Nijinsky Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 My point is the word has lost all effectiveness. We all know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I watched this last night ,and The EDL bloke in Reading was making a very valid point when he went out in the town centre wearing a full face Balaclava pointing out it was no different from a Burka , but the Burka is accepted in public ,but the Balaclava isn't. To me they are exactly the same ............. both hiding your identity ,but only one will get the Police rushing around guns drawn if you enter a Bank wearing it. sadly, if you don't appreciate the irony, the irony appreciates, penistone. ---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 20:43 ---------- What difference will that make? I know the meaning of halal, and its reasonable to assume that if something is labeled halal then it is likely to contains halal animal products, because unless I am mistaken they don't label fruit and vegetables as halal. ---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 19:54 ---------- The bible forbids them from eating meat that was sacrificed in the name of a false idle or God, just the same as the Qur'an forbids Muslims from eating meat sacrificed in the name of a false idle or God. What about my first fiance? We could involve him... He was a 100% true idle! ---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 20:54 ---------- Incidentally, it is a Pauline invention, for the Christian to eat even non-kosher (non-halal) meats. Paul is the one who declared that the non-permissible was permissible, claiming he had a vision from God that God had told him that non-kosher was kosher. I find that a bit puzzling. Whether one believes Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine, or one believes he was a prophet of God, why would God choose to tell Paul that the unclean was clean, rather than "His Son"? (NB, "His Son" who was an observant, practising Jew? and a Rabbi at that.) Paul was not the one who had the Prophethood upon him, quite apart from the divine. Why would God have let Jesus' ministry end, and then a couple of decades later give Paul (who had no mantle of prophethood) a nudge, and say, "By the way, if you fancy a bite of that bacon butty, go right ahead, kidda!! I've changed my mind about all that Kosher gubbins!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 My point is the word has lost all effectiveness. We all know why. But it obviously hasn't because some people (those who you might traditionally regard as racists) take huge offence at being called such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 sadly, if you don't appreciate the irony, the irony appreciates, penistone. ---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 20:43 ---------- What about my first fiance? We could involve him... He was a 100% true idle! ---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 20:54 ---------- Incidentally, it is a Pauline invention, for the Christian to eat even non-kosher (non-halal) meats. Paul is the one who declared that the non-permissible was permissible, claiming he had a vision from God that God had told him that non-kosher was kosher. I find that a bit puzzling. Whether one believes Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine, or one believes he was a prophet of God, why would God choose to tell Paul that the unclean was clean, rather than "His Son"? (NB, "His Son" who was an observant, practising Jew? and a Rabbi at that.) Paul was not the one who had the Prophethood upon him, quite apart from the divine. Why would God have let Jesus' ministry end, and then a couple of decades later give Paul (who had no mantle of prophethood) a nudge, and say, "By the way, if you fancy a bite of that bacon butty, go right ahead, kidda!! I've changed my mind about all that Kosher gubbins!" God doesn't exist but that doesn't stop Muslims and Christians from believing that some foods are banned, and some Christians won't eat halal food because they believe it was killed in the name of a false God, which is no different to Muslims refusing to eat meat that isn't killed in the name of their God. When it comes to stupid beliefs you are as bad as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 and some Christians won't eat halal food because they believe it was killed in the name of a false God Does that mean Asda's Tiger bread is made from real tigers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Does that mean Asda's Tiger bread is made from real tigers? No it means it might contain animal products if it is labeled halal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 No it means it might contain animal products if it is labeled halal. It might contain animal products if it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Why is it ALWAYS about the pork ? Why can't we talk about the chicken ? That is what I like to know. Seriously. Do you guys wanna talk about chicken feet? I am semi-serious about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It might contain animal products if it isn't. Yep, but that presumably wouldn't bother Christians that is forbidden from eating animals that are slaughtered in the name a false God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 No it means it might contain animal products if it is labeled halal. Halal doesn't only refer to meat, halal means permissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.