Wonky missile aimed at Israel ends up hitting Aqaba, Jordan

[Wij]

Brothels were probably quite a bit different in the Roman Empire remember.

 

[Jupitus]

Brothels were probably quite a bit different in the Roman Empire remember.

Ohhhhh, and I DO remember... happy days!

Am I showing my age again? Damn!

 

[TdC]

erm, according to Spartacus, they did it every which way they could, and couldn't care less if they were givers or takers. this went for girls and boys, making the society an example of sexual liberation. nice.

 

[Raven]

I would pay good money to have Roman brothels.

 

[DaGaffer]

erm, according to Spartacus, they did it every which way they could, and couldn't care less if they were givers or takers. this went for girls and boys, making the society an example of sexual liberation. nice.

And absolutely untrue. The Romans were actually pretty prudish, and had a serious downer on homosexuality, especially in the legions, where men caught at it could be flogged then beheaded. And the "givers or takers" part is particularly untrue, as it was seen as sinful amongst Roman men to be "passive" in any way, and particularly sexually. This was all before the empire was Christianised, when things got a whole lot worse for the gays.

Hollywood has taken the fact the Romans left a lot of erotic art behind, and the exceptional stories of the odd (utterly bonkers) emperor like Caligula, and a few other bits and pieces to turn the Romans into a race of sexually-liberated rampant shaggers, but just like the Victorians (who Hollywood also get wrong sexually, in the opposite way), the Romans kept it under wraps in public.

 

[Wij]

And absolutely untrue. The Romans were actually pretty prudish, and had a serious downer on homosexuality, especially in the legions, where men caught at it could be flogged then beheaded. And the "givers or takers" part is particularly untrue, as it was seen as sinful amongst Roman men to be "passive" in any way, and particularly sexually. This was all before the empire was Christianised, when things got a whole lot worse for the gays.

Hollywood has taken the fact the Romans left a lot of erotic art behind, and the exceptional stories of the odd (utterly bonkers) emperor like Caligula, and a few other bits and pieces to turn the Romans into a race of sexually-liberated rampant shaggers, but just like the Victorians (who Hollywood also get wrong sexually, in the opposite way), the Romans kept it under wraps in public.

Well, mostly, but if you read Juvenal he rants on about dirty botters quite a bit so it obviously wasn't unknown

Also, a lot of the Roman Empire had Greek culture. Roman Empire != Rome.

 

[TdC]

maybe I should have said Spartacus the TV series

 

[Turamber]

For example, the passage Wij originally linked includes drunkards and slanderers but I don't see people having anywhere near as strong opinions on those people. I'd posit that it's peoples innate distaste of homosexuality that inflames this attitude where as folks don't tend to have so much of a problem about slander.

I understand your point and maybe you are right. But Christians shouldn't be getting drunk or slandering people either. Drunkeness is pretty much uniformly shown in a bad light in the Bible, but people read what they want to read as is their wont, whether atheist or theist.

Is recreational sex between a husband and wife considered equally taboo?

Only if you pay her

 

[Wij]

Or go in the back door ?

 

[Ch3tan]

Couldn't agree more. While I think religion itself is utter bullshit, some of the values are sound (on paper) except for the fact 99% of Christians are hypocrites who have absolutely no sense of empathy.

Fear of something greater is a good tool to control (keep in line) society.

Sorry, I know this thread has moved on a bit since this. 99% of all religious people are hypocrits. It amuses me how many young muslims drink and smoke for example.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Sorry, I know this thread has moved on a bit since this. 99% of all religious people are hypocrits. It amuses me how many young muslims drink and smoke for example.

The 99% amuses me.

Then again, 99% of non religious people use the fact they're not religious as an excuse to act dickish.

Right? Made up numbers don't lie!

What i don't get it people complaining about that point, if you want less religious people, surely the first step for them is to act against it. Young religious folk sometimes(often in other counteries) don't have a choice to leave a religion due to peer/parental presssure.

 

[DaGaffer]

The 99% amuses me.

Then again, 99% of non religious people use the fact they're not religious as an excuse to act dickish.

Right? Made up numbers don't lie!

What i don't get it people complaining about that point, if you want less religious people, surely the first step for them is to act against it. Young religious folk sometimes(often in other counteries) don't have a choice to leave a religion due to peer/parental presssure.

Well, in the case of Islam, you can't leave. Apostasy is actually a capital offence in some gulf states and elsewhere (you get three days in the clink to repent, then...) So I don't particularly mind moslem guys from these countries flouting the rules when they're over here (we had a lot like that when I was at Uni), so long as they don't subsequently play pious towards me. Western moslems are a bit of a different story; there's no Sharia to worry about so if they don't want to be moslem they should have the balls to act on it, parental/peer pressure be damned.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, in the case of Islam, you can't leave. Apostasy is actually a capital offence in some gulf states and elsewhere (you get three days in the clink to repent, then...) So I don't particularly mind moslem guys from these countries flouting the rules when they're over here (we had a lot like that when I was at Uni), so long as they don't subsequently play pious towards me. Western moslems are a bit of a different story; there's no Sharia to worry about so if they don't want to be moslem they should have the balls to act on it, parental/peer pressure be damned.

