|
Post by aquatic on Nov 24, 2013 15:13:42 GMT
But, as you are, could you ask MR why she thinks I was raised a Christian, please. Please allow me to attempt to answer that question Aqua You were raised a Christian whether you liked it or no You were raised in a country whose laws are based on Christian precepts, whose ruler is a defender of the Christian religion, whose schools were mainly founded by Christians and run on Christan lines. You would have undoubtedly said prayers and sung hymns and have been inculcated with stories of Christianity in your schooldays. The music you heard would have been from a profound Christian heritage, the art you were introduced to expressed some of the most astounding sentiments of Christianity , the literature you read undoubtedly included works of great beauty wholly inspired by Christianity Had you been in the Cadet Force at school you would have sworn allegiance to the Christian God You would have known, and still know, the great stories of Christian self-abnegation and heroism, the communal suffering of Christians in the face of persecution of their religion, the great journeys and language of St Paul, the sad lonely death of Jesus after his betrayal in Gethsemene Yes you were raised a Christian whether you liked(d) it or not A lovely piece of schmaltz, cleefarquhar. Thank you for taking the trouble. An out-of-date caricature, of course. I don’t think your proposition has been axiomatic for most people since WW2 or earlier. Some of the influences you list may have been difficult for some people to avoid, but don’t overestimate the extent or profundity of their effect. Although they had me baptised when a baby, my parents didn’t go to church or send me to Sunday School or mention God or Jesus. I went to a new county primary school which wasn’t particularly traditional. I’m not sure there was much inculcation going on in non-church schools. Of course we had assemblies and did nativity plays – but that’s like panto, isn’t it? (My grandson Joseph played Joseph last year and it was hilarious to see him and Mary throwing the baby Jesus to each other when they weren’t the focus of the action. I nearly had to leave the hall.) You mention prayers and hymns, but I don’t remember pupils taking them seriously. At secondary school RE lessons were seen as a joke, and probably were. Very few people did GCEs in RE. I was never a cub, a scout, a guide or a cadet – so didn’t have to swear allegiance to the Christian queen or god. As for music, I was under the spell of jazz and blues – the devil’s music (tho you might want to point to its religious or spiritual origins, but that wouldn’t be why I went there). As for art I was more involved in trying to make it than in viewing it. As to beautiful or powerful literature, I think Marlowe is a great dramatist, but can’t believe he was Christian or even any other sort of believer; and Shakespeare challenged, at least, aspects of Christian ideology. All the more surprising when you could get punished for unorthodoxy then. The two great satirists, Pope and Swift, were supposedly Christian – but Pope, an avowed Catholic, expressed Deist rather than Catholic views, and Swift, an Anglican clergyman, wrote much that hardly seems ‘Christian’ at all. You see, cleefarquhar, there are other ways of looking at things in a pluralistic secular society, which is what we've had for at least 70 years.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 18:55:26 GMT
Strictly speaking, the Prophet laid down that the sentence of death, although just and permissable, should really be deferred - Allah will then send them to Hell to burn in everlasting torment. In the meantime, the appropriate sentence is continual beatings and torture, for as long as possible. On the other hand, 36% of young Moslems in Britain assert that apostates should be killed, so what does the Prophet know? OMG! Aqua will be beaten and tortured? Continuously! I bet he's shitting himself! Do you ever have anything sensible to say? I wouldn't object if you were even the slightest bit amusing. You find it a laughing matter that people have been tortured and murdered for giving up Islam?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:06:37 GMT
Let me remind you how it went, up to this point: Cleefy originally wrote: Nov 20, 2013, 8:16am, cleefarqhuar wrote:...The lie [i.e. that Muslims 'seem to be perfectly happy adapting over time to British ways'] is evident in visiting any British city and inded most towns in Britain, where you wuill see ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi., making no attempt to adapt to British ways. They have even imported the political corruption of their homeland... To this, aqua commented: Nov 21, 2013, 1:03am, aquatic wrote:The point being that Nay/cleefarquhar/allman and MR...hold immigration from Pakistan to be the chief abomination. Any whites included in that? You then observed: Nov 21, 2013, 1:27am, ncsonde wrote:His point would be every bit as valid were the inhabitants of Rawalpindi as white as yourself... If only you'd stopped there! It's a reasonable point to make, even if you offer no evidence for it - you couldn't really, because there are no significant communities of white Muslims in Britain. But then it goes horribly wrong: Quote:...or if instead of Rawalpindi, he' said Sofia. You still don't realise what you've done though, because you go on to explain: Quote:Nay's point that Moslem communities in this country behave as self-contained ghettoes would be as valid when compared to a Moslem community in Sofia as it is when compared to one in Rawalpindi. There is no 'comparison' between a Moslem community in Sofia and one in Rawalpindi. Most people in Rawalpindi are Muslim.? So what? Where does Nay contend that this is the issue? That wasn't his objection. His objection was that Moslem communities here were not integrating. As they do not in Sofia, or anywhere else. Link us to the part of Nay's argument where this was a premise, please. Exactly the point of comparison that Nay was arguing. The argument is that Moslem communities do not integrate. That was Nay's contention. He did not mention skin colour, or racial origin. He did not mention that his argument only applied to Moslems deriving from a country where they were in the majority. His argument was they formed a ghetto. No, we don't. As I said - best you just forget it. You're hopelessly lost and confused by the whole thing, or you're pretending to be. Best you just stay on the topic, if you could. Answer the questions and substantial points put to you, for once.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:11:18 GMT
