PaliRichard

Mods, please don't relegate this to the pets section where no one will see it, as you failed to delete my account when I asked you I might as well make use of it. One return post to say my dog is missing, my wife posted yesterday but the mods kindly put it in the pet section where no one looks. He went missing yesterday (29/7/13) from Colley Road in S5 and has not been seen since. We've contacted everyone we need to contact, just need the word spreading now. Brindle staffy with white belly, he's called Kev and is as soft as a brush but giddier than a fatty in a sweet shop. Please, please, spread the word and if you hear of absolutely anything at all contact my wife (Sellers5) on here. I will consider a reward for his safe return. Please any information at all get in touch. Mods, please leave it where it is.

I have requested that my account be deleted from Sheffield Forum. I will directly cite Islamaphobia as the main reason I am choosing to go, but I do have other issues as well. Not with the running of the site, but with a small number of other users. I just wanted to thank those who have made my stay here a welcoming one. There are too many to name but I'm sure you know who you are. Ironically the only person I will name is FlamingJimmy, we haven't always got on but he at least has provided a reasonably equal sparring partner - I think I will miss him about as much as anyone I really got on with on here! Please don't waste your time saying 'sorry to see you go' and all that malarkey (especially you Janie), I'm not doing this to pander for compliments - I'm doing it to say thanks for the good times I have had on here. And btw - I'm not going to do a Chem and come back So see you all, and I hope you all have fun with debates, arguments, laughs and tears for many years to come. Nighty night.

No I can't, you are obviously capable of searching the Quran - do it yourself - I'm going to bed in a minute. To be honest I'm fed up with the blatant Islamaphobia on here, believe what you want - you clearly have no intention of taking the verses in context so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you over them - I know the context and have no reason to stand by Islam for the sake of it - I have no particular affiliation with it and disagree with much of what it teaches. I have spent a year on here trying to show people the correct context and they clearly don't care so take it as you will. BTW you have done one favour for me, I have been considering leaving SF for some time now. I have very little time and waste too much of it on here. So thanks for helping me make the decision to leave.

It wasn't a few hundred years ago. The difficulty with this line of reasoning (and I'm not suggesting you're personally doing this) is that context is often left out of it. If it was accepted at the time of Mohammad and he did sleep with Aisha (which I can't argue either way - although I would err on the side that he probably did) it wasn't at the time paedophilia (although from our modern perspective that doesn't mean we should argue that it is in any way justified) To put a slightly different spin on it the age of consent in Malta is 18 - so does that mean that in this country every one who sleeps with a 16 year old is a Paedophile? Of course not - context should always be remembered in these things - whether we agree with that content of that context is a totally different argument.

I'm going to fall for that aren't I Smithy Come on man even you can do better than that. I don't think I've missed any point have I - your changing the parameters of the discussion - I never said Mohammad wasn't involved in warfare - I said Islam doesn't contextually, textually teach death for blasphemers. Any luck with that evidence otherwise yet?

It is, and usually used out of context. The previous verses state that no one should kill any person and doing so is like killing all of mankind - your particular quote relates to those who have specifically waged war against Allah and Mohammad and seek to cause corruption - not merely those who have blasphemed - and it doesn't prescribe death as the punishment, it prescribes it as one of four punishments (three of which are nasty - I didn't say I agreed with all of the Quran!) and the fourth is exile. The following verses include the punishment for those who disbelieve without waging war - and that is that on the day of judgement God will judge and punish them. This is the difficulty with people who do quick internet searches for subjects from the Quran (and I include Islamic extremists in this) they get a line which backs up their argument and take it out of context, so the Quran prescribes death as one punishment for those who specifically wage war against Islam becomes Islam says non believers should be killed. This is going over old ground, I'll stick around another ten minutes or so then I'm leaving you to it, it becomes boring after a bit.

I know, but it isn't from the Islamic perspective (I did say this, you appear to have selectively read my post).

And the pope covered up kiddie fiddlers - does this make child abuse Christian? Of course not. Thailand is a Buddhist country but still has the death penalty - yet Buddhism teaches that taking a life is against the Buddhist religion. So let's look at the facts. Some religions don't allow certain things. Some countries/figures of authority claiming to be representative of those religions do those things. Therefore - by logical deduction - those people are not following that religion. Like I said - old and boring argument. Or let's put it a different way. I don't know a single Muslim, who follows his religious texts, that thinks putting someone to death for blasphemy is right. I do not know any Christian, who follows the religious texts that condones paedophilia. I don't know one Buddhist, that follows the religious texts that condones the death sentence. I could say 'Buddhism allows me to go and rob banks and shoot anyone who gets in the way' - I could even try to justify it to myself - but unless I can back it up with the teachings I'm afraid just saying it doesn't make it Buddhist. 10,000 Buddhists could start to follow me and say the same thing - it still doesn't make it Buddhist - in fact it would take a lot of rewriting and convincing of people to make it 'Buddhist' - but even then, even in the future if the teachings were completely changed it still wouldn't technically be Buddhist - and this is found in the Buddhist teachings.

