Perfectly legal, but why would you?

[Fragony]

This pisses me off, is this a leftist provocation? If true what else can it be. Even the dead aren't safe in the state of self-denial? Isn't there some other lawn somewhere, why, exactly, there?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487017

This actually true?

[AntiochusIII]

It's the Daily Mail.

I'd put this in a wait-and-see before getting any outrage meters up.

[Pannonian]

They're being dug up all the time so the space can be used for other purposes. Whether it's so that some newer bodies can be buried (The Mail doesn't do outcries of "Bodies dug up to make way for Christian burial ground", for some reason), because they want to build some houses or a new supermarket there, or because they want to extend the road or rail system there. The fact that those bodies are being dug up is an everyday occurrence, and has been happening for centuries - it's the consequence of living in an densely populated city. The only difference is that the Mail is outraged that this is being done so so that Muslims can make use of that space - I doubt they'd make as much noise if the cadavers were being moved to make way for a luxury housing complex.

[Tribesman]

Wow a London cemetry that wasn't sold to developers for one pound . wonders never cease

[Fragony]

I doubt they'd make as much noise if the cadavers were being moved to make way for a luxury housing complex.

Probably, but seems like they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist, most if not all dutch muslims want to be burried in their home-country's, I suspect it is the same in England. This has an air of multicultural pleasing-contest all over it. I know they can do it, but I just don't understand why they insist on having it there, seems like people will miss it. I highly doubt anyone asked for this.

[Pannonian]

Probably, but seems like they are fixing a problem that doesn't exist, most if not all dutch muslims want to be burried in their home-country's, I suspect it is the same in England. This has an air of multicultural pleasing-contest all over it. I know they can do it, but I just don't understand why they insist on having it there, seems like people will miss it. I highly doubt anyone asked for this.
It's to be reused as a cemetery for all faiths, not just Muslims. There's only a corner of the cemetery that's going to be dedicated to the more conservative Muslims who follow strict requirements, not much different from dedicated corners for conservative Jews and devout people of other faiths who differ from the norm. The article speculates that it would likely be used mostly by Muslims because there's a large Muslim population nearby, but there's nothing in the description that backs this up. In short, it's trying to provoke outrage where there is cause for none - typical Daily Mail in other words.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Big deal - a bunch of people who have long been dead and are no longer cared for will be moved to make way for dead people who are cared about.

I don't see what the fuss is about, ultimately in the end they're all fertiliser, whether they're Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

[Fragony]

Willing to take your word for that, but it's the mentality that pisses me of, why must something be broken down to build something? Just build something new and keep what you got.

"To preserve the respect and dignity for everyone, I think most of the graves would have to be cleared out and we'd start afresh."

Well apparantly not, the city planner may not value it but historians and the people actually visiting it do, this is the sort of cultural relativism that tears country's apart. Can't shake the feeling that everything has to go because of the silly ideals of an elite that will never actually visit the place, just doing what is fahionable. But what you break down you can't actually rebuild, it is gone forever.

[Ronin]

Willing to take your word for that, but it's the mentality that pisses me of, why must something be broken down to build something? Just build something new and keep what you got.


because if you that you´ll run out of space.......this isn´t some cemetery out in the countryside were there is lots of space and you can just keep expanding it....this is in the middle of London and space isn´t plentifully like that

[Byzantine Mercenary]

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/news/detail.cfm?newsid=8220

''There are no plans to re-open Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park as a cemetery. Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park is a popular and historic nature park and if there were any proposals to alter the look or the functionality of the Park, there would be a full consultation with interested parties.''

well it seems that a certain daily mail has jumped to conclusions... :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

because if you that you´ll run out of space.......this isn´t some cemetery out in the countryside were there is lots of space and you can just keep expanding it....this is in the middle of London and space isn´t plentifully like that

Even more reason to do it elsewhere, can't empty muslim and jewish graves because of their religion, will have to expand anyway. But I bet nobody asked for this in the first place, and that it is a pet project of some upperclass nitwit that is completily out of touch with sensitivities. Well some. It's a bloody waste.