It is aqua's offspring who risk prosecution for apostasy, not him, dozy! He had the good fortune to be raised a Christian in an enlightened nation. Aqua! Are you aware that your offspring are at risk of continual beatings and torture, for as long as possible.I'd be really worried if I were you, mate. It's his daughter-in-law he should be worried about. You don't care there are 20,000 "honour" crimes reported in this country every year? No, why should you - doesn't affect you, does it?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:15:55 GMT
I'm sorry, Nick. You made a very stupid mistake in equating Rawalpindi with Sofia.. I made no such equation. You were the one who made a stupid mistake in supposing I did, for some bizarre reason. As I said - forget it, before you make even bigger a fool of yourself. No one else is interested in your ham-fisted attempts to show you know more about correct language use than anyone else. Get back to the point please. Answer the questions put to you. Don't think for a minute that any onlooker hasn't noticed that you won't, or can't. You know what score you get for that sort of tactic in a properly moderated debating contest?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:18:50 GMT
You misunderstand: I'm not defending Nay. I'm defending truth and decency and the canons of rational debate. A propos of which, it would seem that you have some sort of objection to it being insinuated that you're a racist. Lesson learned, I would say. So you did miss my point(s). I've no idea what points you've got floating around in your head, Sir Humphrey. Why don't you simply make them: then they won't be missed by anyone, will they? Except by Jean.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:21:13 GMT
Please allow me to attempt to answer that question Aqua You were raised a Christian whether you liked it or no You were raised in a country whose laws are based on Christian precepts, whose ruler is a defender of the Christian religion, whose schools were mainly founded by Christians and run on Christan lines. You would have undoubtedly said prayers and sung hymns and have been inculcated with stories of Christianity in your schooldays. The music you heard would have been from a profound Christian heritage, the art you were introduced to expressed some of the most astounding sentiments of Christianity , the literature you read undoubtedly included works of great beauty wholly inspired by Christianity Had you been in the Cadet Force at school you would have sworn allegiance to the Christian God You would have known, and still know, the great stories of Christian self-abnegation and heroism, the communal suffering of Christians in the face of persecution of their religion, the great journeys and language of St Paul, the sad lonely death of Jesus after his betrayal in Gethsemene Yes you were raised a Christian whether you liked(d) it or not A lovely piece of schmaltz, cleefarquhar. Thank you for taking the trouble. An out-of-date caricature, of course. I don’t think your proposition has been axiomatic for most people since WW2 or earlier. Some of the influences you list may have been difficult for some people to avoid, but don’t overestimate the extent or profundity of their effect. Although they had me baptised when a baby, my parents didn’t go to church or send me to Sunday School or mention God or Jesus. I went to a new county primary school which wasn’t particularly traditional. I’m not sure there was much inculcation going on in non-church schools. Of course we had assemblies and did nativity plays – but that’s like panto, isn’t it? (My grandson Joseph played Joseph last year and it was hilarious to see him and Mary throwing the baby Jesus to each other when they weren’t the focus of the action. I nearly had to leave the hall.) You mention prayers and hymns, but I don’t remember pupils taking them seriously. At secondary school RE lessons were seen as a joke, and probably were. Very few people did GCEs in RE. I was never a cub, a scout, a guide or a cadet – so didn’t have to swear allegiance to the Christian queen or god. As for music, I was under the spell of jazz and blues – the devil’s music (tho you might want to point to its religious or spiritual origins, but that wouldn’t be why I went there). As for art I was more involved in trying to make it than in viewing it. As to beautiful or powerful literature, I think Marlowe is a great dramatist, but can’t believe he was Christian or even any other sort of believer; and Shakespeare challenged, at least, aspects of Christian ideology. All the more surprising when you could get punished for unorthodoxy then. The two great satirists, Pope and Swift, were supposedly Christian – but Pope, an avowed Catholic, expressed Deist rather than Catholic views, and Swift, an Anglican clergyman, wrote much that hardly seems ‘Christian’ at all. You see, cleefarquhar, there are other ways of looking at things in a pluralistic secular society, which is what we've had for at least 70 years. Bloody hell! You can speak, then, Aqua? Make a point requiring more than half an oblique sentence? Just so long as it's easy as piss, eh?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 24, 2013 19:29:29 GMT
I'm afraid you did; Nay's point would be every bit as valid if instead of Rawalpindi, he'd said Sofia, is what you wrote. It's obvious now that that isn't what you meant; but it's what you wrote, and that's what we have to go on, to begin with. You've now explained that you meant something different. Please be more careful in future.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 19:42:54 GMT
