They Say, We Say: Evidence of the Obvious
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
this is why we should suppress people like BIC, including religious evangelism
they think they are ok because they are protected under this 'shield' called religion
laurence,
Wow, just because the Constitution protects my freedom to propagate religion you see the need to suppress me? I wonder if you even thought through what you just said. You would rant and rave about how the church in the past persecuted people who don't believe, an act that would never find Biblical sanction anyway. But then it seems that if you get your way you will start persecuting religious people, suppressing religion and what not. Precedent? The communist regimes in the last century. Trust me, it ain't pretty. Go wiki or google it.
I think I am OK because what I am doing is constitutional and lawful. In fact, I am merely DEFENDING my faith against the unceasing attacks by people the likes of Tcmc. Perhaps you think such defense of the faith should be suppressed so that your gripes against the faith go unchallenged?
Again I say, there is nothing illegal or wrong with evangelism per se. What becomes objectionable is when such evangelism involves unethical means and unlawful methods. Again I say this, Singapore has the maintenance of religious harmony bill to regulate the propagation of religion. I think it is sufficient. Why do you see the need to override this and the constitution to call for an outright ban?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes you should be scared. And don't worry, if you get hauled up for lim kopi it won't be because you are not a Christian. I see the poster as generally insulting to religions. You brag about the poster being here to stay but you wouldn't dare post it in forums which have greater awareness from the public. As for me I don't think I am guilty of anything.let's not turn Singapore into a police state. A police state only brings fear and not real engagement and understanding!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The qualifier is the word "yet". And you even agree that it sounds like an insult, then it most probably is, whether crude or not. You may think you have more tolerance for crude language used on religion, but another person may not. So if you or anyone here wants to take your chances with the authorities, be my guest. I don't suppose motoway would dare air this "fair message" poster in bus-stops or publish it in newspapers. Would you encourage it? If not, why not?
No. When I say it "sounds like" an insult, I mean exactly that. It is simply a metaphor using an anatomical part. I'm hard-pressed to understand why using the word "penis" automatically turns the analogy into an insult.
My suggestion to you is to develop a thicker skin if you are genuinely interested in debate.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
Wow, just because the Constitution protects my freedom to propagate religion you see the need to suppress me? I wonder if you even thought through what you just said. You would rant and rave about how the church in the past persecuted people who don't believe, an act that would never find Biblical sanction anyway. But then it seems that if you get your way you will start persecuting religious people, suppressing religion and what not. Precedent? The communist regimes in the last century. Trust me, it ain't pretty. Go wiki or google it.
I think I am OK because what I am doing is constitutional and lawful. In fact, I am merely DEFENDING my faith against the unceasing attacks by people the likes of Tcmc. Perhaps you think such defense of the faith should be suppressed so that your gripes against the faith go unchallenged?
Again I say, there is nothing illegal or wrong with evangelism per se. What becomes objectionable is when such evangelism involves unethical means and unlawful methods. Again I say this, Singapore has the maintenance of religious harmony bill to regulate the propagation of religion. I think it is sufficient. Why do you see the need to override this and the constitution to call for an outright ban?
Evangelism isnt protected by the law, we concluded that some time ago. Religious harmony is to prevent christians from persecuting other religion
It is because the church persecute other religions/non beliefs, so we should be defending ourselves. Unless its fair that you guys do it and expect non-retaliation?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Evangelism isnt protected by the law, we concluded that some time ago. Religious harmony is to prevent christians from persecuting other religion
It is because the church persecute other religions/non beliefs, so we should be defending ourselves. Unless its fair that you guys do it and expect non-retaliation?
laurence
I do agree that the pushing of the concept of "religious harmony" is good because then other religions can keep the "more aggressive religions" in check.
Religions check on religions and no one can go overboard.
That is good. Religious harmony is good. Multi-religious society is good.
Look at america which is predominantly christian or Afghanistan. No one keeps check on the dominating religions in both countries.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
laurence
I do agree that the pushing of the concept of "religious harmony" is good because then other religions can keep the "more aggressive religions" in check.
Religions check on religions and no one can go overboard.
That is good. Religious harmony is good. Multi-religious society is good.