[Husar]

Well Fragony, if you expand and expand and expand, you won't have a lot of nature left in the end, you can't just turn all the crop fields and forests outside cities into cemetaries or you're literally left with only cemetaries in the end.

It may be hard to imagine for some but a dead body is more or less a bunch of atoms or dirt, even the bible says so, so what's the big deal about dignity etc?

Also it seems like the Daily Mail overreacted anyway.

[Fragony]

Well Fragony, if you expand and expand and expand, you won't have a lot of nature left in the end, you can't just turn all the crop fields and forests outside cities into cemetaries or you're literally left with only cemetaries in the end.

It may be hard to imagine for some but a dead body is more or less a bunch of atoms or dirt, even the bible says so, so what's the big deal about dignity etc?

Also it seems like the Daily Mail overreacted anyway.

Seems like it. But it wasn't about dignity mind you (well also a bit but to a lesser extent, I understand the need to empty graves on modern cemetary's), but look at these graves they are centuries old, it's part of the cultural heritage and should be left alone.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

the irony is that this cemetary is a great example of finding an adtional use for our old cemetarys, useing it as a wildlife haven is a great idea.

indeed there is now the option to have a tree instead of a gravestone in some places another way that graveyards can serve more then one purpose

[Watchman]

...isn't it a centuries-old practice in cities in particular to "reuse" cemetry land after enough time has passed, simply because space is somewhat scarce and the dead need to be put into the ground somewhere, anyway ? :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

...isn't it a centuries-old practice in cities in particular to "reuse" cemetry land after enough time has passed, simply because space is somewhat scarce and the dead need to be put into the ground somewhere, anyway ? :inquisitive:

Well yeah but this one already serves another purpose, and it is just too old to destroy, would be a waste of so much cool stuff, of which I am a complete nut. Removing a 50 year old grave is no waste, a 150 year old is something entirely different. But as it turns out this is a non-issue, as you noticed I aproached this particular article with some caution.

[Watchman]

This pisses me off, is this a leftist provocation? If true what else can it be. Even the dead aren't safe in the state of self-denial?Granted, that's fairly cautious for you. :tongue:

The nature-preserve issue is another thing, but what do you do ? Needs must, city grows, and the dead people still need to be buried somewhere.

And I may perhaps be excused if I work from the assumption it wasn't actually that you were worried about... :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

Working from your assumption me being against putting muslims undergrounds wouldn't be very consistent now would it ~;)

It's like this, multicultist want to build something new and I want to preserve what they want to destroy to built something new. Simple as that, you have to stop them somewehre because multiculturalism is a religion like any other, and in religion's people happen to radicalise. It's not between immigrants and natives but between multicultists elites and people that have a sense of heritage and belonging. Newcommers are caught between them.

[naut]

I don't think it's true, and browsing through Google I think it's a load of Bollox design to make the population think, "Those dirty ******* Muslims!".

[Fragony]

I don't think it's true, and browsing through Google I think it's a load of Bollox design to make the population think, "Those dirty ******* Muslims!".

Yup it was bollox and you are right, but that is logical consequence of multiculturalism. May not like it but it is.

[Watchman]

It's actually logical conclusion of racism and xenophobia, but don't let me rain on your parade...

[Fragony]

It's actually logical conclusion of racism and xenophobia, but don't let me rain on your parade...

It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?

[Ironside]

Well yeah but this one already serves another purpose, and it is just too old to destroy, would be a waste of so much cool stuff, of which I am a complete nut. Removing a 50 year old grave is no waste, a 150 year old is something entirely different. But as it turns out this is a non-issue, as you noticed I aproached this particular article with some caution.

This particular graveyard was opened 1841 and closed 1966 and the legal system to reuse graves are 75 years. So unless you have a continious dig up of graves you'll end up with digging up some very old graves.

