Strange you declined to comment on the massively controversial point that we meet folk who do the same things that we do.

It wasn’t really worthy of comment, but I think you know that 😀

Der Spiegel photos with comments in English

It wasn’t really worthy of comment, but I think you know that

Flounces

Nice put down though 😆

No put down junky!
I’m happily married and I don’t take drugs as I’m sure you know (or at least suspect)
I found your comment odd in the least.

I’ve now read the Spiegel reports. The police have 121 complaints but only four suspects in custody. Two North Africans pick pockets and two men of unstated origin who sexually aggressed women.

Jambalaya. Someone claiming to be Syrian took the Micky out of the police saying he could tear up his immigration papers and get new ones the next day. In other words he knew how easy it was to invent a new identity and was prepared to mock the system, which to me suggests he may be a false Syrian immigrant of which there are a lot according to earlier German media reports. The police didn’t recover the documents.

I suggest going direct to Der Spiegel and using Babble Fish if you don’t speak German – it’ll still be closer to the original than the Guardian or Times.

If I’m ever put on trial for a crime, I hope the jury is made up of Singletrack forum members. I know that 1) they will scrutinise the evidence in great detail and 2) they will never agree (meaning I get off scott-free if I’m guilty) 8)

I’m happily married and I don’t take drugs as I’m sure you know (or at least suspect)
I found your comment odd in the least.

I apologise for the way that read what I mean to say was that of course we , living as westerners and not hanging out down the mosque, will meet the westernised ones more than the devout ones.

It wasn’t my intention to suggest in any way that you were a drug taking philander and I apologise unreservedly for it being taken that way.
It was not well worded on my part.

Again it depends what you pick. Most of our advancements , IMHO, arise form ignoring the bible teachings and embracing science and enlightenment.

On this point, the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

It wasn’t my intention to suggest in any way that you were a drug taking philander and I apologise unreservedly for it being taken that way.

No worries! It’s all good!

Great to see everyone discussing this in a sensible manner, I was half expecting to see this thread closed by this morning.

I need to have a proper read through the thread – so far I’ve really liked some of the posts, lot’s of good insights for me to think about!

the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

It was but it peaked then and has not moved forward [at the same rate] making it look like it has moved backwards.

American is a nation built on immigration. Its just BS to say we cannot live side by side in peace

But, in order to do so, didn’t they first have to genocide the Native American Indian tribes with war, smallpox, guns & alcohol?

Junkyard

the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

It was but it peaked then and has not moved forward [at the same rate] making it look like it has moved backwards. [/quote]

Peaked is one way to say it. Smashed back to the stoneage by the mongols and the crusaders (who took much of what they learned back to europe) is another.

But, in order to do so, didn’t they first have to genocide the Native American Indian tribes with war, smallpox, guns & alcohol?

that is christian morality for you 😉

Good point well made. I have no counter.EDIT and the post above

that is christian morality for you
Good point well made. I have no counter.EDIT and the post above

Also, I have a lot of friends in the US.

The US currently has a polarized climate of shrieking entitled Social Justice Warriors who blame white people for everything wrong with in their personal lives and reactionary racist bigots with guns and the will to use them.

It’s not a great country to highlight as a bastion of multiculturalism, the USA is a great example of plural monoculturalism.

Americans don’t seem to like each other very much these days. They fundamentally disagree on so many issues it is hard to see where the common ground is.
Whether the culture war will turn into something bigger is difficult to say. It will definitely affect the presidential polls, although I expect Clinton to win, I think Trump (my namesake) will do far better than many expect.

Some people like to attribute everything bad that is, or has been, done by Westerners to Christianity. I don’t deny that bad things have been done by so-called Christians but blaming everything bad on Christian culture whilst at the same time claiming that we are a secular country where hardly anyone is an active Christian is just laughable.
It’s like some atheists are desperate to have the moral high ground.
It is almost too obvious to say that there is good and bad amongst Christians, among Muslims, and even amongst atheists.

The need for religion is a consequence of our flawed human nature.
Addressing that issue takes actual thought.
🙂

I agree. I’d also ask the question: where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.
Many athiests use the moral ethical system of Christianity to criticise the religion itself, e.g. how Christians have used religious and political persecution, but surely we wouldn’t think persecution was such a bad thing were it not for the ethical system as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount.
And at root Christianity does say that people are sinners, so it can hardly be surprising that as soon as a religion gets mixed up with human beings, things start to go wrong.
(“Bonkers Badnewz warning”)
But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood – people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.
In conclusion, like it or not, we are the products of post-Enlightenment Christianity.

where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.

So before Christianity came to pagan Europe nobody knew right from wrong??!?!?