Look at america which is predominantly christian or Afghanistan. No one keeps check on the dominating religions in both countries.
and the worst part is this chap tries to shove the oxford english dictionary down my throat as if he is shoving bible down other people throat
all the more we should stamp down on such people
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
laurence
I do agree that the pushing of the concept of "religious harmony" is good because then other religions can keep the "more aggressive religions" in check.
Religions check on religions and no one can go overboard.
That is good. Religious harmony is good. Multi-religious society is good.
Look at america which is predominantly christian or Afghanistan. No one keeps check on the dominating religions in both countries.
and the worst part is this chap tries to shove the oxford english dictionary down my throat as if he is shoving bible down other people throat
all the more we should stamp down on such people
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
and the worst part is this chap tries to shove the oxford english dictionary down my throat as if he is shoving bible down other people throat
all the more we should stamp down on such people
laurence,
THe problem with BIC's argument is he always quotes from biased sources.
To have an objective discussion or argument, one must quote from different sources. I personally do read up on both christian and non-christian sources before discussing with BIC.
But all he gives me is religious sources.....
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Evangelism isnt protected by the law, we concluded that some time ago. Religious harmony is to prevent christians from persecuting other religion
It is because the church persecute other religions/non beliefs, so we should be defending ourselves. Unless its fair that you guys do it and expect non-retaliation?
laurence,
1. Since when was there ever a "we" that concluded that evangelism isn't protected by the law? It's your one-sided wishful thinking. Dude, please read Article 15(1) again of the Constitution please.
2. Religious harmony is to prevent Christians from persecuting other religions? Where on earth you get this warped idea from? I wonder what definition of persecution you are using, Oxford or the law's definition? You tell me.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
No. When I say it "sounds like" an insult, I mean exactly that. It is simply a metaphor using an anatomical part. I'm hard-pressed to understand why using the word "penis" automatically turns the analogy into an insult.
My suggestion to you is to develop a thicker skin if you are genuinely interested in debate.
reasonable.atheist,
Yes, the word "penis" by itself is hardly offensive. But depending on the context of the use of that word, the implication is different. Again the litmus test is this, if you think the poster is so harmless and people who find it offensive are simply being petty and lack thickskin, then would you want this to be posted in bus stops or aired on the popular media? Why not?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist,
Yes, the word "penis" by itself is hardly offensive. But depending on the context of the use of that word, the implication is different. Again the litmus test is this, if you think the poster is so harmless and people who find it offensive are simply being petty and lack thickskin, then would you want this to be posted in bus stops or aired on the popular media? Why not?
I didn't think I had to respond to your question, but since you repeat it, I will.
Different circumstances require different standards of care. I would go topless at the beach, but I wouldn't do so at the mall. I would say "You're a moron" to a friend for picking up smoking, but I wouldn't just say that to any random stranger.
Does that answer your question?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I didn't think I had to respond to your question, but since you repeat it, I will.
Different circumstances require different standards of care. I would go topless at the beach, but I wouldn't do so at the mall. I would say "You're a moron" to a friend for picking up smoking, but I wouldn't just say that to any random stranger.
Does that answer your question?
No it does not answer my question at all. What you tell someone in private or face to face is not to be confused with what is being posted for public consumption. In fact, you skirted around my question which was: Would you want that poster to be seen in public places since you are of the view that it is a fair comment and those who object are simply being petty and should pile on some thicker skin?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No it does not answer my question at all. What you tell someone in private or face to face is not to be confused with what is being posted for public consumption. In fact, you skirted around my question which was: Would you want that poster to be seen in public places since you are of the view that it is a fair comment and those who object are simply being petty and should pile on some thicker skin?
Again, I really didn't think I needed to spell it out.
In the same vein, what I post in a forum in the context of a debate, directed at someone who is reasonably intelligent, would be different from what I put on a bus-stop or air on TV.
As Marshall McLuhan noted, "The medium is the message."
So no, I won't put it up at a bus-stop. Not because I think the message is unfair, but because it may be misunderstood by the audience given the lack of context.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Again, I really didn't think I needed to spell it out.
In the same vein, what I post in a forum in the context of a debate, directed at someone who is reasonably intelligent, would be different from what I put on a bus-stop or air on TV.
As Marshall McLuhan noted, "The medium is the message."
So no, I won't put it up at a bus-stop. Not because I think the message is unfair, but because it may be misunderstood by the audience given the lack of context.
reasonable.atheist,
The fact that you are fearful that it may be misunderstood, that it even sounds like an insult, is enough reason for you to refrain from posting that poster in public. I think you have already conceded my point. I rest my case.
