 to spread the word. minus judas, then add paul.
Not true it was Matthais was selected next because of Judas needed to be replace and He took Judas place instead as a Apostle. Acts1:23-26.
Paul became came a Apostle later and a different way instead.
paul was chosen personally.
he was a persecutor of christians and became the most influential apostle.
Only because to Us He has the most books or letters written in the Christian Scriptures.
-
we have nothing else to go by.
actually, judas was the most influential, if you think about it.
-
we have nothing else to go by.
actually, judas was the most influential, if you think about it.
Many of the original disciples wanted to be the most influential among themselves. Judas did hold the money purse but was not anymore influential than any other.
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
It was foreseen even prophesied about one of His disciples betray Him
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
It was foreseen even prophesied about one of His disciples betray Him
reguardless, it was him that set the events in motion.
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
It was foreseen even prophesied about one of His disciples betray Him
reguardless, it was him that set the events in motion.
One had to and He was named Judas that is all.
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
It was foreseen even prophesied about one of His disciples betray Him
reguardless, it was him that set the events in motion.
One had to and He was named Judas that is all.
you seem to downplay his importance. judas was the most influental of all the disciples as a result of his one act of betrayal.
and, according to your argument, it wasn't even betrayal at all. it was his duty, since it was prophesized. otherwise, jesus wouldn't have been perfect.
-
jesus dying for the sins is the crux of the christian faith.
judas was instrumental in making that shit happen.
It was foreseen even prophesied about one of His disciples betray Him
reguardless, it was him that set the events in motion.
One had to and He was named Judas that is all.
you seem to downplay his importance. judas was the most influental of all the disciples as a result of his one act of betrayal.
and, according to your argument, it wasn't even betrayal at all. it was his duty, since it was prophesized. otherwise, jesus wouldn't have been perfect.
I am just saying it had to happen for even one prefect Man to betrayed among imperfect man. Jesus death was more important that the betrayal from Judas for all of Mankind in the end.
-
Please, people, are you really religious or are you just discussing religion in theory?
-
its the chain of events that makes judas the most influential disciple.
-
Please, people, are you really religious or are you just discussing religion in theory?
I am more spiritual than religious. For We must worship in spirit and truth.
-
its the chain of events that makes judas the most influential disciple.
You are making Judas more important than the act of what He did. He had a choice We all have that choice to make in the end. Peter even saw more and understood more than Judas did for even He told Jesus He was the Son of God.
-
but judas was preordained. peter denied him three times.
-
but judas was preordained. peter denied him three times.
Nobody was preordained Judas let His heart decide in the end. We are all here and there weak for the spirit maybe strong but the flesh is weak.
-
and, according to your argument, it wasn't even betrayal at all. it was his duty, since it was prophesized. otherwise, jesus wouldn't have been perfect.
This is the predestined view, essentially.
-
Please, people, are you really religious or are you just discussing religion in theory?
;D
Stick around and you might learn something.
-
I wrote a really long and detailed post on this thread this morning and now I can't see it. I dunno what happened.
-
i warned them la mala.
if you preview your thread before you post it, then you have to post twice, since your session times out.
but would anyone listen to me?
-
You know what? Instead of having all of these religious disputes we should all go to one religion from which we will all benefit. I call this religion yellowism! It is based upon the worship of one divine being, that being being me! Its tenets are simple, give me all of your worldly wealth, your manual and mental labor, and if you are a woman much much more :eyebrows: I think that under this new religion we will all find that the world will be a better place.*
*better place from my perspective and not necessarily yours
-
You know what? Instead of having all of these religious disputes we should all go to one religion from which we will all benefit. I call this religion yellowism! It is based upon the worship of one divine being, that being being me! Its tenets are simple, give me all of your worldly wealth, your manual and mental labor, and if you are a woman much much more :eyebrows: I think that under this new religion we will all find that the world will be a better place.*
*better place from my perspective and not necessarily yours
ok.
will you pee on me to show approval for my deeds?
-
ok.
will you pee on me to show approval for my deeds?
Only if you wear the official white robes.
-
ok.
will you pee on me to show approval for my deeds?
Only if you wear the official white robes.
Why not yellow robes?
-
If they wore yellow robes then how would my blessed pee stand out?? Of course these robes will not be pure white, maybe white with yellow polka dots?
-
If they wore yellow robes then how would my blessed pee stand out?? Of course these robes will not be pure white, maybe white with yellow polka dots?
and the more blessed pee stains there are the more worthy you are, in the eyes of the piss wielding god, DREW.
all hail the piss master.
-
and the more blessed pee stains there are the more worthy you are, in the eyes of the piss wielding god, DREW.
all hail the piss master.
Thank you my loyal servant. Now let the holy urine stain thy robes. :angel:
+1
-
and the more blessed pee stains there are the more worthy you are, in the eyes of the piss wielding god, DREW.
all hail the piss master.
Thank you my loyal servant. Now let the holy urine stain thy robes. :angel:
+1
thank you sir, may i fetch you several beers so that you may pee on me s'more?
-
If they wore yellow robes then how would my blessed pee stand out?? Of course these robes will not be pure white, maybe white with yellow polka dots?
That was what I was getting at. :evillaugh:
-
thank you sir, may i fetch you several beers so that you may pee on me s'more?
Of course!! With faithful servants and a good supply of liquids, my reign will be long and triumphant!!
-
your reign or rain?
-
your reign or rain?
Both