And again you're wrong, you really should get a better understanding of something if you're going to condemn it so readily.

I'm positive. I invite you to direct me to the appropriate Quranic passage that says you should be sentenced to death for blasphemy. In fact not only is death not prescribed for blasphemy, but apostasy (which is arguably a worse crime than blasphemy in Islam) isn't even treated by a sentence of death. As the Quran is the ultimate authority in Islam, and any other text man made (from the Islamic perspective) any other text that goes against the Quran is by default putting mans word above Gods - and therefore any Muslim who does this is in fact putting the word of man on the same level as the word of God - and thus is guilty of breaking the most fundamental belief in Islam - that there is no equal to Allah. We've been through this a thousand times Mr Smith - and each time you have demonstrated you don't have an understanding of the hierarchy of the Islamic texts. Do we really have to go into it again? It's really boring.

Well it wont be if you don't have a clue about what Islam is. ---------- Post added 09-06-2013 at 20:19 ---------- I'm religious. What is it I'm supposed to be afraid of?

Many Muslims have enriched my life, as have many Christians, and black people, and white people, and gays, and straights. By the same token I don't get on at all with some Muslims, Christians, and black people, and white people, and gays, and straights. I haven't seen anything in the UK that Islam has enriched (apart from possibly architecture if you're into that kind of thing - I'm not) but then again I don't live my life in accordance with Islamic principles so I doubt I would - I'm sure those who do would have a completely different opinion.

You seem to be missing a rather large, and very obvious point. (You've also not answered my question, which didn't surprise me as it would put you in the rather awkward position of having to admit that marriage has never been a static thing, it's rules have always changed - still, an answer wouldn't go amiss) Marriage - even before the gay question, didn't have to have anything to do with God - in fact a few years ago when we were getting married there were ceremonies available (and I'm sure there still are) that actually forbade you from using religious language at all. So saying gays shouldn't marry because it forbids same sex relationships in the Bible is a non argument - because straight people don't have to get married before God - in fact marriage doesn't have to be before God. You're not even presenting a valid argument - and even if it were valid, and the Bible were your evidence, all the supporters of gay marriage would have to do is disprove the Bible as an authority - that would be easy enough anyway, but especially if you were claiming its authority from the Christian perspective. If you want to go down that road I will, but please don't start resorting to avoiding questions and calling me names and throwing insults like you usually do. So we can either look at marriage, as it exists, in which case your argument is blatantly wrong. Or we can go down the route of citing Biblical authority, ignoring all marriage/relationships outside of that which would lead us to disproving the Bible/Christian doctrine which would by default devalue all (from your perspective) marriage - including straight, religious ones. Or you could say 'You know what, I don't really have any evidence to support it - but I just don't like the idea of same sex marriage', in which case, from me at least you will get a 'fair enough - that's your opinion even though I disagree with it' and we can leave it at that. The choice is yours.

I know what you replied with does not relate to what I suggested. My suggestion was not to change Christian marriage at all, which is what I thought you wanted? Neither was it to make Christian marriage like Muslim marriage. I am quite happy for 'marriage' to stay as it is now with the inclusion of same sex couples - what I was suggesting was a compromise for those religious people who don't want Christian marriage to accept homosexual couples. That compromise is to seperate Christian marriage from law, so that Christians can still marry, as they do now in the religious union with each other and God but undergo a seperate legal document of marriage in law. This would mean same sex couples could legally marry but that this marriage would not be the same as the religious marriage that Christians have - that's how Muslims do it, some have just the Islamic ceremony and some opt for both the Islamic and legal ceremony - its not making Christian marriage 'like' a Muslim one at all. The Christian religious ceremony would remain unchanged. Finally I don't want to redefine marriage - it has, and always has had changing parameters - at which point in British history go you consider marriage was right? And why do reject previous versions and later (or future) additions to that ideal?

