Multiple shootings in Paris

[ChasG]

Looks like another siege in Paris

 

[dejongj]

In many cultures, individuals are considered to be worthy of respect until they prove otherwise. Courtesies that show respect include simple words and phrases like "thank you" and "please", as well as "Good morning" and "How are you?".
The fact that people are polite and considerate (well, most are anyway), shows that they have respect for others. The fact that some people are rude, impolite and show a general lack of consideration for others, shows that they are disrespectful.

Indeed I was always told not to "tutoyer" unless invited. I apply that rule still today and teach my children. Maybe it stems from something basic like English only knows "you" and not a different word for a formal versus informal version. I always use the formal version for older people, people in a position of authority, people I haven't met before, and basically anyone who hasn't given me permission to get informal.

Just my view.

 

[Keith W]

Looks like another siege in Paris

Got a link to a news source?

Just checked a couple and there is no mention

 

[ChasG]

Got a link to a news source?

Just checked a couple and there is no mention

Sadly only DM

Also ITV and Daily Mirror.

Comments say not terrorism related so I apologise for the wrong thread

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Curiously, about a year ago, I actually heard a scientist on the radio working in genetics [in theory you would think one of the least compatible areas of science] argue that he could quite easily and happily both have a faith in God and still do what he does successfully. His argument was based around the fact that having a faith in God, [regardless of what you call your version of God, implying he was saying though he was what we would refer to as a Christian because he also believes in the teachings of Christ, his principles applied equally to Muslims and Jews too] did not mean having to believe every single word in the Bible or Koran in the literal sense. He firmly believed that all these texts were written as guide by which to live your life, a 'guide' that is adaptable and can be reinterpreted to fit modern thinking, science and discoveries. He pointed out that any such text was merely an interpretation of the author that wrote it and others could well have written about the same events differently then, just as they do now. His argument was that 'organised religion' would do itself a huge amount of favour if it actually started respecting it's God instead of simply applying good/guilt/punishment as per some words in a book/on a scroll that were probably out of date even when they were first written, never mind the umpteen translations they have had since. When we look at the way the words of the Bible or the Koran have wildly differing meanings to different sects of each religion, I guess it is quite easy to actually see his point. I can't agree with him about having a faith, but I can at least understand how he's thinking.

This is quite a common way of allowing your belief not to be negated by scientific discoveries. But personally, I think it is a cop out, and an extremely contriving way of making your religion fit the world.
If you accept that your book needs to be constantly re-interpreted in light of the current mores of society, then you may as well just skip the book.
How far from the original, literal interpretation of the bible will religious adherents be dragged before they realise the texts are nothing more than historical hogwash designed to explain the historically unexplainable?

 

[boyfalldown]

This is quite a common way of allowing your belief not to be negated by scientific discoveries. But personally, I think it is a cop out, and an extremely contriving way of making your religion fit the world.
If you accept that your book needs to be constantly re-interpreted in light of the current mores of society, then you may as well just skip the book.
How far from the original, literal interpretation of the bible will religious adherents be dragged before they realise the texts are nothing more than historical hogwash designed to explain the historically unexplainable?

Personally I think your viewpoint is just a way of encourging extremism and in itself a cop out. If we take your point of view then you argue that religion cannot move on (as I'm sure it must) and must remain fixed at a static point in time. You may argue (and while disagreeing I'd accept and regocnise your view point) that religion has no place in the modern world. Sadly though events repeatedly demonstrate it does. Isn't it better that you allow part of society to move with the rest of society and find its place (and it does have one) then insist it remains static so the extreme viewpoint becomes the norm?

 

[Yv]

This is quite a common way of allowing your belief not to be negated by scientific discoveries. But personally, I think it is a cop out, and an extremely contriving way of making your religion fit the world.
If you accept that your book needs to be constantly re-interpreted in light of the current mores of society, then you may as well just skip the book.
How far from the original, literal interpretation of the bible will religious adherents be dragged before they realise the texts are nothing more than historical hogwash designed to explain the historically unexplainable?

Because while I agree in principle, or rather agree from a personal point of view, by the same token, if such a way of thinking is positive and viewing his faith in this way helps him and the valuable scientific work he does, who are we to really call him out on it? Surely if religion is to exist in a modern world [and you sure as hell aren't going to get rid of it any time soon, no matter how much you might want to] then his is a better 'format' that even non believers can at least accept and understand and live alongside of.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Because while I agree in principle, or rather agree from a personal point of view, by the same token, if such a way of thinking is positive and viewing his faith in this way helps him and the valuable scientific work he does, who are we to really call him out on it? Surely if religion is to exist in a modern world [and you sure as hell aren't going to get rid of it any time soon, no matter how much you might want to] then his is a better 'format' that even non believers can at least accept and understand and live alongside of.

Agreed, but while I agree that a religion that follows and changes along with society (as long as societys changes are for the good) is better than a fundamentalist version of religion, I believe they are both wrong. (Yep, note that word belief....!)

 

[ghoti]

You can respect a person but not respect their beliefs.

I have no respect for most religious or other supernatural beliefs but in day to day life I'd treat their proponents with at least the same courtesy and fairness I'd expect from others. I'd go even further with some individuals; I have religious friends who I love dearly and they know I think their supetnatural beliefs are silly.

 

[viv1969]

You can respect a person but not respect their beliefs.

I have no respect for most religious or other supernatural beliefs but in day to day life I'd treat their proponents with at least the same courtesy and fairness I'd expect from others. I'd go even further with some individuals; I have religious friends who I love dearly and they know I think their supetnatural beliefs are silly.

Courtesy and fairness.
Perfect.

 

[arclight]

You can respect a person but not respect their beliefs.

I have no respect for most religious or other supernatural beliefs but in day to day life I'd treat their proponents with at least the same courtesy and fairness I'd expect from others. I'd go even further with some individuals; I have religious friends who I love dearly and they know I think their supetnatural beliefs are silly.

Yes, that is about the stance I adopt.