Well, parental/peer pressure be damned, wish it was that simple really. We all know it isn't for most.

Not to mention, if you're underaged, you pretty much forced to live at home and if your parents are religious(intent on keeping family as such that is), you're screwed.

 

[nath]

I understand your point and maybe you are right. But Christians shouldn't be getting drunk or slandering people either. Drunkeness is pretty much uniformly shown in a bad light in the Bible, but people read what they want to read as is their wont, whether atheist or theist.

I guess that's my gripe really, the seeming disproportionate attack on homosexuality that is so obviously coming from personal feelings and then the justification of that bigotry with some very very old literature.




I missed out some punctuation up there so here are some spares I had lying around. ,,.,,

 

[Turamber]

I guess that's my gripe really, the seeming disproportionate attack on homosexuality that is so obviously coming from personal feelings and then the justification of that bigotry with some very very old literature.

Well, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible - but it isn't a major subject in their, whole chapters and books aren't devoted to it. Besides Christianity should be as much about what people do as what they don't do, but people don't like faith that requires action. Unfortunately without action that faith is pretty much dead; no wonder that 99% of "religious" people appear to be hypocrites.

 

[SheepCow]

To me, religion is just something for people who can't be moral on their own and need a little bit of sky fairy to make them better people.

Still a load of history deniers though

 

[tierk]

Sorry, I know this thread has moved on a bit since this. 99% of all religious people are hypocrits. It amuses me how many young muslims drink and smoke for example.

By saying you are a Muslim = to you are deeply religious and as such you become a hypocrite, should you happen to do anything that is considered against Islam?

It amuses me just how stupid that comment is.

What about people that are xxx (by birth /upbringing) but not practising at that particular time in their lives?

 

[Wij]

What about people that are xxx (by birth /upbringing) but not practising at that particular time in their lives?

Noone is any religion by birth. That's just a way of trying to claim a child's mind.

The idea that you are still of a religion when you're 'not practicing' is a little odd too. Does that include when you've actually stopped believing ?

 

[DaGaffer]

By saying you are a Muslim = to you are deeply religious and as such you become a hypocrite, should you happen to do anything that is considered against Islam?

It amuses me just how stupid that comment is.

Then why identify yourself as muslim in the first place? Being muslim comes with certain obvious prohibitions, like booze and bacon sarnies, so indulging in either and still calling yourself muslim is hypocricy no matter which way you look at it.

What about people that are xxx (by birth /upbringing) but not practising at that particular time in their lives?

By "birth" I'm CofE, I'm not "practicing" so I don't identify myself as CofE. Its pretty simple; don't call yourself muslim if you're not actually one. Of course, if you're a muslim that's not actually allowed (see earlier post), hence the hypocricy.

 

[Turamber]

To me, religion is just something for people who can't be moral on their own and need a little bit of sky fairy to make them better people.

You really said "sky fairy"? My, how original.

Most people are "in" a religion because they were born into it, not because they've particularly given it any thought or care about it. Hence Ch3tan's statistic of "99% of religious people being hypocrites".

Meanwhile atheists have absolutely no moral standard that they have to adhere to beyond obeying the law of the land.

 

[Raven]

I was born into a Christian family and went to a CofE primary school. I am not a Christian though, since being able to think for myself I have not been a Christian, so in my book I have never been one or any other religion for that matter, to say you are a religion from birth is wrong. To me you can only be considered to belong to a religion when you make the personal choice to do so.

And fucking lol at non religious people having no moral standards except the law. Being free from religion means you can make you own moral standards, regardless of the law. I have very high morals with regard to certain things, honesty, respect etc. Nothing at all to do with religion.

 

[Wij]

Meanwhile atheists have absolutely no moral standard that they have to adhere to beyond obeying the law of the land.

Codswallop. You need to understand meta-ethics.

 

[Scouse]

Meanwhile atheists have absolutely no moral standard that they have to adhere to beyond obeying the law of the land.

Lol

This is why my morality says you should always mock sky-fairy-worshipping-sodomisers-of-t3h-baby-jebus.

It also says I should help old ladies across the road, act environmentally and socially responsibly, not steal/murder/fight, remain faithful to whoever I'm with and generally try to be as nice as possible - even in the face of adversity.

However, I've come to an intellectual understanding of the abhorrent nature of organised religion and decided that taking the piss out of god-botherers is the morally correct thing to do



Edit: Obeying the law of the land never enters my head. I don't need "the rule of law".

 

[tierk]

Noone is any religion by birth. That's just a way of trying to claim a child's mind.

