Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:Tax evasion makes someone less religious?

My point was that he was using Kent Hovind, the criminal, as his "pillar of religion".

GG

Jesus was a criminal. Just saying.

matty you didn't say "some" religious people. In your OP you made a claim about scaremongering and then gave an example of a religious person than asked this question.

"So my question is, why do Religious people not wish to take vaccines, and what scriptural reasons would there be for not using them? "

So you were obviously trying to tie religious people to scaremongering about vaccines and autism, as exampled by GWAR! who took your bait and ran with it.

It was then shown to you that while their are some cultic groups that do not allow people to practice medicine such as Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists.

So you owe an apology to all the religious people you lumped in with the cultic/erroroneous ones.

Also my Kentucky comment was a joke, I hope you took it that way. I would love to have a sit down with you in person and maybe roll some dice as my orks throttle you.

Just to prepare you...



GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:Tax evasion makes someone less religious?

My point was that he was using Kent Hovind, the criminal, as his "pillar of religion".

GG

Jesus was a criminal. Just saying.

Is an innocent man still considered a criminal where you come form?

GG

My trusty ultramarines would vanquish your filthy xeno's while basking in the emperors light!

(Unless Captain Mattarius was drinking heavily at which point his first company veterans would fall asleep up a tree)

generalgrog wrote:
Is an innocent man still considered a criminal where you come form?

GG

It is unclear whether or not Jesus was guilty or innocent, as Matthew and Mark contradict one another as regards his admission to the Sanhedrin. Though, if he did claim divinity, then it is hard to argue that he did not speak blasphemy according to the religious institutions that held power at the time.

And, before anyone accuses me of hating on Christians, it is fully possible to violate a law without being morally reprehensible and I am making no judgment as to the moral worth of Jesus' supposed actions.

Well, yeah. That is basically what I was driving at. Being a criminal doesn't disqualify someone from being religious.

@GG - I was under the impression that blasphemy was a capital crime at that time. He committed that crime (and was executed for it), hence he was criminal. Not saying that I think that it was right or wrong, or that I even particularly care.

Albatross wrote:@GG - I was under the impression that blasphemy was a capital crime at that time. He committed that crime (and was executed for it), hence he was criminal. Not saying that I think that it was right or wrong, or that I even particularly care.

It was blasphemy according to "certain" religious leaders. Even Pontus Pilate the Roman Governor said "I can find no fault in this man".

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were also criminals according to you.

GG

Oh Jebus, here we go... (see what I did thar?)

The man known as יֵשׁוּעַ was, in a word, a Scapegoat. He was falsely accused and was, essentially, a "political" criminal. Those in charge "de jure" (aka T3h Romanz!), as already pointed out, had no quarrel with him and pretty much had nothing to convict him with, but the local religious leaders used their political influence to force their hand.

-shrug-

That is, of course, taking the Biblical tale of his "crimes" and trial as fact, for which there is little (but some) independent historical evidence.

Or, in the words of Douglas Adams, some bloke nailed to a tree for saying "Lets be nice to each other for a change."

generalgrog wrote:It was blasphemy according to "certain" religious leaders. Even Pontus Pilate the Roman Governor said "I can find no fault in this man".

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were also criminals according to you.

GG

I'm about 99% certain they both actually were criminals at some points. You can be right, justified, and wholly blameless and still be on the wrong side of the law.