[Tribesman]

Frag avoid te Mail , its philosophy is to give the idiots something they can hate on a daily basis while its current focus is on Islam(plus people on benefit , unmarried mothers...) it does tend to get around tohaving a pop at every non middle class english grouping that lives outside the environs of "concerned from Tunbridge Wells"

[Fragony]

Sometimes I get the feeling Tribesman secretly has some hope for me ~;)

[Mikeus Caesar]

I don't think it's true, and browsing through Google I think it's a load of Bollox design to make the population think, "Those dirty ******* Muslims!".

What more can you expect from the Daily Mail, the paper that up until September 1st 1939 considered Hitler to be a jolly good chap?

Load of bigotted ***** in my opinion.

[Watchman]

It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?Not really; it's intolerance of diversity, which is a bit different thing and something civilized people these days are expected to learn out of because we're not a bunch of bloody illiterate savages who think the cow is infertile because a jealous neighbour looked at it funny.

Seeing as how it's nowadays regarded as a distinctly bad form to want to gut your neighbour and burn down his house just because he reads the Bible a bit differently (or more banally, competes with you in business), which was not the case in, say, the 1500s...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I fondly recall from an old Clancy Brother's album...

Oh They're Moving Father's Grave to Build a Sewer.

They're moving father's grave to build a sewer
They're moving it regardless of expense.
They've dug up his remains to lay down nine-inch drains
To irrigate some posh bloke's residence.
Now what’s the use of havin’ a religion
If, when you’re dead, your troubles never cease.
If some posh city chapper—wants a pipeline to his …privie—
They’ll never let a british workman rest in peace.

Now father in his life was not a quitter
And I'm sure that he'll not be a quitter now.
And in his winding sheet, he will haunt that privy seat
And only let them go when he'll allow.
Now won't there be some bleedin' consternation,
And won't those city toffs begin to rave!
But it's no more than they deserve, 'cause they had the bleedin' nerve
To muck about a British workman's grave.


--these lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com


Seemed appropriate.

[Boyar Son]

wow, the way dead are disrespected like this is deplorable...

no more "rest in peace"???

[Slyspy]

Have you read any of this? Graveyards are reused all the time whether for new graves or not, especially in cities.

"Rest in peace" is a phrase to soothe the grieving, it means nothing to the dead.

[Boyar Son]

have you no respect for the dead?

what are they going to do with the bones and and coffin? return it to the family?!?!?:no:

[Fragony]

Not really; it's intolerance of diversity, which is a bit different thing and something civilized people these days are expected to learn out of because we're not a bunch of bloody illiterate savages who think the cow is infertile because a jealous neighbour looked at it funny.

Indeed, but someone always needs to catch up. It is just like that, you mean well, yes it is intolarance, it just is. But it just is no? What can I do?

[Husar]

wow, the way dead are disrespected like this is deplorable...

no more "rest in peace"???
Please explain who or what rests in peace there.

For me it's a dead body, that's a bunch of cells or atoms and after so many years it doesn't even look human anymore, so what exactly is the problem?

[AntiochusIII]

what are they going to do with the bones and and coffin? return it to the family?!?!?:no:Do you support the Native American movement to stop all excavations and developments on their "holy" grounds?

Also, burial is teh old, and so is cremation and stuff. Cryogenics' the way to go. :yes:

[Boyar Son]

cant believe i was challanged on that


who, or "what"??!!111

Is the org so full of morraly challanged disrespectfull people that they cant even respect resting spots??

so its ok to dig up dead people to make room for new ones? whats the difference between the people's grave that died before and the one that died now?

sheesh some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.

[Fragony]

Watch news tonight, something is going on here in Netherlands, this is bad probably.

[Husar]

sheesh some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bible says you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again. You have a mortal hull and once it's dead it's basically dirt, whether you have a soul that goes to heaven or hell is another discussion but a dead body is a dead body, even according to the bible.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Mandatory grave relocation should happen every five years or so. The farther away from the original gravesites, the better.

