daneha Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 So Al Qaeda, Anjem Chaudry and the two guys who decapitated Lee Rigby are the best representives of Islam? Islam is based on the words of Mohammad, so anyone that follows those words strictly and literally must be the best representative of Islam. Anything else is a watered down version of the originally religion so doesn't represent it in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 You totally skipped what I said first and went directly to the part you have an issue with, can you try that copy and paiste stuff again but leave my coments in their entiraty and context ? What's your objection to homosexuality exactly? ---------- Post added 01-09-2013 at 18:42 ---------- Islam is based on the words of Mohammad, so anyone that follows those words strictly and literally must be the best representative of Islam. Anything else is a watered down version of the originally religion so doesn't represent it in its entirety. I'm afraid that's just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmack Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Islam is based on the words of Mohammad, so anyone that follows those words strictly and literally must be the best representative of Islam. Anything else is a watered down version of the originally religion so doesn't represent it in its entirety. In the same way that Christanity is based on the words of Jesus and Jesus preached love, forgiveness and helping the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daneha Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 In the same way that Christanity is based on the words of Jesus and Jesus preached love, forgiveness and helping the poor. But no one knows what Jesus said or did because it wasn't documented during his life time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I think he's homophobic ,extremely offensive and not a good example of Christian morality tbh. But traditional Christian morality is homophobic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The Rev is and idiot for believing people can be cured from being gay but the gays are even worse. They are trouble causing just because they can. The coppers are a joke for even giving this the time of day. They are the CAUSE of this trouble? Just who exactly do you think initiated the situation? Who went out of their way to contact someone, who was minding their own business, and tell them that the way they live is like a disease? ---------- Post added 01-09-2013 at 19:08 ---------- Yes it does, sorry for the misunderstanding. My own opinion on the subject is that I disagree with people who share the views of the Reverend, but i'm inclined to agree with the views of Adrian Hilton who wrote the article referred to in the OP. Really? Do you agree with this part?.... "If ‘Good News for Gays’ is prohibited by law, then ‘Good News for Muslims’ and ‘Good News for Jews’ must likewise be banned. In fact, Good News for any protected characteristic may be deemed to constitute ‘hate’, so we might as well abandon the pulpits and close all the churches." When I first read that I thought to myself "That's exactly the kind of false logic the Daily Mail would apply". Turns out he's also a columnist for the Daily Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 But no one knows what Jesus said or did because it wasn't documented during his life time.Not during his lifetime, but after his death, and before some of them were executed themselves for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daneha Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Not during his lifetime, but after his death, and before some of them were executed themselves for doing so. Do you think it would be possible for 100 people to follow you every where and then document accurately everything you ever said and did once you are died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Really? Do you agree with this part?.... "If ‘Good News for Gays’ is prohibited by law, then ‘Good News for Muslims’ and ‘Good News for Jews’ must likewise be banned. In fact, Good News for any protected characteristic may be deemed to constitute ‘hate’, so we might as well abandon the pulpits and close all the churches." When I first read that I thought to myself "That's exactly the kind of false logic the Daily Mail would apply". Turns out he's also a columnist for the Daily Mail. Yes I do agree with it, because he was making the point (ironically) that if we ban one aspect of free speech to protect those who are easily offended we may as well ban a whole lot of other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Yes I do agree with it, because he was making the point (ironically) that if we ban one aspect of free speech to protect those who are easily offended we may as well ban a whole lot of other things. No he wasn't making that point at all. He was making a blatant straw man, a comparison which was not like for like, to further his agenda. He used part of the title "Good news for gays" but left out the rest, along with the content of the email, which is what caused the upset. If he had compared it with "Christ can cure, good news for Jews/Muslims" with the email content outlining that Judaism/Islam is a sickness which Christianity can cure, that would be more like for like. You must surely be okay with me sending you an email titled "Surgery can cure, good news for women" with the contents explaining that you suffer with a sickness (the female gender) but it's okay, we can take care of that with an operation. You'd be okay with that wouldn't you? Because it's free speech, going out of your way to email somebody something that would offend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.