Do you have a shred of proof for this assumption?

badnewz – Member
I agree. I’d also ask the question: where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.

Sorry, but attributing moral/ethical values to religion is nonsense.
It’s the other way around.

But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood – people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.

So non Christians were incapable of seeing the evil inherent in slavery?

In conclusion, like it or not, we are the products of post-Enlightenment Christianity.

Christianity is the product of humanity.

So before Christianity can’t to pagan Europe nobody knew right from wrong??!?!?

I would argue that the natural law meant they had some understanding of a moral law.

Do you have a shred of proof for this assumption?

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics. Child sacrifice was practiced and I think that only became an ethical issue after Christianity, which placed revolutionary emphasis on the value of the individual human being.

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.

Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.

But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood – people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.

Christianity was also used to justify the slave trade.

Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.

Please pay attention. Christianity places emphasis on man’s fallen nature – it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people. The pagan world did not have such an internal ethical system and hence was unable to reform itself.

So did jesus not like black people or did he think that they were exceptionally good workers or what?

@wrecker – http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

Although Jesus never said a word about slavery apparently – maybe he was ambivalent about it.

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.

When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.

When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.

There are certainly major issues with the Donation of Constantine. Some people (mainly Protestants) argue it was a mistake as it polluted the faith with Roman power politics. Others (mainly Catholics – no surprise) argue that it enabled the long term renewal of Europe along progressively less brutal lines.

I’m not sure either way, but the point stands that Christianity emphasises man’s fallen nature, so it stands to reason it will become polluted on contact with politics.

Christianity places emphasis on man’s fallen nature – it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people.

Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves. When do you think the systematic sexual abuse will stop?

Many athiests (sic) use the moral ethical system of Christianity to criticise the religion itself, e.g. how Christians have used religious and political persecution, but surely we wouldn’t think persecution was such a bad thing were it not for the ethical system as laid out in the Sermon on The Mount

I was raised agnostic atheist and to date understand my (profoundly negative) feelings towards persecution to arise from such things as empathy, reasoning and sympathy?

Additionally – I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head what was alleged to have been said on ‘The Mount’.

*Edit*. Ok I googled it. ‘Blessed are the persecuted’? What a vile notion.

Grum, that’s a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?
I though Noah was a happy old soul, caring for animals and whatnot. He’s always kind in the films.

By today’s secular and religious standards:

cursing all of an individual’s innocent descendents into perpetual slavery because of an inappropriate act by an ancestor is immoral.
No shit! I wonder why?!?

Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves

Was it only christians?

@ransos, I don’t think slavery will ever end, unfortunately, not in this world anyhow.
@malvern It’s an interesting one – can there be a morally ethical athiest? The answer is normally yes, of course, most theists would also concede this. But I’m not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.
I’d argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God), and it has benefited from your being raised in a culture where those things were passed along as values.
Socrates is the example many athiests use to argue against this, but aside from him being a remarkable individual, he had also lived in a culture which was beginning to puzzle out an ethical system based on a type of theism (that is Platonism).

And another thread bites the religious dust.

The events were in Kôln in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and we still don’t know if the culprits are in any way religious. We do know they have a bad attitude towards women. That’s what I hope the Germans will deal with.

But I’m not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.

WTF 😯
The fundamental bill of human rights is not a religious document so presumably it has not moral basis to offer anyone any guidance on these sorts of issues

.

There is no evidence for god following the facts does not make truth absent only faith does that.

I’d argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God)

you can put forward any illogical mumbo jumbo you wish but it wont make it true.

can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?

Its really ot helpful to pretend their is no moral code at work here. All cultures have moral codes and they all differ. Obviously the one you have picked is the one you think is best so the debate is pointless.

But I’m not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.

Alternatively, atheists are capable of working our stuff for themselves, and don’t need an old book to tell them what to do.

Grum, that’s a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?

Ridiculous innit!

Christians trying to claim a monopoly on morality can do one, frankly.

indeed one does not have to have faith in a god to see why murdering is wrong

The fundamental bill of human rights is not a religious document so presumably it has not moral basis to offer anyone any guidance on these sorts of issues

Do I have to keep going over old ground? Verily, verily, I say to you, human rights were created by Christianity in the first place.

can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?

This depends on what your attitude to scripture is. Some christians consider it to be the word of God. I think that is a mistake. Jesus is the word of God, truly understood. And he said nothing about homosexuals.
So there is the possibility that the passages which are commonly read from the NT to argue against homosexuality are wrong and the intolerance is down to the fact that Christians place too much emphasis on the truth being fully understood by fallen human beings (an argument actually made by the writer of the contentious passages, Paul).

What about murdering a little piggy for some bacon? Surely that’s OK? We all love a bit of bacon don’t we? 😉