If a zombie attack ever does happen, I want to be up against people that have no idea where they are or where they're going.

[Csargo]

Mandatory grave relocation should happen every five years or so. The farther away from the original gravesites, the better.

If a zombie attack ever does happen, I want to be up against people that have no idea where they are or where they're going.

I doubt the zombies care where they are(or would even remember?), they just want some brains.

[Boyar Son]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bible says you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again. You have a mortal hull and once it's dead it's basically dirt, whether you have a soul that goes to heaven or hell is another discussion but a dead body is a dead body, even according to the bible.

the body is the temple of the lord, its important.

[Watchman]

And the dead file notoriously few complaints, anyway. It must not bother them too much.

[AntiochusIII]

cant believe i was challanged on that


who, or "what"??!!111

Is the org so full of morraly challanged disrespectfull people that they cant even respect resting spots??

so its ok to dig up dead people to make room for new ones? whats the difference between the people's grave that died before and the one that died now?

sheesh some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.I asked a relevant question about a related issue and this is your answer?

*sigh*

[Ironside]

cant believe i was challanged on that

who, or "what"??!!111

Is the org so full of morraly challanged disrespectfull people that they cant even respect resting spots??

sheesh some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.

You're aware that it's been standard practice for millenias in places were burial space is small, like old cities?
That's why you can find Ossuaries and Charnel houses in cities like Rome... Otherwise you would end up with more space allocated to the dead than to the living.



so its ok to dig up dead people to make room for new ones? whats the difference between the people's grave that died before and the one that died now?

The old ones have decomposed so far that they're safer to disinter and they also have a tendency to lack living relatives that knew the person in question.
Do you visit the graves of your ancestors that died 150 years ago? Do you know who they were?
Do you find archeological diggings as offensive?


the body is the temple of the lord, its important.
Still after that the user of the temple (aka mind, soul, whatever) has left it for ages ago?

I take it that you don't approve of cremation then (that incidently takes up much less space=reusing graveyards getting more rare).

[Husar]

the body is the temple of the lord, its important.
As long as you're alive, the lord kinda kills the body so he decides when it stops being important. After all he decides when you die, doesn't he?

edit: Might want to add that the bible says you get a new body in heaven, why would you still need the old one, especially after it's completely rotten and eaten by worms?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the body is the temple of the lord, its important.

Chapter and Verse please.

Disinterment is necessary but it should always be done sensetively and the remains should be reburied, in consecrated ground if they were Christian or taking acount of any other religions concerns.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Chapter and Verse please.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

[Boyar Son]

Thank you seamus:bow:

antiochus- ur question wasnt there when I was typing the answer.:inquisitive:

ironside-"You're aware that it's been standard practice for millenias in places were burial space is small, like old cities?
That's why you can find Ossuaries and Charnel houses in cities like Rome... Otherwise you would end up with more space allocated to the dead than to the living."

rome could accept this as they werent christian for a long time during their reign, and there primary concern then was to get rid of the person one way or another.

"The old ones have decomposed so far that they're safer to disinter and they also have a tendency to lack living relatives that knew the person in question.
Do you visit the graves of your ancestors that died 150 years ago? Do you know who they were?
Do you find archeological diggings as offensive?"

so when its easier to get rid of the remains of the deseaced(<<SP?) then that means its ok to remove it despite wether the person wished to be and stay buried?

150 years ago? i think they'd still be in the old country, and if i ever saw their grave i'd be pist as hell if someone tried to remove it.

do i find archeological diggings offensive? now that i think about it.... i'd rather the scientists just recognize i lay here and leave me be instead of putting me in a mueseum~D

[Louis VI the Fat]

some people really do need Jesus, more than they know.Perhaps, but not for the reasons here. Jews don't, but Christians do clear their graves, have done so since time immemorial. Temple of the Lord or not, bodily remains are not necessary to enter heaven in Christian doctrine.

Graves are cleared all the time, this is the Christian tradition. The dead should not rule over the living and keep precious space in a dead hand. Cities are not necropolises.

