As with everything, good, balanced education is critical. Religion at its best teaches morals and shows lessons from the past about what happens when we're too extreme or entrenched. Then let the children make their own decision.
Not going to go down a Jesus rabbit-hole, just called for a bit less dismissive rhetoric.
Religion also actively promotes slavery, brutality, misogyny, torture, rape and a whole host of other horrific things that religious people choose to ignore.
Religion is there to be ridiculed, mocked, questioned, dismissed and pulled apart by critical thought. If it can't stand up to those rigours (and it doesn't), then it doesn't deserve to be respected and/or believed.
That's my sermon for the morning. I'm now off to beat my slaves and hope they don't die within a day or two as I'll be forgiven.
So you agree with me on the education piece, then... can't see how you can have critical thought without education. Strange, I'm not a religious person, but have been to church many times and haven't heard any promotion of any of those things. In fact, I've heard plenty of preaching against those things in favour of compassion, respect, equality and love. I don't think anyone in their right minds could argue that religious fundamentalism and extremism hasn't actively promoted many of those ills you've listed, but it's like arguing that football has actively promoted violence, tribalism, arson, hatred, racism, misogyny, and worse (if you listen to some terrace chanting). It's even started a war. Is that something wrong with football, or the people who choose to interpret it in that way?
Of course I agree with education, yes. Where do you stand with teaching children to be religious? I've answered yours so you answer mine
You haven't heard the nasty stuff being preached at church? Well, knock me down with a feather...there's a surprise. It definitely exists in the Bible. Why do you think it's not preached to the masses and/or ignored?
I went to a religion based primary school and sat through many Eucharists, was made to participate in saying the Lords Prayer every morning in assembly, had weekly church visits and was also made to read the Bible.
Funnily enough it was reading the Bible (including all the stuff that religious types ignore and don't want you to read), applying critical thought and using the education I'd received that made me realise what a load of old wank it is.
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on the planet? The Bible does. It's also a promoter of incest. Lovely stuff, if you're in to that kind of thing.
I answered your question! Education is important. Teaching anyone what to believe I'm not a fan of, teaching them about beliefs without prejudice I am.
I think it's not preached because most balanced, educated believers can cherry pick from religious text to create a modern religion based on their concept of good and evil. Many religious leaders manage to balance ethics and their scripture, by evolving the latter. Does that diminish the religion? Certainly that's a subject worthy of debate.
I also went to a religious school. Saw a lot of hypocrisy there. Also have friends for whom religion helped them out of very dark places, saving their lives, or getting over horrific experiences.
I'm glad you've reached the conclusion that you're happy with. What I was criticising people for, if you read my original note, was coming on here complaining that religious people force their views on us, then forcing their own anti-religious views on us. Glad you're not doing that...
Yes, I've said twice I'm not religious but I have a deep-rooted belief in Adam and Eve.
As with everything, good, balanced education is critical. Religion at its best teaches morals and shows lessons from the past about what happens when we're too extreme or entrenched. Then let the children make their own decision.
Not going to go down a Jesus rabbit-hole, just called for a bit less dismissive rhetoric.
Religion also actively promotes slavery, brutality, misogyny, torture, rape and a whole host of other horrific things that religious people choose to ignore.
Religion is there to be ridiculed, mocked, questioned, dismissed and pulled apart by critical thought. If it can't stand up to those rigours (and it doesn't), then it doesn't deserve to be respected and/or believed.
That's my sermon for the morning. I'm now off to beat my slaves and hope they don't die within a day or two as I'll be forgiven.
So you agree with me on the education piece, then... can't see how you can have critical thought without education. Strange, I'm not a religious person, but have been to church many times and haven't heard any promotion of any of those things. In fact, I've heard plenty of preaching against those things in favour of compassion, respect, equality and love. I don't think anyone in their right minds could argue that religious fundamentalism and extremism hasn't actively promoted many of those ills you've listed, but it's like arguing that football has actively promoted violence, tribalism, arson, hatred, racism, misogyny, and worse (if you listen to some terrace chanting). It's even started a war. Is that something wrong with football, or the people who choose to interpret it in that way?
Of course I agree with education, yes. Where do you stand with teaching children to be religious? I've answered yours so you answer mine
You haven't heard the nasty stuff being preached at church? Well, knock me down with a feather...there's a surprise. It definitely exists in the Bible. Why do you think it's not preached to the masses and/or ignored?
