Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Players Appearing to Pray After Scoring?
Comments
-
Big_Bad_World said:Jonniesta said:Big_Bad_World said:Jonniesta said: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 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.
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?
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 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.0 -
Jonniesta said:Big_Bad_World said:Jonniesta said:Big_Bad_World said:Jonniesta said: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 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.
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?
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 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Jonniesta said: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.
"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.3 -
Big_Bad_World said:Jonniesta said: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
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.0 -
Fumbluff said:Greenhithe said:Fumbluff said: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
GenesisI'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 alright0 -
in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.0
-
Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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.2 -
sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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.0 - Sponsored links:
-
kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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.1 -
sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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.0 -
kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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?0 -
sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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?
0 -
Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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 @garrymanilow0 -
sillav nitram said:Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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 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
1 -
Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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 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 @garrymanilowOk, 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.0 -
sillav nitram said:Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:Garrymanilow said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:kentaddick said:sillav nitram said:Billy_Mix said:in response to the OP: there can be no wholesome justification for referencing ethnicity. people is just people. everything else is prejudice.
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 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 @garrymanilowOk, 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.
0 -
sillav nitram said:Genuine or Fashion / Fad?
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 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.0 -
KBslittlesis said:sillav nitram said:Genuine or Fashion / Fad?
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 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 practiced0