[Tribesman]

Thank you seamus:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Unless you are talking about necrophilia what on earth has that passage got to do with the subject .:dizzy2:


so when its easier to get rid of the remains of the deseaced(<<SP?) then that means its ok to remove it despite wether the person wished to be and stay buried?

Errrrr...graves in public cemetaries are leasehold not freehold .

[Boyar Son]

that was a response to a counter argument

second-stay buried, the land can be leased longer.

louis- really? who has? does the church or jesus say i should?

[Goofball]

It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?

You're absolutely right. In the same way that short skirts and perky breasts are the one and only source of every rape ever perpetrated.

[Husar]

You're absolutely right. In the same way that short skirts and perky breasts are the one and only source of every rape ever perpetrated.
I didn't know that Frag was that close to muslim extremist thought. ~D

Also K COSSACK, thanks for ignoring my point but let me repeat:

If God thinks your body aka his temple is and stays very important, then why does he allow it to die and rot? And why does he say things like "you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again"?

[Watchman]

really? who has? does the church or jesus say i should?Well I know which one answers if you ask, anyway... :beam:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Unless you are talking about necrophilia what on earth has that passage got to do with the subject .:dizzy2:

It's the pasage in 1st Corinthians referring to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This is the biblical source of Cossack's statement and the answer to PVC's query for chapter and verse.

In particular, I'm using the St. Joseph New Catholic edition, 1961.

Perhaps you have a different version?

Death is rather present in my life right now, but I have no love for it.

[Pannonian]

K Cossack, can you tell me about British burial practices, and also how this differs from the norm? Before you go into arguments about how this is an insult to God's Kingdom and so on, remember that this is primarily the United Kingdom, whose laws and practices override those of the Holy Book.

[Boyar Son]

Also K COSSACK, thanks for ignoring my point but let me repeat:

"If God thinks your body aka his temple is and stays very important, then why does he allow it to die and rot? And why does he say things like "you're made of dirt and you will become dirt again"?"

um... ur welcome? well ya gots ta got to heaven sometime, and that other part means the body will decay....no ups no downs.

watchman-that'll help others (not me though):whip:



"K Cossack, can you tell me about British burial practices, and also how this differs from the norm? Before you go into arguments about how this is an insult to God's Kingdom and so on, remember that this is primarily the United Kingdom, whose laws and practices override those of the Holy Book."

british burial practices...bury their dead? this argument is turning out to be "insult to God's kingdom", but what i meant in the first place was maybe the graves shouldnt be dug up.

[Watchman]

Why not ? It's not like the dead people care. (And if they do and begin actively voicing their displeasure, well, there's rather bigger problems anyway then.)

[Tribesman]

It's the pasage in 1st Corinthians referring to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
What is the previous line .


the land can be leased longer.

By who ? the dead...they have a bit of a problem when it comes to completing the paperwork to extend the lease they took out .

[Husar]

What is the previous line .
Good point, it's about not living a sinful life and not to have sex with prostitutes which sort of underlines what I said that it's not important anymore once you're dead.

The notion that the dead rest as in their bodies rest is simply a romantic, desperate try to think about something peaceful in connection with the loss of a loved one.

[Ironside]

rome could accept this as they werent christian for a long time during their reign, and there primary concern then was to get rid of the person one way or another.

So the catholic church and the Pope weren't Christian at 1626? :inquisitive: You learn something new every day.


so when its easier to get rid of the remains of the deseaced(<<SP?) then that means its ok to remove it despite wether the person wished to be and stay buried?

They're free to complain about it at any time. :yes: And they do take consideration of this issue, as it's mostly about space and as mentioned usually happens a very long time after the person's death.


150 years ago? i think they'd still be in the old country, and if i ever saw their grave i'd be pist as hell if someone tried to remove it.