The idea that you are still of a religion when you're 'not practicing' is a little odd too. Does that include when you've actually stopped believing ?

and

Then why identify yourself as muslim in the first place? Being muslim comes with certain obvious prohibitions, like booze and bacon sarnies, so indulging in either and still calling yourself muslim is hypocricy no matter which way you look at it.

By "birth" I'm CofE, I'm not "practicing" so I don't identify myself as CofE. Its pretty simple; don't call yourself muslim if you're not actually one. Of course, if you're a muslim that's not actually allowed (see earlier post), hence the hypocricy.

I am also curious to know what exactly it means when they ask for your Christian name, esp with you being such an ardent aethist?

Just a name is it?

Why is pretty much every single person on this forum given names based on one religion or another?

How does that identify us?

You do not have to be practising a religion to identify yourself with a religion and it certainly doesnt make you a hypocrite for doing so.

This whole change in direction on the OP is a complete waste of time and effort and no amount of sh*t talking or clever remarks or counter arguments will persuade either camp otherwise.

/wave

 

[Raven]

Going back to Turamber's point on getting moral views from religion. This sounds as though you would be willing to do anything regardless on your own personal moral stand point. If the church was to tell you that all homosexuals are lesser humans and should be treated as such, would you agree to this? Or blacks? Or women? Would your own personal feelings not come into it? Do you even have your own feelings that haven't been forced upon you by a priest.

Its quite dangerous ground when you start allowing a religion to control how you think, its basically the same as any other strange cult.

 

[DaGaffer]

I am also curious to know what exactly it means when they ask for your Christian name, esp with you being such an ardent aethist?

Just a name is it?

Why is pretty much every single person on this forum given names based on one religion or another?

How does that identify us?

Its a cultural hangover, that's all. If someone (usually official) asks for my Christian name I could get all hot and bothered about it and demand they use the phrase "birth name" (which generally is what now appears in documentation), but its not worth the effort, and Christian terminology is shot through the whole the English language anyway (and I'll happily say "God!" or "Jesus Christ" even though it has no religious meaning for me). However, that's rather different to identifying myself as muslim and then ignoring the rules of the religion.

And its quite interesting that language itself has been co-opted to give religion a significance above other human activities; religion is a thing you do, not a thing you are, (its a learned behaviour) and yet one describes one's religion as "I am muslim" or "I am catholic", in the same way as a you'd describe your features; "I am white" or "I am tall".

You do not have to be practising a religion to identify yourself with a religion and it certainly doesnt make you a hypocrite for doing so.

This whole change in direction on the OP is a complete waste of time and effort and no amount of sh*t talking or clever remarks or counter arguments will persuade either camp otherwise.

/wave

But you still haven't explained why you would bother. If you're not practicing, you're not "doing" religion, so why identify yourself as part of a religious group? What's the point?

 

[old.Tohtori]

However, I've come to an intellectual understanding of the abhorrent nature of organised religion and decided that taking the piss out of god-botherers is the morally correct thing to do

Nothing intellectual about your posting.

Then again, you just need to feel different cause some priest findled you as a kid and now have a stick up your arse about it. Ooh look at me, i'm a big rebel cause i'm atheist!

Grow some balls you anarchist light.

----
More on topic with people who can talk normal;

Morality can't be proven to be non-religion based, as religion has pretty much shaped humanity as it is.

It's like the old "what if ww2 went that way", we don't know how things would be.

As it IS, morality and laws have stemmed, for a good part, from religious teachings.

To me, religion is just something for people who can't be moral on their own and need a little bit of sky fairy to make them better people.

This is the problem with antitheist or whateverthehell they want to be called(oh look, organised people under one idea ), they take platitudes and bad experiences, then apply it to ALL religions and ALL religious people.

There are zealot people, there are moronic people, there are hypocritical people. Religions? Not so much.

Anny theist, anti, anarchist, fundamentalist etc, everyone is human and human equals stupid.

 

[Scouse]

Its quite dangerous ground when you start allowing a religion to control how you think, its basically the same as any other strange cult.

Hence my reasoning above


Oh! Marvellous:

Nothing intellectual about your posting.

Maybe not in the post, but very strong reasoning behind it.

And judging by your retort, sucessful reasoning too

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hence my reasoning above

You anti-tists will have your turn, just a matter of time.

Actually it's rather close already.

Maybe not in the post, but very strong reasoning behind it.

And judging by your retort, sucessful reasoning too

Not even in the reasoning, nothing you say is intellectual, close minded dribble more like it. But hey, seems the moment you get called something it's "part of your plan". More blind behaviour "No! You didn't insult me! It was my plan!"

Yiou are a damaged, even if entertaining, individual.

 

[Scouse]

Lets see:

I fess up to "baiting".

I get results.

I iz t3h happies!

It is my plan!



Edit: Never been one for flaming before, but I can sorta see the attraction now!