This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.06am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I believe they would call that faith. Not in my experience. It went well beyond just having faith. It demanded total obedience of the kind some here condemn in those of another religion. I have known people very fearful of having even quite minor transgressions whilst others would happily justify what most of us would regard as serious crimes because of their interpretation of something in their faith,
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Teddy Eagle  31 Jul 24 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Olympic committee have unequivocally stated they didn’t intend any offence. That the people actually involved accept that they were basing their performance on the Last Supper doesn’t impact that at all. They aren’t responsible for the overall intended message. Offence was intended by the performers and taken by some viewers whoever was responsible doesn't change that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
As a doctrine Papal infallibility doesn't leave much wriggle room. I have sometimes wondered whether one of the regular posters here who takes an unflinching right wing view on everything, and has a bunch of devoted acolytes ready to confirm his every word, actually lives in Vatican City.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 31 Jul 24 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Olympic committee have unequivocally stated they didn’t intend any offence. That the people actually involved accept that they were basing their performance on the Last Supper doesn’t impact that at all. They aren’t responsible for the overall intended message. What do you think would happen if you or I drew a picture of somebody who, to some, resembled The Prophet? The picture could be an innocent sketch of a relation but somebody could remark that you have insulted them and their religion. I don't think your innocence would save you. If the organisers didn't think that the event could cause offence then they should be nowhere near anything that ends up in public. It's obvious to most people and in fact it was the comments that my wife and I made to each other as soon as we saw the scene. And we don't consider ourselves to be particularly religious.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Offence was intended by the performers and taken by some viewers whoever was responsible doesn't change that. No it wasn’t. I suggest you reread the link you posted. They have accepted it was a parody but not that it was intended to be offensive. The some have decided to take offence is another issue.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
What do you think would happen if you or I drew a picture of somebody who, to some, resembled The Prophet? The picture could be an innocent sketch of a relation but somebody could remark that you have insulted them and their religion. I don't think your innocence would save you. If the organisers didn't think that the event could cause offence then they should be nowhere near anything that ends up in public. It's obvious to most people and in fact it was the comments that my wife and I made to each other as soon as we saw the scene. And we don't consider ourselves to be particularly religious. It’s a different issue. In my original comment I said it was unwise and that the OIC should have been alert to the potential to cause offence. That’s true. It was pretty careless and stupid. Much of the ceremony was, in my opinion. It wasn’t though deliberate. It wasn’t their intention to offend. It just did.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 31 Jul 24 10.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it wasn’t. I suggest you reread the link you posted. They have accepted it was a parody but not that it was intended to be offensive. The some have decided to take offence is another issue. So it was a purely affectionate act. Got it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 31 Jul 24 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s a different issue. In my original comment I said it was unwise and that the OIC should have been alert to the potential to cause offence. That’s true. It was pretty careless and stupid. Much of the ceremony was, in my opinion. It wasn’t though deliberate. It wasn’t their intention to offend. It just did.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 31 Jul 24 10.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Pedant point. If it is blasphemy to make an image of the prophet how do people know what he looked like?
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
So it was a purely affectionate act. Got it. It was described as a parody. Maybe, just maybe, a gentle way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who get offended when their “book” is criticised. But of course the Catholics join in too. Very predictably, which is why it should have been avoided.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Jul 24 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
No it’s not OK to be careless, but neither was it deliberate. It was an avoidable mistake.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 31 Jul 24 10.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it’s not OK to be careless, but neither was it deliberate. It was an avoidable mistake. An avoidable mistake that offends Christians results in letters of complaint from 'Angry of Tunbridge Wells'. An avoidable mistake that offends other religions results in beheadings, knife attacks and riots. The parody was there as they knew that there was a difference in who you can offend, even though we are all meant to be protected by the same laws and morals.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.