So it's now a long lost grave, that serves on purpose for the living then?


o i find archeological diggings offensive? now that i think about it.... i'd rather the scientists just recognize i lay here and leave me be instead of putting me in a mueseum~D

So removal of most of the archeological diggings when you're at charge then? Does this also extend to animals? If no, to neanderthals and other predecessors to modern humans (and if any creationists drop by, supposed predecessors)?
People in not in hallowed ground? Moved to hallowed ground or not (as it disturbs thier peace)? This for non-christians and christians btw.

[HoreTore]

Well yeah but this one already serves another purpose, and it is just too old to destroy, would be a waste of so much cool stuff, of which I am a complete nut. Removing a 50 year old grave is no waste, a 150 year old is something entirely different. But as it turns out this is a non-issue, as you noticed I aproached this particular article with some caution.

If you had said a 1000 years, I might have agreed with you. But a 150 years old grave is just that, a 150 years old grave. No way is that a "historical landmark".

It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place.

[Boyar Son]

yes tribes graves can be leased longer, but i thought u knew that? u know alot of things...

And ironside if u didnt know the dead cant speak.

and dose this extend to animals...IMO no, but someone else might disagree

[Tribesman]

yes tribes graves can be leased longer, but i thought u knew that? u know alot of things...
perhaps you can contact a medium on their behalf to get their signature:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

oh and a little bit of advice Cossack , generally speaking it isn't very wise to quote a few words of scripture to try and back up your case ..since the few words are surrounded by lots of other words that give it context .

[Boyar Son]

"....a little bit of advice Cossack....very wise to quote....and back up your case ..since... give it context."

I havent done that.


besides that was an answer that dealt with a question, sorta a side argument just to counter another. besides cant really beat that? huh? huh? huh?

[Tribesman]

besides that was an answer that dealt with a question, sorta a side argument just to counter another:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and it countered it ...how exactly ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Boyar Son]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and it countered it ...how exactly ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

"God doesnt care about bodies"

my counter argument sez.....

[Tribesman]

my counter argument sez........errrr ...don't sleep with prostitutes wasn't it....a great counter arguement about moving graves eh

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...errrr ...don't sleep with prostitutes wasn't it....a great counter arguement about moving graves eh

Not really Tribes. That was the specific behavior being admonished, the concept of the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit was the reason for such an admonishment, i.e. as a believer, you should try to be above such things BECAUSE the spirit is in you.

Historically, of course, the disinterment and reinterment of remains has always been a part of Christian practice. Once reduced to bones, the bones would often be moved to an ossiary of some form or another and the graves re-used. The Church has always called for some degree of "reverence" when so doing, but the practice has a long history.

The Church does not hold re-interment to -- of itself -- constitute an act of desecration, so Cossack's point on this is more or less moot.

[Husar]

Genesis 4 : 19, how about that? It's the Old Testament but if you ever digged up an old grave and had a look inside, you'd know it's still true. ~;)

[Boyar Son]

...errrr ...don't sleep with prostitutes wasn't it....a great counter arguement about moving graves eh

u dont support STD prevention?

[Tribesman]

Now then Seamus , you wrote that Cossacks "point" was more or less moot , where I would say that it was irrelevant nonsense displaying a lack of knowledge of scripture that is generally the norm from those who like to shout "I am a Christian" on this forum .
But what can you say about his last wonderful contribution ?:inquisitive:



It's the Old Testament but if you ever digged up an old grave and had a look inside, you'd know it's still true.
Hmmmmmm....one wife is enough for me ????????

[Husar]

Hmmmmmm....one wife is enough for me ????????
It's about how you are made of dirt and will become dirt, at least in my bible. ~D

[Boyar Son]

Now then Seamus , you wrote that Cossacks "point" was more or less moot , where I would say that it was irrelevant nonsense displaying a lack of knowledge of scripture that is generally the norm from those who like to shout "I am a Christian" on this forum .
But what can you say about his last wonderful contribution ?:inquisitive:




Foolish, as you can see husars argument was the aim of my argument, but it looks like you diregarded many times, instead saying that my argument was not to sleep with prostitutes.

maybe because you think "morals" and "God" are far from useful in todays society, and that to you it would only lead to another crusade, and would prefer that graves be dug up (God knows what next) and make room for the new arrivals till they can be thrown out.