I went to a religion based primary school and sat through many Eucharists, was made to participate in saying the Lords Prayer every morning in assembly, had weekly church visits and was also made to read the Bible.
Funnily enough it was reading the Bible (including all the stuff that religious types ignore and don't want you to read), applying critical thought and using the education I'd received that made me realise what a load of old wank it is.
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on the planet? The Bible does. It's also a promoter of incest. Lovely stuff, if you're in to that kind of thing.
I answered your question! Education is important. Teaching anyone what to believe I'm not a fan of, teaching them about beliefs without prejudice I am.
I think it's not preached because most balanced, educated believers can cherry pick from religious text to create a modern religion based on their concept of good and evil. Many religious leaders manage to balance ethics and their scripture, by evolving the latter. Does that diminish the religion? Certainly that's a subject worthy of debate.
I also went to a religious school. Saw a lot of hypocrisy there. Also have friends for whom religion helped them out of very dark places, saving their lives, or getting over horrific experiences.
I'm glad you've reached the conclusion that you're happy with. What I was criticising people for, if you read my original note, was coming on here complaining that religious people force their views on us, then forcing their own anti-religious views on us. Glad you're not doing that...
Yes, I've said twice I'm not religious but I have a deep-rooted belief in Adam and Eve.
That actually dodges the question rather than answers it. Religious teachings have no place in schools.
Believers should believe in their religion and not need to cherry-pick the nice parts that make their beliefs sound moral, just or good. Embrace it all and own the plethora of horrendous actions your god has been involved in, actively promotes and wants you to lead your lives by. Anything else is tokenism.
Many religious leaders have to balance their ethics and scripture because showing/teaching their congregation the actualities of their religion would show their god to be a very nasty piece of work that, as has been alluded to on here already, instils fear and a threat of burning for all eternity if you don't believe.
I too have had friends claim that religion saved them. They've since realised that it wasn't religion that saved them but their own will to overcome their problems.
Anti-religion? That's like saying I'm anti-Little Red Riding Hood.
The Adam and Eve part was more to illustrate that the building blocks of the Bible are laughable.
Answered your question twice, not dodged it at all. Odd that you're so entrenched in your viewpoint that teaching religion has no place in schools when you just said it was this teaching, and your critical study, that led you to your happy conclusion that religion is 'wank'. Surely removing that balanced educational opportunity increases the chances of ill-informed religious fundamentalism?
You're now telling believers what they should believe in, and how to believe. Why wouldn't people cherry pick? We hear both sides and we choose the right path, normally somewhere in between. Surely the plethora of religions means they can't all be right, so isn't it logical to evolve your religion/beliefs based on what, in retrospect, is 'good'?
And, shock, I have friends with different experiences from you. Well, blow me down.
Some people say they won’t bring their children up in a religion but when the children are old enough to understand things they can decide for themselves about matters of religion or morality. I wonder if that applies to the moral perspective regarding food. Like bringing children up as vegetarians until they’re old enough to contemplate the rights and wrongs of killing and eating creatures, or alternatively imposing creature eating from the start until children are old enough to know the origins of what they consume, and then contemplate their personal perspective regarding right from wrong.
Answered your question twice, not dodged it at all. Odd that you're so entrenched in your viewpoint that teaching religion has no place in schools when you just said it was this teaching, and your critical study, that led you to your happy conclusion that religion is 'wank'. Surely removing that balanced educational opportunity increases the chances of ill-informed religious fundamentalism?
You're now telling believers what they should believe in, and how to believe. Why wouldn't people cherry pick? We hear both sides and we choose the right path, normally somewhere in between. Surely the plethora of religions means they can't all be right, so isn't it logical to evolve your religion/beliefs based on what, in retrospect, is 'good'?
And, shock, I have friends with different experiences from you. Well, blow me down.
It's not add at all. Fortunately I had the capability to think critically and ask questions. A lot of children don't have that and have reinforcement of religious beliefs at home. What chance/choice do children that are being abused emotionally at home and at school have? Is a belief-less system also taught in schools? I'm not sure it is...and why would that be?
If children aren't taught to be religious then fundamentalism doesn't come in to it. Religious fundamentalism only exists in a society where religious practice and belief exists.