I'm afraid you did; Nay's point would be every bit as valid if instead of Rawalpindi, he'd said Sofia, is what you wrote. His point is equally as valid, certainly. That doesn't mean Rawalpidni is the same place as Sofia. I did not mean Rawalpindi was identical to Sofia, no. I would be amazed if anyone but you thought as much. What I wrote was that his point would be equally as valid applied to Rawalpindi as to Sofia. And it is. No, I haven't. I have explained that I said something different to your bumbling misinterpretation. I'm sorry - but to be frank it's impossible to be so careful in one's use of language and logic to avoid confusing someone like you. Just can't be done - as will be testified by countless people who have got entangled with your inability to understand English and reason on these messageboards. This would be kind of quaint and cute if you were indeed as aspergic and as childlike a simpleton as you pretend to be: then we'd all avoid any linguistic construction more complicated than Janet and John. As it is, we're all well aware that you have a psycho-political agenda behind your obfuscating diversions: insult anyone who disagrees with you, avoid any points that you cannot answer, stroke yourself with the illusion that you're especially clever. Answer the questions put to you.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 24, 2013 20:11:14 GMT
Bloody hell! You can speak, then, Aqua? Make a point requiring more than half an oblique sentence? Just so long as it's easy as piss, eh? Worth your posting, was it? FWIW, eg I racked my brains over my memories of Marlowe and Shakespeare, and Pope and Swift. (I've been reincarnated several times.) All while pissing, of course.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 24, 2013 23:26:54 GMT
Bloody hell! You can speak, then, Aqua? Make a point requiring more than half an oblique sentence? Just so long as it's easy as piss, eh? Worth your posting, was it? No. To be frank Aqua, responding to your posts never has been, in my experience. You don't respond rationally, you don;t engage seriously, you have nothing to say. What you ever do say I could pick out and post from the Idiot's Guide to Politically Correct Inanities on the Road to Socialist Heaven. Yeah. Just don't engage with the topic, whatever you do, old chap, will you?
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 25, 2013 0:04:49 GMT
No. To be frank Aqua ... What you ever do say I could pick out and post from the Idiot's Guide to Politically Correct Inanities on the Road to Socialist Heaven. It's on my Xmas list ... almost already. You'll probably notice an improvement next year, then. Enjoy it, if you can tear yourself away from all the other Idiot's Guides you'll be given.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 25, 2013 1:31:21 GMT
Yeah - and are you ever actually going to answer Nay's question? Or Marchesa's? Anyone's? Or are you like Jean just happy insinuating insults if you can't think of anything to support your position?
And what would that be, I wonder? This socialist heaven you realised as a privileged middle-class hippy in the 70s you could enjoy a career forging?
Well - first and foremost, let's enlarge the State as much as possible: get it into everything, from cradle to grave. Everyone working for the State; everyone owing their existence to the State. Then everyone can be "equal". Except us, of course - we are the State. We deserve a little bit more for all our brain power, shaping this glorious heaven of equality. We deserve to retire to Godalming, on our superannuated final-salary gold-plated pensions. The workers, what poor deluded suckers are still hanging around, can have it too, one day, when we've finally got rid of the capitalists - we can import millions upon millions of cheap foreign labour to earn it for us. We won't tell anyone that's what we're doing, cos they're ignorant racists, of course, not having had the benefit of our enlightened studies at whatever second-rate redbrick university we loafed our way through, and they might object to their wages being deflated, housing being put out of their reach (oh good - they'll have to have us as their landlords, as it should be), or their communties being unrecognisably reshaped (oh good - brave new world!) We'll throw borrowed or printed money (spit, hiss, boo) at them, and make them all sucklers on our tits, and by the time they figure out what's happening it'll be easy to paint them as racist, fascist extremists, clinging to some antiquated pastoral vision of village-cricket olde England. Otherwise those of us at the BBC - such a shame we can't make them all take the Guardian, but we've got to keep up some sort of pretence - will quietly and subliminally educate them in the wisdom of our ways.
By which time the working classes will have become ever more impoverished, compared to people like us, and ever more infantile and dependent, on people like us, and all the money and wisdom we can give to them. But that's all as it should be - the poor children, looking up to us, their wise guardians; just as it should be that we, their wise guardians, are rolling in unearned wealth, justly taken as donations from the sweat of their labours in order that we can guide them to the future. How hard we've had to work for it!
That's about it, isn't it, Mr.Godalming MBE?
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 25, 2013 2:17:15 GMT
Uncannily what I was about to say.
Silly arse.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 25, 2013 8:23:45 GMT
Uncannily what I was about to say. Silly arse. Don't be so hard on yourself. I've no doubt you meant well, for everyone. Not as much as for yourself, of course, but then every good socialist knows: we're all hypocrites. Tony Blair deserves his twelve million a year, Gordon Brown deserves his first class air travel on working people's without-a-by-your-leave cost so he can get to the Commons in order not to speak or vote or, for that matter, turn up. It's what good socialism is all about.
|
|