Morals of today and (<<mostly)past , comes from Good (justice, righteosness) NOT self righteosness.

People (u know who u are) are scared of religion and seek to to make it obscure today because of their fear of another "self righteos hunter" and say that society is better off without religion just because of the "bad" that came out of it, and never pay attention to the good of morralistic people.

[Watchman]

Are you implying one cannot be a moral and upright person without being religious or something... sir ?

[Tribesman]

It's about how you are made of dirt and will become dirt, at least in my bible.
Wrong chapter Husar , try again .



Are you implying one cannot be a moral and upright person without being religious or something... sir ?
Watchman , I don't think he knows what he is trying to say or imply :shrug:


Foolish, as you can see husars argument was the aim of my argument, but it looks like you diregarded many times, instead saying that my argument was not to sleep with prostitutes.
Errrrr...you quoted a passage that has nothing to do with the subject and Husar (OK he was only one chapter out) directed to a passage that doesn't support the claim that you are trying to make .

As for ...
People (u know who u are) are scared of religion and seek to to make it obscure today because of their fear of another "self righteos hunter" and say that society is better off without religion just because of the "bad" that came out of it, and never pay attention to the good of morralistic people......I do wish people that like to make an issue of the religeon they claim to follow would show at least a little knowledge of scripture..but repeatedly that sadly isn't the case .

As for this rant ...
maybe because you think "morals" and "God" are far from useful in todays society, and that to you it would only lead to another crusade, and would prefer that graves be dug up (God knows what next) and make room for the new arrivals till they can be thrown out.
....barking mad :dizzy2:

[Husar]

Wrong chapter Husar , try again .
:oops:

You're right, it's Genesis 3:19, I saw the 4 on the same page and...:wall:

[Boyar Son]

of course you would say i wouldnt know what im talking about tribes, is that why you dont bother to put anything up more than generaly

...you cant read...barking mad...quote scripture....

go ahead and ask a preist if not me, or if u have one read the bible. if fact an argument u wouldve used if i gave several EX's would be that God and christianity is irrelevant to this, so u can keep denying my arguments no matter what statement people CAN agree on.

And yes watchman that is my view.

[HoreTore]

And yes watchman that is my view.

Oh bloody hell.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

So, I'm immoral and debased in your opinion, K COSSACK?

[Boyar Son]

"It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place." from this thread

oh and what about

"I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer)" from police brutality or not thread.


yeah...I guess those thing are pretty immoral.

[Strike For The South]

Samuel 18:25-27 genteleman

[Tribesman]

go ahead and ask a preist if not me, or if u have one read the bible.


Errrrr...cossack it is you that needs to ask a priest , and it is you that needs to read more scripture (and understand it)


if fact an argument u wouldve used if i gave several EX's would be that God and christianity is irrelevant to this, so u can keep denying my arguments no matter what statement people CAN agree on.
Errrrrr...it appears that (as has been the case throughout the topic ) your post makes no sense at all .
But as an attempt to try and decipher what you are trying to say.....errrr ....No , if you gave several examples I would not say that god or Christianity are irrelevant on this subject , I would say something along the lines of...."consult your preacher and your scripture because you are just so completely and utterly wrong ".:yes:

In short Cossack it appears that what we have here once again on this forum is another prime example of someone proclaiming their faith yet being completely clueless about it .


Samuel 18:25-27 genteleman

Which one strike ? messengers or foreskins ?

[HoreTore]

"It's overgrown, old and ugly. Torch the place." from this thread

oh and what about

"I say she should shoot those(ie. the officer)" from police brutality or not thread.


yeah...I guess those thing are pretty immoral.

1. I don't see the place as anything special, and so it's just empty space that can be put to use instead. Morals don't enter the equation.
2. In war, the soldiers get killed. Are you saying that's immoral? Is it immoral to punish criminals?