"Why wouldn't people cherry-pick?" Why wouldn't they embrace the entire teachings of their faith/religion? It's almost as if they choose to ignore the bad stuff and pretend it isn't there, whilst then believing their god is loving and caring
Answered your question twice, not dodged it at all. Odd that you're so entrenched in your viewpoint that teaching religion has no place in schools when you just said it was this teaching, and your critical study, that led you to your happy conclusion that religion is 'wank'. Surely removing that balanced educational opportunity increases the chances of ill-informed religious fundamentalism?
You're now telling believers what they should believe in, and how to believe. Why wouldn't people cherry pick? We hear both sides and we choose the right path, normally somewhere in between. Surely the plethora of religions means they can't all be right, so isn't it logical to evolve your religion/beliefs based on what, in retrospect, is 'good'?
And, shock, I have friends with different experiences from you. Well, blow me down.
If children aren't taught to be religious then fundamentalism doesn't come in to it. Religious fundamentalism only exists in a society where religious practice and belief exists
Agree we should probably wrap this up! This is the paragraph that worries me, though. As humans, especially where we don't enjoy that critical freedom and capability, there's an instinct to 'go with the flock'. Where religion fails (and it does in many ways as you point out), social media and influencers are taking its place, with a new bunch of prejudice and a new set of fundamentalisms. Miseducation through the media, not on religion, but on faux-nationalism or anti-woke... it's all religious fundamentalism under a different name. And not educating people well on it is the wrong approach. As you say, some can't rely on their families for that. Cherry picking is required. It's like being English (or any other nation)... there's an English ideal which is full of self-deprecating and critical humour, creativity, endeavour and openness. There's a huge swathe of evil that's been done under the flag of St George. But surely cherry picking the best to take forward and educating on the worst to avoid it again is sensible? Yet the concept of 'being English' is surely as personal as a religion. We avoid teaching the worst, and we end up with fundamentalists. There are good, there are bad, there are those who are merely born into it and those who choose to be.
Maybe there's some massive holes in that, I don't know. I'm still learning. Didn't do very well on wrapping this up though.
This is the time, this is the place So we look for the future But there's not much love to go round Tell me why this is a land of confusion
This is the world we live in (Oh, oh, oh) And these are the hands we're given (Oh, oh, oh) Use them and let's start trying (Oh, oh, oh) To make it a place worth living in
Genesis
Surely a better choice would be
I'll get you everything you wanted I'll get you everything you need You don't need to believe in hereafter Just believe in me
'Cause Jesus, He knows me and He knows I'm right I've been talkin' to Jesus all my life Oh, yes He knows me and He knows I'm right And He's been tellin' me everything is alright
Surely if you’re predicated to believe all this shit then you shouldn’t have Jesus being referenced in Genesis, but if you’re wise enough to know it’s all a load of old crap then sure, you win….
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing @Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If lots and lots and lots of people point something out to you, maybe instead of denying any part in it you might reflect on how you express yourself and how it can be taken by others. Or you could just just shout and swear every time it's brought up, whichever.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If lots and lots and lots of people point something out to you, maybe instead of denying any part in it you might reflect on how you express yourself and how it can be taken by others. Or you could just just shout and swear every time it's brought up, whichever.
So am I or anyone else not allowed to say white, black, non white or any other colour when being descriptive and anyone who does, does that automatically make them a racist?
If one's giving evidence, do we not describe the person as they are, for fear of being racist?
Perhaps, you and others should stop looking for things that are not there.
My original post referred to non white as that had been the only description of players I'd seen doing the praying to god thing and I didn't say, that they were the only people doing it, but they were the only people I had seen doing it.
I'm getting angry because some people are trying to put words in my mouth and making assumptions and assuming I meant something, when I didn't, including you @garrymanilow
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If lots and lots and lots of people point something out to you, maybe instead of denying any part in it you might reflect on how you express yourself and how it can be taken by others. Or you could just just shout and swear every time it's brought up, whichever.
So am I or anyone else not allowed to say white, black, non white or any other colour when being descriptive and anyone who does, does that automatically make them a racist?
If one's giving evidence, do we not describe the person as they are, for fear of being racist?
Perhaps people should stop looking for things that are not there.
My post referred to non white as that had been the only description of players I'd seen doing the praying to god thing and I didn't say, that they were the only people doing it, but they were the only people I saw and had seen.