-
Frankly, I don't even know what your point is.
As someone engaged in a reasoned debate about religion, you should expect views contrary to your own, sometimes in language that is unpleasant to you.
An 80-year-old conservative Christian person who has never heard of sgforums might be offended by the use of the word "penis" in an analogy, but it doesn't mean we -- in this debate -- all have to tone down our language to suit him/her.
-
Hi, Christians and Non Christians folks, here it is, up to you to digest or don't digest this piece of news:
Experts stumped by ancient Jerusalem markings
Experts stumped by ancient Jerusalem markings
By MATTI FRIEDMAN | AP – Wed, Dec 7, 2011<!-- yog-5u -->Related Content
Enlarge Photo
In this photo taken on Dec. 1, 2011, Israel's Antiquities Authority archeologist …
View Gallery
In this photo taken on Dec. 1, 2011, marks carved in the bedrock over 2,800 years …
JERUSALEM (AP) — Mysterious stone carvings made thousands of years ago and recently uncovered in an excavation underneath Jerusalem have archaeologists stumped.
Israeli diggers who uncovered a complex of rooms carved into the bedrock in the oldest section of the city recently found the markings: Three "V'' shapes cut next to each other into the limestone floor of one of the rooms, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) deep and 20 inches (50 centimeters) long. There were no finds to offer any clues pointing to the identity of who made them or what purpose they served.
The archaeologists in charge of the dig know so little that they have been unable even to posit a theory about their nature, said Eli Shukron, one of the two directors of the dig.
"The markings are very strange, and very intriguing. I've never seen anything like them," Shukron said.
The shapes were found in a dig known as the City of David, a politically sensitive excavation conducted by Israeli government archaeologists and funded by a nationalist Jewish group under the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan in east Jerusalem. The rooms were unearthed as part of the excavation of fortifications around the ancient city's only natural water source, the Gihon spring.
It is possible, the dig's archaeologists say, that when the markings were made at least 2,800 years ago the shapes might have accommodated some kind of wooden structure that stood inside them, or they might have served some other purpose on their own. They might have had a ritual function or one that was entirely mundane. Archaeologists faced by a curious artifact can usually at least venture a guess about its nature, but in this case no one, including outside experts consulted by Shukron and the dig's co-director, archaeologists with decades of experience between them, has any idea.
There appears to be at least one other ancient marking of the same type at the site. A century-old map of an expedition led by the British explorer Montague Parker, who searched for the lost treasures of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem between 1909 and 1911, includes the shape of a "V'' drawn in an underground channel not far away. Modern archaeologists haven't excavated that area yet.
Ceramic shards found in the rooms indicate they were last used around 800 B.C., with Jerusalem under the rule of Judean kings, the dig's archaeologists say. At around that time, the rooms appear to have been filled with rubble to support the construction of a defensive wall.
It is unclear, however, whether they were built in the time of those kings or centuries earlier by the Canaanite residents who predated them.
The purpose of the complex is part of the riddle. The straight lines of its walls and level floors are evidence of careful engineering, and it was located close to the most important site in the city, the spring, suggesting it might have had an important function.
A unique find in a room beside the one with the markings — a stone like a modern grave marker, which was left upright when the room was filled in — might offer a clue. Such stones were used in the ancient Middle East as a focal point for ritual or a memorial for dead ancestors, the archaeologists say, and it is likely a remnant of the pagan religions which the city's Israelite prophets tried to eradicate. It is the first such stone to be found intact in Jerusalem excavations.
But the ritual stone does not necessarily mean the whole complex was a temple. It might simply have marked a corner devoted to religious practice in a building whose purpose was commonplace.
With the experts unable to come up with a theory about the markings, the City of David dig posted a photo on its Facebook page and solicited suggestions. The results ranged from the thought-provoking — "a system for wood panels that held some other item," or molds into which molten metal would could have been poured — to the fanciful: ancient Hebrew or Egyptian characters, or a "symbol for water, particularly as it was near a spring."
The City of David dig, where the carvings were found, is the most high-profile and politically contentious excavation in the Holy Land. Named for the biblical monarch thought to have ruled from the spot 3,000 years ago, the dig is located in what today is east Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in 1967. Palestinians claim that part of the city as the capital of a future state.
