Kurt Zouma

ValleyOfTears said:

lordromford said:

ValleyOfTears said:

lordromford said:

ValleyOfTears said:

Carter said:

Utter shithouse of the highest order, complete coward and a bully. Football will do what it does though, it will forgive, he won't get sacked because a club with a lower sense of morality will sign him up. 

Begs the question "What are the rules in this post-Christian 21st Century morality?" 

It seems noone really knows. 

I like to think noone on these pages would ever do things the likes of Mendy, Zouma, Greenwood et al do/done/did. And seem to laugh at…

This is the second time you’ve tried to make recent horrible behaviour about a lack of faith.

For your information, Mason Greenwood is Christian. Mendy and Zouma are both Muslims. (Edit: Not that this makes any difference. They could be a Jew, a Satanist and an atheist, your argument would still be bunk.)

Stop trying to make this into something it isn’t.

I think you misunderstand the difference between "declaring an affiliation to something" and actually BEING that something.  Calling oneself "a Christian" for example, doesn't mean one IS Christian in their behaviour or even have any faith at all. "Faith" being the operative word. It often just means they were once Christened or baptized. 

But of course if someone were to declare they were a Satanist or athiest ~ to borrow your words ~ it would certainly confirm what they were NOT. A person of faith. 

I didn’t misunderstand anything. 

I was pointing out that your argument was risible. Your argument about a post-christian morality or whatever made so many assumptions about these horrible people without even finding out whether they are people of faith. Yes, they might be religious in name only, but the evidence suggests maybe not, yet you chose to originally assume they’re not faithful purely because of their behaviour. Sounds like prejudging (or prejudice, if you prefer) which I would view as ‘not a very high moral position’. I’m only half serious, of course, but you can’t just assume things like that and state them as if they’re obviously true.

I also certainly did understand that you keep trying to equate morals with faith. And I understand that this is an equation that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

To be fair, many people do find faith gives them the comfort they need when living their life in a way they feel is appropriate. It works for them and if that’s your bag, then all power to you. Crack on and good luck. Just don’t hurt anyone in the process and we’ll all get along fine. But if you consider yourself to have good morals, I’d say you’ve achieved much of that despite having faith, not because of it.

Morals and faith, regardless of which version of faith you subscribe to, are not happy bedfellows. There are too many instances of religious scriptures condoning attitudes and behaviours that are patently amoral for anyone to sensibly claim that faith sets a moral example.

Most of the good morals we have today are born out of resistance to religious doctrine, not adherence to it. Even most religious groups recognise this - constantly picking and choosing verses that still have modern relevance while the ones involving selling your daughters into prostitution or sacrificing goats (and/or children) are conveniently ignored. The fact that only the most widely ridiculed fundamentalist groups stick strictly to the original books speaks volumes.

So no. I didn’t misunderstand.
But please don’t start the “modern society is fucked because we’re not christian enough” bollocks again. It’s tiresome and just plain wrong.

Yes, I am aware re: taking verses from Bible can be very problematic. Taking the text out of context to create a pretext. As you may have observed, I have not done this once. On this thread or any other..

And one has to remember it wasn't written in chapter and verse or intended to be read (privately)  that way. But as "a book at a time". 

I have no idea which passage you refer to about prostitution etc 

There is nothing in the OT or NT that should be discarded either.   Much of the points you raise are dealt with perfectly clearly in the early chapters of CS Lewis' " Mere Christianity". A classic. I highly recommend it. 

TellyTubby said:

RedArmySE7 said:

The Met Police have announced they won't investigate. They don't seem to investigate very much those guys.

Absolutely this. 

I don't want to view the video but from the description wtf is there to investigate? This bastard is bang to rights, the animals should be immediately removed from the household and he should be prosecuted.

Just what does the Met do under Cressida Dick? 

Clarky said:

Keep seeing religion being mentioned and I can't be asked to read all that bollocks but if somebody is trying to connect religion to a grown man kicking a cat across the kitchen floor needs to take a close look at themselves. Apologies if I have got it wrong but if people do want a discussion about religion start a thread on it.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Mendonca In Asdas said:

guinnessaddick said:

bobmunro said:

TellyTubby said:

RedArmySE7 said:

The Met Police have announced they won't investigate. They don't seem to investigate very much those guys.

Absolutely this. 

I don't want to view the video but from the description wtf is there to investigate? This bastard is bang to rights, the animals should be immediately removed from the household and he should be prosecuted.

Just what does the Met do under Cressida Dick? 

I may have misheard, but on the radio yesterday I'm sure they said the Surrey police were investigating - so I presume he lives in Surrey.

If that's the case, calling out the Met for not investigating seems misplaced.

Apparently Essex police are looking at it now.

Wow that cat gets around!

He lives in Essex.