I'm getting angry because some people are trying to put words in my mouth and assume I meant something, when I didn't, including you @garrymanilow
I think more than anything else you maybe need to calm down. I haven't put any words in your mouth. Show me where I have. I'm just pointing out to you that what you write will be interpreted certain, often multiple ways. Lots of people - not me incidentally, this is the first time I've said anything on this thread apart from a joke about WWE - have taken issue with the way you expressed your point and it has been taken a certain way. You can choose to reflect on that and think about how what you write can be taken, or you can rail against it, refuse to accept that words, even if not intended to, can be interpreted in a way that causes people to make a judgment about what you're saying, and do what you're currently doing which is having a several days long tantrum. I'm not telling you to stop, it's very funny, but I'm just trying to give you some perspective before you start inviting people to meet in Makro's car park. Feel free to ignore though, it's your evening to do with as you will
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If lots and lots and lots of people point something out to you, maybe instead of denying any part in it you might reflect on how you express yourself and how it can be taken by others. Or you could just just shout and swear every time it's brought up, whichever.
So am I or anyone else not allowed to say white, black, non white or any other colour when being descriptive and anyone who does, does that automatically make them a racist?
If one's giving evidence, do we not describe the person as they are, for fear of being racist?
Perhaps people should stop looking for things that are not there.
My post referred to non white as that had been the only description of players I'd seen doing the praying to god thing and I didn't say, that they were the only people doing it, but they were the only people I saw and had seen.
I'm getting angry because some people are trying to put words in my mouth and assume I meant something, when I didn't, including you @garrymanilow
I think more than anything else you maybe need to calm down. I haven't put any words in your mouth. Show me where I have. I'm just pointing out to you that what you write will be interpreted certain, often multiple ways. Lots of people - not me incidentally, this is the first time I've said anything on this thread apart from a joke about WWE - have taken issue with the way you expressed your point and it has been taken a certain way. You can choose to reflect on that and think about how what you write can be taken, or you can rail against it, refuse to accept that words, even if not intended to, can be interpreted in a way that causes people to make a judgment about what you're saying, and do what you're currently doing which is having a several days long tantrum. I'm not telling you to stop, it's very funny, but I'm just trying to give you some perspective before you start inviting people to meet in Makro's car park. Feel free to ignore though, it's your evening to do with as you will
And there you have it, people making judgments and assumptions without the full facts and I can’t be held accountable for them doing so.
Ok, this is the last thing I’m going to say on this matter @garrymanilow
I think its fairly understandable for me to be angry when some are trying to suggest I’m racist or prejudiced in anyway, that’s a slur on my character and I do take offence at that and particularly when people haven’t even read the post thoroughly but just jumping to conclusions.
I’ve re read my original post on the topic thread and I’ve used the expression ‘non white’ because I was being descriptive, if they’d been white, I would have said ‘white’ would I have then had people criticising me for emphasising that they were white? I even made a joke that perhaps white people are “heathens”
As far as I’m concerned there is nothing else in that original post or any other post I’ve made relating to the thread title that can be construed as me being racist or prejudiced, tell me if I’m wrong, please do?
Am I responsible for other people’s misinterpretations or how they choose to read something I’ve written from their own personal agenda? I don’t think so!
Do I/We need to go through everything we may write with a fine tooth comb in case someone decided to assume or prejudge me through their own self righteousness or “selectively outrage”
People may choose to read things through their own lens but it doesn’t make them correct to do so or me responsible for that.
Nor should people make assumptions or judgements without knowing me or asking me?
Your post is making a judgement about me and the way I’ve constructed my posts that could be interpreted in many different ways by others but if I’d written something controversial, then fair point but from my perspective I haven’t.
And so, I’ll continue to defend my corner if others accuse me of something I’m not.
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
What a load of bollox, stop trying to make something out of nothing@Billy_Mix
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
billy didn't mention bring up the ethnicity of the players, OP did.
Yes and I'm the OP, do keep up.
why did you mention their race?
FFS.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If lots and lots and lots of people point something out to you, maybe instead of denying any part in it you might reflect on how you express yourself and how it can be taken by others. Or you could just just shout and swear every time it's brought up, whichever.
So am I or anyone else not allowed to say white, black, non white or any other colour when being descriptive and anyone who does, does that automatically make them a racist?
If one's giving evidence, do we not describe the person as they are, for fear of being racist?
Perhaps people should stop looking for things that are not there.
My post referred to non white as that had been the only description of players I'd seen doing the praying to god thing and I didn't say, that they were the only people doing it, but they were the only people I saw and had seen.