The dig is funded by Elad, an organization affiliated with the Israeli settlement movement. The group also moves Jewish families into the neighborhood and elsewhere in east Jerusalem in an attempt to render impossible any division of the city in a future peace deal.
Palestinians and some Israeli archaeologists have criticized the dig for what they say is an excessive focus on Jewish remains. The dig's archaeologists, who work under the auspices of the government's Israel Antiquities Authority, deny that charge.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Frankly, I don't even know what your point is.
As someone engaged in a reasoned debate about religion, you should expect views contrary to your own, sometimes in language that is unpleasant to you.
An 80-year-old conservative Christian person who has never heard of sgforums might be offended by the use of the word "penis" in an analogy, but it doesn't mean we -- in this debate -- all have to tone down our language to suit him/her.
I think you have shifted the goal post. The point isn't about saying things that are contrary to mine, or saying things that are unpleasant to me. The point is about posting something that you know is insultful and offensive to the public. Again the issue isn't on the singular word "penis" but on how it is being used. But let's leave this as I think we have said enough on this. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think you have shifted the goal post. The point isn't about saying things that are contrary to mine, or saying things that are unpleasant to me. The point is about posting something that you know is insultful and offensive to the public. Again the issue isn't on the singular word "penis" but on how it is being used. But let's leave this as I think we have said enough on this.
Hey BIC
Since we are on the topic of "evidence" by the TS, i wanna ask you a question -
1. If you believe that the Genesis account is literal, as in God literally used dirt to mould humans in a literal way and that there was a literal adam, eve, talking serpent and miracle fruit, do you also believe that the Chinese religion acocunt whereby the Jade Emperor fashioned humans out of clay?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Hey BIC
Since we are on the topic of "evidence" by the TS, i wanna ask you a question -
1. If you believe that the Genesis account is literal, as in God literally used dirt to mould humans in a literal way and that there was a literal adam, eve, talking serpent and miracle fruit, do you also believe that the Chinese religion acocunt whereby the Jade Emperor fashioned humans out of clay?
Tcmc,
Tell me, why should my believing in Genesis as literal account of creation NECESSITATES that I take all other religious books as literal as well? Please justify that.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
1. Since when was there ever a "we" that concluded that evangelism isn't protected by the law? It's your one-sided wishful thinking. Dude, please read Article 15(1) again of the Constitution please.
2. Religious harmony is to prevent Christians from persecuting other religions? Where on earth you get this warped idea from? I wonder what definition of persecution you are using, Oxford or the law's definition? You tell me.
Yes, please read Articles 15 again, its already concluded
Of course, religious harmony is promoted to prevent Christian from persecuting other religion
You go see your very own action, persecuting non believers including atheists
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Yes, please read Articles 15 again, its already concluded
Of course, religious harmony is promoted to prevent Christian from persecuting other religion
You go see your very own action, persecuting non believers including atheists
laurence,
Let's call your bluff shall we? Which part of the law of Singapore SPECIFICALLY says that religious harmony bill is to prevent Christians from persecuting nonbelievers? You start making up laws for yourself, or you have a judicial interpretation to fall back on?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
Let's call your bluff shall we? Which part of the law of Singapore SPECIFICALLY says that religious harmony bill is to prevent Christians from persecuting nonbelievers? You start making up laws for yourself, or you have a judicial interpretation to fall back on?
You prove the Constitution says banning evangelism is unlawful, and i will return the favour
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
You prove the Constitution says banning evangelism is unlawful, and i will return the favourI have proven that the word "propagate" is SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution and you did not even have the humility and integrity to acknowledge and give credit. Not surprised that you will start playing childish games here. I think I am about done with you regarding this.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I have proven that the word "propagate" is SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution and you did not even have the humility and integrity to acknowledge and give credit. Not surprised that you will start playing childish games here. I think I am about done with you regarding this.
to be honest, the constitution did not state banning evangelism is unlawfulthanks to xtian like u, you have gone through the painful and long process to prove i am right
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Tell me, why should my believing in Genesis as literal account of creation NECESSITATES that I take all other religious books as literal as well? Please justify that.
Well, because if you only believe in the literal account of Genesis and ask for disregard other creation stories , it is called the error of "Special Pleading".