I need to leave it there for tonight for my part. But I sincerely thank you all for your comments/ideas, even (or especially) those that are critical of me - keep them coming! ---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 21:25 ---------- I don't know, I think I will know the deeper I go - the thread has changed directions somewhat, probably for the better from my perspective. I need to go now though - I don't think I've talked to you before but I like your line of questioning if I may say so. I like difficult questions, ones that make me say I don't know

I try to be, but I am only a human being like everyone else - prone to all the trappings and mistakes we as a species are capable of - I think perhaps it may be your idealised idea of a 'Buddhist' than any particularly terrible trait I may have that gives you that impression! There are lots of 'should's' in your comment. I wonder if I 'should' even be on Sheffield forum at all, which is part of the reason I started this thread. All your comments are useful in helping me go deeper into this question.

I have tried different forums - one of the appeals of SF is that very broad base of opinion - religious, or anti religious forums tend to be very basic in opinion and are more often than not even more us and them than this is!

They do indeed. My two best friends. One is a Muslim, one is a Lesbian - I don't agree with both of them on everything, and they probably wouldn't agree with each other on anything! I like different opinions, I would find it challenging to be close friends with those who share all of my opinions - but I like different opinions that can be explored - not those that say this is as it is and that's it. ---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 21:03 ---------- A fair point, but the difficulty is that I don't always have a point to make, so I cannot always put across information to back up my claim - I just want to explore the subject at hand, and I cannot do this without asking questions. I do however apologise for seeming (or being) confrontational - it is opinions like these I want on here - how far should one go in asking for answers - thankyou. ---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 21:05 ---------- It is the case that sometimes to enhance the debate specific questions have to be asked, only then can we go beyond the specifics!

Neither, I am looking to find genuine opinions which I don't feel I get when people avoid the questions. I can understand to a degree why people do it - you've said yourself you don't want to go too deep into your opinions on certain subjects because of the labels attached to those opinions - but from my point of view I have no intention of labelling you as anything - I just want the opinion so we can look at the question - not to find 'right' and 'wrong', but to explore it on a deeper level than we usually get to. There are, I admit one or two exceptions - and they relate almost exclusively to people making specific claims - those of religion and the supernatural usually, but that's because I'm interested in those subjects - and I think if people make specific claims they should be willing to be questioned on them.

Mr Smith. I am very capable of seeing the difference between someone answering to the best of their ability and someone avoiding a question. Merely avoiding it and saying 'I have answered' as a get out clause is not answering to the best of your ability. When people answer and I don't agree then we can go further into it or agree to disagree - but that's a million miles away from not actually answering. ---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 20:50 ---------- No one, I agree, but that's what this thread is about - it's what I want to get others opinions on - should we push and if so how should we push? I'm questioning it myself and want help - that's why I put the question out there.

Very rarely do I get to the opinions of others beyond a very gross level, most of the time I try to ask questions that try to take the debate to a level where we can all look from a different perspective, but it takes two to tango... Very often (as is the case with El Cid) despite disagreeing on the gross level I wouldn't actually, as some posters have, say they are fundamentally wrong in that view, I just want to try to understand it more. On the occasions when I do think someone is fundamentally wrong I ask questions of their own claims, but their beliefs are theirs to hold whether I agree or not!

I don't know about others but I'm not after absolute proof of anything. Just specific answers to specific questions which will allow the debate to reach a subtle level. Too many debates on here stick to black/white us/them.

Thankyou, I've been leaning this way too which is one of the reasons I posted the question. I'm still in two minds though, my difficulty is if people don't want to come here to discuss, only to give their views and not respond to questioning/criticism of those views then I might as well just read blogs where those views are present. I'm seriously considering just leaving S/F (apart from to post on topics where I can be of assistance rather than debating on here) because I really can't see any reason in being on a discussion forum if people don't want to discuss. I've already stopped posting on certain topics because of it, and I'm really not sure what to do - I enjoy it here when a debate gets going but think I'm wasting my time (of which I have little anyway) when this difficulty presents itself. What should I do? ---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 18:44 ---------- Not on here, that's the difficulty I'm having! I think you're right with the people not admitting they are wrong. I wish they would, or at least just say 'I don't know', the problem with that is the things I question are often tied to their belief system rather more than their opinion and I can see that for some people looking too deeply into that system could turn their whole world upside down - which to me begs the question why do they believe it in the first place?

Maybe if the person actually replied it would make it easier to like/dislike it? Do you really want me to repost the numerous questions I have asked you that you have ignored just to make this point? They're still on the appropriate threads if you'd care to answer them? Or maybe I could post them and this could become the beginning of the unanswered questions megathread!

I always liked Radu from the Subspecies series of vampire films. I don't like all these modern romantic chiselled vampired 'heros', my favourite vampire films are the ones where the vampires are lecherous scrubbers, it just seems to fit my imagining of what someone who is dead but not actually dead would be like.