I'm getting angry because some people are trying to put words in my mouth and assume I meant something, when I didn't, including you @garrymanilow
I think more than anything else you maybe need to calm down. I haven't put any words in your mouth. Show me where I have. I'm just pointing out to you that what you write will be interpreted certain, often multiple ways. Lots of people - not me incidentally, this is the first time I've said anything on this thread apart from a joke about WWE - have taken issue with the way you expressed your point and it has been taken a certain way. You can choose to reflect on that and think about how what you write can be taken, or you can rail against it, refuse to accept that words, even if not intended to, can be interpreted in a way that causes people to make a judgment about what you're saying, and do what you're currently doing which is having a several days long tantrum. I'm not telling you to stop, it's very funny, but I'm just trying to give you some perspective before you start inviting people to meet in Makro's car park. Feel free to ignore though, it's your evening to do with as you will
And there you have it, people making judgments and assumptions without the full facts and I can’t be held accountable for them doing so.
Ok, this is the last thing I’m going to say on this matter @garrymanilow
I think its fairly understandable for me to be angry when some are trying to suggest I’m racist or prejudiced in anyway, that’s a slur on my character and I do take offence at that and particularly when people haven’t even read the post thoroughly but just jumping to conclusions.
I’ve re read my original post on the topic thread and I’ve used the expression ‘non white’ because I was being descriptive, if they’d been white, I would have said ‘white’ would I have then had people criticising me for emphasising that they were white? I even made a joke that perhaps white people are “heathens”
As far as I’m concerned there is nothing else in that original post or any other post I’ve made relating to the thread title that can be construed as me being racist or prejudiced, tell me if I’m wrong, please do?
Am I responsible for other people’s misinterpretations or how they choose to read something I’ve written from their own personal agenda? I don’t think so!
Do I/We need to go through everything we may write with a fine tooth comb in case someone decided to assume or prejudge me through their own self righteousness or “selectively outrage”
People may choose to read things through their own lens but it doesn’t make them correct to do so or me responsible for that.
Nor should people make assumptions or judgements without knowing me or asking me?
Your post is making a judgement about me and the way I’ve constructed my posts that could be interpreted in many different ways by others but if I’d written something controversial, then fair point but from my perspective I haven’t.
And so, I’ll continue to defend my corner if others accuse me of something I’m not.
OK cool buddy. You might be yelling at the wrong person as I haven't commented on what you said, just pointing out that it's possible to reflect on what you say and adapt. No dice though I see! Have fun getting yelled at by other people
Can’t remember when it started, maybe at a World Cup many years ago?
Seems to be mostly non white players who do it, don’t think I’ve ever seen a white player do it (bloody heathens;))?
I can read this as a genuine question. I don’t think there are any undertones as to why they’re bringing the colour of the persons skin into it. It’s the original posters observation.
But as ever, there are some (the usual suspects) who like to portray it differently.
Can’t remember when it started, maybe at a World Cup many years ago?
Seems to be mostly non white players who do it, don’t think I’ve ever seen a white player do it (bloody heathens;))?
I can read this as a genuine question. I don’t think there are any undertones as to why they’re bringing the colour of the persons skin into it. It’s the original posters observation.
But as ever, there are some (the usual suspects) who like to portray it differently.
Sad but there you are.
I’d ignore it tbh, easy said than done I know.
I’m not sure it’s controversial to assert that area of the world where a more expressive fervent form of Christianity are popular include South America and parts of Africa. It’s also true in this country that people with heritage in these parts of the world often practise in these kind of churches in the uk
It follows that people from those communities may raise their hands heavenward in a physical articulation of prayer
Similarly players from Catholic or Orthodox traditions often do the sign of the cross when they enter the pitch. It doesn’t seem controversial to link physical or religious gesticulation with the communities from which they are practiced
Comments
I think it's not preached because most balanced, educated believers can cherry pick from religious text to create a modern religion based on their concept of good and evil. Many religious leaders manage to balance ethics and their scripture, by evolving the latter. Does that diminish the religion? Certainly that's a subject worthy of debate.
I also went to a religious school. Saw a lot of hypocrisy there. Also have friends for whom religion helped them out of very dark places, saving their lives, or getting over horrific experiences.
I'm glad you've reached the conclusion that you're happy with. What I was criticising people for, if you read my original note, was coming on here complaining that religious people force their views on us, then forcing their own anti-religious views on us. Glad you're not doing that...
