flamingjimmy Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 But wait, doesn't "proof deny faith"? No, that's just what modern wishy washy Christians say. To the people in the bible, proof strengthened their faith. That was kind of my whole point. I need to get better at writing:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 No, that's just what modern wishy washy Christians say. To the people in the bible, proof strengthened their faith. That was kind of my whole point. I need to get better at writing:( Would you be a Christian if you became convinced Jesus was God, or would you stay as you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphoria Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 So start a thread about it. This one's called... "Are Christians discriminated against in the UK?" How would such questioning and/or such a debate speak to that? Sorry late response... What such questioning speak to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphoria Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 But the cross is not necessarily a symbol of christian faith. Many people wear crosses merely as adornments. Hells Angels have tattoos of crosses. Had Jebus lived in modern America, christians would be wearing little electric chairs. And I wouldn't mind betting that not everybody who wears a hajab(...whatever that is?...) does so to display their faith. Some of them (...if it's what I think it is...) wear it so as not to get stoned (No! Not that 'stoned'. I mean literally stoned to death.) Others will wear it to 'fit in' culturally. Typo-hijab. Hells Angels...I think the clue is in the name. A few curious comparisons here, but I get the gist that some symbols have different meanings to different people, or no meaning at all. Either way, when she's paid to be a nurse, she should be nursing and not witnessing, preaching nor proselytising. Yes, I agree, but for some reason, I think she just wanted to wear a cross on a chain. She'd only be being discriminated against for being a christian if she could show that non-christians were allowed to wear crosses on necklesses and she wasn't. Which I’d imagine would be complex, time-consuming and pointless complaint against a no-necklace rule in the workplace. Apparently she must still be allowed to wear the god-goggles. Whatever they are... ...and I really do think that that was intended to be humourous; after all, if you think you're going to heaven when you die, why hang around here? Quicken things up a bit. Hmmmm... I think your sense of humour says more about your beliefs, than my sense of humour says about mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphoria Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Then she should switch religions to one that has strict dress codes, rather than the wishy washy christian religion. I'm not convinced that lax dress-code correlates with morals any more than conspicuous diplays of modesty does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphoria Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Could her faith not be demonstrated by her good deeds, and showing care and compassion to her patients? Yes, I'm sure it could...and I suppose this opinion could apply to anyone wearing any kind of jewellery, or clothing that advertises their faith. As others have said, wearing a cross (however ostentatiously) doesn't actually make you a Christian, any more than living in an airport makes you a 'plane. It's your actions that speak, louder than words, demonstrating whether you are a person of loving kindness. I agree, symbolic visible attire is not necessarily true representation of intended portrayal and yes, however self-righteous it may appear, it is neither an indication of how kind you are. The people who caused me to be attracted to Islam were not proselytisers, or preachers, nor were they ostentatious in their actions. Their actions were beautiful, and simple, and when I inquired about what the Qur'an actually said, and what the Muslim believes, they explained things to me without mockery. There was no browbeating "This is what I believe, therefore you must believe". It was a simple "this, this, this..." is the Muslim's faith, and this is what it says in the Qur'an. That was it. Well, considering this, and the way you describe yourself by your avatar signature and location, would it be unfair to suggest that you are waving a kind of modest muslim flag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I think it would be refreshing to see people question and debate christian teaching, rather than read digs at Grahame. So start a thread about it. This one's called... "Are Christians discriminated against in the UK?" How would such questioning and/or such a debate speak to that? Sorry late response... What such questioning speak to what? Questioning and debate about christian teaching. This thread is supposed to be about whether or not christians are discriminated against in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Typo-hijab. Hells Angels...I think the clue is in the name. A few curious comparisons here, but I get the gist that some symbols have different meanings to different people, or no meaning at all. I'm glad you get the gist. Only someone who has not been able to escape their religious conditioning (...thinking there's anything 'good' about people wearing symbols of death and human torture....) could find those comparisons curious. Had she been a fan of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, do you think she'd have been able to wear a little silver chainsaw round her neck? Would there have been this much fuss if she had been refused permission? Yes, I agree, but for some reason, I think she just wanted to wear a cross on a chain. What you, or I, think that her motive was is immaterial. If it was made of silver, she may have been trying to ward off werewolves for all anybody but her knows. She was refused on the grounds of H&S and not that it was a religious symbol. Which I’d imagine would be complex, time-consuming and pointless complaint against a no-necklace rule in the workplace. Oh. The irony!:hihi: D'you mean that her complaint was not time-consuming and pointless? It wasn't complex; she just wanted to be discriminated for (...not against...). Whatever they are... People who think life is a bed of roses are said to wear rose coloured spectacles. People who think everybody should kowtow to religion are said to wear god-goggles. So although she was not permitted to wear the death/torture symbol, they didn't ban her god-goggles. Not on H&S grounds. Not even on the grounds of sanity. Hmmmm... I think your sense of humour says more about your beliefs, than my sense of humour says about mine. My sense of humour says nothing to my beliefs (or lack thereof). I find stuff funny or not. End of. So, if you think that your sense of humour speaks to your beliefs, then it speaks more to your beliefs than does mine to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Yes, I'm sure it could...and I suppose this opinion could apply to anyone wearing any kind of jewellery, or clothing that advertises their faith. >snip< I find myself in total agreement for once! But if the jewllery or clothing to which you refer were not a H&S problem, why ban them? Or have you any evidence that other staff were allowed to wear necklesses, religious or otherwise when she was not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 It looks like the Church are about to fight back against the unjust discrimination they are facing. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7098299.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.