• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Grays_1890 said:
Ok, well underage sex.....so noncery painted as something different.....

What a religion
Click to expand...
we have a modern concept of noncery. We are talking 2025 years ago. Was common to be betroved that young and be married when you came of age, i.e. passed puberty and were fertile. Its the same as in the animal kingdom. We have no firm evidence of how old Mary was when she gave birth, but they base her likely age on what was common practice of the time. It remained common practice to marry girls off that young into the middle ages. The context was at the time average human life expectancy was not far past 40. Baldwin IV was 13 years old when he became king of Jerusalem and 16 years old when he first faced Saladin in battle. Was a completely different age.
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
we have a modern concept of noncery. We are talking 2025 years ago. Was common to be betroved that young and be married when you came of age, i.e. passed puberty and were fertile. Its the same as in the animal kingdom. We have no firm evidence of how old Mary was when she gave birth, but they base her likely age on what was common practice of the time. It remained common practice to marry girls off that young into the middle ages. The context was at the time average human life expectancy was not far past 40. Baldwin IV was 13 years old when he became king of Jerusalem and 16 years old when he first faced Saracen in battle. Was a completely different age.
Click to expand...

As long as that's a consistent standard when considering all religion then fine.

Seems often the standards change though depending on the religion being discussed.
 
Grays_1890 said:
As long as that's a consistent standard when considering all religion then fine.

Seems often the standards change though depending on the religion being discussed.
Click to expand...
Do they? The standards are the standards of the time. Religion is irrelevant. Was acceptable to trade slaves few hundred years ago. Invading another country to claim land was just par for the course too....
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Do they? The standards are the standards of the time. Religion is irrelevant. Was acceptable to trade slaves few hundred years ago. Invading another country to claim land was just par for the course too....
Click to expand...
Yeh.....it's all i hear from those that have pivoted to Christianity to take the moral highground on other religions because of a complete double standard.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
Tommy Robinson constantly drones on about how he found Christianity and Christian values whilst deep diving into the darker areas of ancient Islam.

Although it's clear it's a all a grift ala Brand finding "GHod"

It's literally all you hear out ot the US.....GHod is great etc etc etc.

He isnt, he was actually a fcuking arseh0le.

But as i keep saying. Harder to self reflect than point fingers

Point is, be consistent or don't, it's a choice I suppose
 
Grays_1890 said:
Tommy Robinson constantly drones on about how he found Christianity and Christian values whilst deep diving into the darker areas of ancient Islam.

Although it's clear it's a all a grift ala Brand finding "GHod"

It's literally all you hear out ot the US.....GHod is great etc etc etc.

He isnt, he was actually a fcuking arseh0le.

But as i keep saying. Harder to self reflect than point fingers

Point is, be consistent or don't, it's a choice I suppose
Click to expand...
Religion is a grift full stop, we all know it !!
 
thfcsteff said:
First of all, apologies. I can see how that might have seemed very 'directed and personal' when the truth is you made a comment (internet fun & games) which I saw as an appropriate moment to express said-opinion. Again, apologies if offence was caused.

I think it's clear to all who are on this forum that I also prefer face-to-face conversations. However that is largely not possible on this (or any) Internet forum (obviously). I have actually met a fair few people from here (proportionatelty speaking), indeed, the weekly podcast sprung from this forum.


My (admittedly uninvited) view on the squabble you're currently angaged in? You appear to want someone to validate their opinion in a way which satisfies your needs to see such a point/opinion validated. That person appears to not feel it is appropriate to apply such a 'standard' simply to satisfy the perceived needs of one person.

My advice (not that you're looking for it, (but hey-ho, here I am at the bar with my pint leaning into the convo unwanted LOL), why not approach the situation from another angle?
Why not simply assume that this person does NOT hold such beliefs? It takes less of a leap of assumption than questioning whether they do.
Not sure if you're too close, but I see a lot of frustration, anger, and perhaps sadness in the exchanges.
I am more than willing to bet that you both have more in common than not (as most of us do on this forum).

I appreciate the conversational engagement and offer the above in that spirit. Be well...

p.s. further on the 'online friends' stuff, I think it is vital that definitions are clear generally. I do agree, 'online friends' are not 'friends' in the traditional sense, simply because there is no measurable human/personal electricity to connect/not connect with. I always told my youngest when she said she had a 'friend' she'd made online that it was an 'online friend' which should always be different to a 'friend'. I think we would both agree such distinctions are almost a thing of the past...sadly. Maybe online relationships can lead to more 'in person friendships; developing over time...
Click to expand...
You are a good poster mate and I can respect polarised opinions. It’s not the point that we can all agree with each other all the time whether it be online or in person. But I may be stubborn and staunch in my views, but will not simply accept opinions that don’t align with my own without reason; especially when simple questions are dodged whilst accusing others of doing the exact thing.