Yes, I've said twice I'm not religious but I have a deep-rooted belief in Adam and Eve.
Believers should believe in their religion and not need to cherry-pick the nice parts that make their beliefs sound moral, just or good. Embrace it all and own the plethora of horrendous actions your god has been involved in, actively promotes and wants you to lead your lives by. Anything else is tokenism.
Many religious leaders have to balance their ethics and scripture because showing/teaching their congregation the actualities of their religion would show their god to be a very nasty piece of work that, as has been alluded to on here already, instils fear and a threat of burning for all eternity if you don't believe.
I too have had friends claim that religion saved them. They've since realised that it wasn't religion that saved them but their own will to overcome their problems.
Anti-religion? That's like saying I'm anti-Little Red Riding Hood.
The Adam and Eve part was more to illustrate that the building blocks of the Bible are laughable.
You're now telling believers what they should believe in, and how to believe. Why wouldn't people cherry pick? We hear both sides and we choose the right path, normally somewhere in between. Surely the plethora of religions means they can't all be right, so isn't it logical to evolve your religion/beliefs based on what, in retrospect, is 'good'?
And, shock, I have friends with different experiences from you. Well, blow me down.
I wonder if that applies to the moral perspective regarding food. Like bringing children up as vegetarians until they’re old enough to contemplate the rights and wrongs of killing and eating creatures, or alternatively imposing creature eating from the start until children are old enough to know the origins of what they consume, and then contemplate their personal perspective regarding right from wrong.
If children aren't taught to be religious then fundamentalism doesn't come in to it. Religious fundamentalism only exists in a society where religious practice and belief exists.
"Why wouldn't people cherry-pick?" Why wouldn't they embrace the entire teachings of their faith/religion? It's almost as if they choose to ignore the bad stuff and pretend it isn't there, whilst then believing their god is loving and caring
Anyway, Father, it's been enlightening.
Maybe there's some massive holes in that, I don't know. I'm still learning. Didn't do very well on wrapping this up though.
People may be people but each are likely to be to be aware of their ethnicity and the mention of the colour of their skin is about being factual, rather than prejudice.
If you bothered to actually read my fucking post in response to Billy, I said I was being factual, now f*ck off trying to imply some racist undertones, when there is none.
What are you, one of the self righteous brothers?
If one's giving evidence, do we not describe the person as they are, for fear of being racist?
Perhaps, you and others should stop looking for things that are not there.
My original post referred to non white as that had been the only description of players I'd seen doing the praying to god thing and I didn't say, that they were the only people doing it, but they were the only people I had seen doing it.
I'm getting angry because some people are trying to put words in my mouth and making assumptions and assuming I meant something, when I didn't, including you @garrymanilow
I think its fairly understandable for me to be angry when some are trying to suggest I’m racist or prejudiced in anyway, that’s a slur on my character and I do take offence at that and particularly when people haven’t even read the post thoroughly but just jumping to conclusions.
I’ve re read my original post on the topic thread and I’ve used the expression ‘non white’ because I was being descriptive, if they’d been white, I would have said ‘white’ would I have then had people criticising me for emphasising that they were white? I even made a joke that perhaps white people are “heathens”
As far as I’m concerned there is nothing else in that original post or any other post I’ve made relating to the thread title that can be construed as me being racist or prejudiced, tell me if I’m wrong, please do?
Am I responsible for other people’s misinterpretations or how they choose to read something I’ve written from their own personal agenda? I don’t think so!
Do I/We need to go through everything we may write with a fine tooth comb in case someone decided to assume or prejudge me through their own self righteousness or “selectively outrage”
People may choose to read things through their own lens but it doesn’t make them correct to do so or me responsible for that.
Your post is making a judgement about me and the way I’ve constructed my posts that could be interpreted in many different ways by others but if I’d written something controversial, then fair point but from my perspective I haven’t.
And so, I’ll continue to defend my corner if others accuse me of something I’m not.
I don’t think there are any undertones as to why they’re bringing the colour of the persons skin into it.
It’s the original posters observation.
But as ever, there are some (the usual suspects) who like to portray it differently.
Sad but there you are.
I’d ignore it tbh, easy said than done I know.
It follows that people from those communities may raise their hands heavenward in a physical articulation of prayer
Similarly players from Catholic or Orthodox traditions often do the sign of the cross when they enter the pitch. It doesn’t seem controversial to link physical or religious gesticulation with the communities from which they are practiced