I don’t mind airing my laundry but at the very least I don’t hide about my opinions, and unless a sensible conversation without an agenda or denial or even worse exposure can come to the forefront, I’ll just take a forum as a forum: a joke without it being that serious.

I’ve asked your friend multiple times what he actually thinks of sharia law, but he won’t answer because it will go against what is right. Can’t call someone right wing when those core fundamentals are ingrained.

Any religion, philosophy or mindset that discriminates can get in the bin.
 
Gazza said:
You are a good poster mate and I can respect polarised opinions. It’s not the point that we can all agree with each other all the time whether it be online or in person. But I may be stubborn and staunch in my views, but will not simply accept opinions that don’t align with my own without reason; especially when simple questions are dodged whilst accusing others of doing the exact thing.

I don’t mind airing my laundry but at the very least I don’t hide about my opinions, and unless a sensible conversation without an agenda or denial or even worse exposure can come to the forefront, I’ll just take a forum as a forum: a joke without it being that serious.

I’ve asked your friend multiple times what he actually thinks of sharia law, but he won’t answer because it will go against what is right. Can’t call someone right wing when those core fundamentals are ingrained.

Any religion, philosophy or mindset that discriminates can get in the bin.
Click to expand...

A lot of assumption there IMO. I was suggesting taking the sheer power of that assumption and applying it from the other angle. However, you appear to have arrived at a conclusion already.

Discrimination is, indeed, terrible. It is also a fact that current society is driven by various entities to engage in it as a form of 'answer' or 'excuse for current troubles. It is absolutely incumbent on us all to resist the traps wherever they're set.

As ever, appreciate the conversation.
 
thfcsteff said:
A lot of assumption there IMO. I was suggesting taking the sheer power of that assumption and applying it from the other angle. However, you appear to have arrived at a conclusion already.

Discrimination is, indeed, terrible. It is also a fact that current society is driven by various entities to engage in it as a form of 'answer' or 'excuse for current troubles. It is absolutely incumbent on us all to resist the traps wherever they're set.

As ever, appreciate the conversation.
Click to expand...
No issues here, my opinion or thoughts may not align with you or anyone else but that is not my M..O. I’m not just going to sit on the fence in fear of being labelled.

But when you say assumptions are being made I have made it crystal clear of my view and no matter how many times I post it falls on deaf ears and are rebutted with nothing but emojis without debate or a stand about where a poster stands on the issue in question.

There are no traps as you say, it’s very straightforward, but that person will not answer because that argument crumbles very very easily.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
we have a modern concept of noncery. We are talking 2025 years ago. Was common to be betroved that young and be married when you came of age, i.e. passed puberty and were fertile. Its the same as in the animal kingdom. We have no firm evidence of how old Mary was when she gave birth, but they base her likely age on what was common practice of the time. It remained common practice to marry girls off that young into the middle ages. The context was at the time average human life expectancy was not far past 40. Baldwin IV was 13 years old when he became king of Jerusalem and 16 years old when he first faced Saladin in battle. Was a completely different age.
Click to expand...
Yeah but Baldwin was never the best example to all humans. No one practices a religion that replicates Baldwin.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Tommy Robinson constantly drones on about how he found Christianity and Christian values whilst deep diving into the darker areas of ancient Islam.

Although it's clear it's a all a grift ala Brand finding "GHod"

It's literally all you hear out ot the US.....GHod is great etc etc etc.

He isnt, he was actually a fcuking arseh0le.

But as i keep saying. Harder to self reflect than point fingers

Point is, be consistent or don't, it's a choice I suppose
Click to expand...
Careful. If He stops killing African babies for long enough to notice you've said that, he'll smite you or something....
 
Gazza said:
No issues here, my opinion or thoughts may not align with you or anyone else but that is not my M..O. I’m not just going to sit on the fence in fear of being labelled.

But when you say assumptions are being made I have made it crystal clear of my view and no matter how many times I post it falls on deaf ears and are rebutted with nothing but emojis without debate or a stand about where a poster stands on the issue in question.

There are no traps as you say, it’s very straightforward, but that person will not answer because that argument crumbles very very easily.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with aligned opinions. We are ALL aligned against extremist ideologies.

I remain unclear on 'what opinion crumbles'? Be specific if you don't mind.
 
thfcsteff said:
It's nothing to do with aligned opinions. We are ALL aligned against extremist ideologies.

I remain unclear on 'what opinion crumbles'? Be specific if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
Luton has been asked multiple times if he supports or condemns Sharia Law
He never answers, he tries to deflect or change the convo usually by calling somebody racist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back