But then, if childmolesting priests are considered moral, I guess I'm happy being immoral.

[Watchman]

And yes watchman that is my view.Makes me wonder how many of these supposedly ethically underdeveloped and morally putrid unbeliever types you have then actually met...

There's an anecdotal tale about Sir James Frazer, author of The Golden Bough and one of the first dabblers in anthropology, being once asked if he'd actually ever met any of these savages he'd written so extensively about. Sir Frazer, aghast at the thought, exclaimed, "Heavens no!"

[Pannonian]

May I ask a question? Why are people discussing scripture in relation to policy? What the hell has the latter to do with the former?

[Tribesman]

May I ask a question? Why are people discussing scripture in relation to policy? What the hell has the latter to do with the former?
Because someone attempted to use religeon and scripture to express views in relation to the policy .......not very well though due to an apparant lack of knowledge about religeon , scripture and policy .:shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now then Seamus , you wrote that Cossacks "point" was more or less moot , where I would say that it was irrelevant nonsense displaying a lack of knowledge of scripture that is generally the norm from those who like to shout "I am a Christian" on this forum .
But what can you say about his last wonderful contribution ?:inquisitive:

I would not and did not label it nonsense. You can make an argument for irrelevant -- in context -- and hence moot, but I have heard the very theme invoked by Cossack in at least half a dozen homilies by 3 or 4 different priests. It is an important means of conceptualizing the divine in all of us.


Hmmmmmm....one wife is enough for me ????????

My one is quite sufficient for me -- and far too much for me to handle as well as she does me. Thanks for correcting your chaptering Husar! :devilish:

[Tribesman]

My one is quite sufficient for me -- and far too much for me to handle as well as she does me. Thanks for correcting your chaptering Husar!
Well the thing there Seamus is that two of the forefathers of the bloke with two wives must have both married their own sisters which means the two wives must both have been his cousins...I suppose there was a big demand for bakeries east of eden as the locals were very into bread .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well the thing there Seamus is that two of the forefathers of the bloke with two wives must have both married their own sisters which means the two wives must both have been his cousins...I suppose there was a big demand for bakeries east of eden as the locals were very into bread .

Well, we started with Adam and Eve in book one, no other characters mentioned at first, so I guess it's all.....relative....:wiseguy:

[Boyar Son]

you know what im talking about tribes...but i guess i cant convince your stubborness...

that argument was a counter to husars... HE went into religion... then I COUNTERED it....get it???? plz tell me u do??/1?!!?!1?1/1


oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet. so... I win?

[Pannonian]

Goodness me, I swear my use of English and comprehension of the nuances of debate were far more developed when I was 10, let alone 16. Cossack, you should start a thread on how schools in Florida have failed to provide their students with a basic education.

[Watchman]

oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet.You mean you had one to begin with ?

so... I win?:rtwno: No.

[Tribesman]

oh and my argument hasnt really been countered yet. so... I win?
errrrr...for your arguement to counter something it would be a good sign if it hadn't been described as moot , wrong or irrelevant nonsense .


Goodness me,........
Pann that is funny , cruel but funny :2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let's try and elevate the discussion back above personal comments about an opponent's education, shall we?

:beadyeyes2:

[Tribesman]

Let's try and elevate the discussion back above personal comments about an opponent's education, shall we?

OK then Banquo , on topic , what do you do up your way when you dig graves , or do you have municipal grave diggers ?

[AntiochusIII]

i winI must admit, it's rather rare when anyone in the Backroom declares himself a winner. Usually an argument in a thread does not contain a definite conclusion but rather stopped, and occasionally someone with a sense of earnestness would admit defeat and that he learns something from the argument. But self-declared victory? That's something new.

I don't like this that much, really. One of the reasons I got out of "formal" debating was its narrow view on the activity: victory and defeat, tactics, even a subtle admittance of using fallacies (or the annoying habit of pointing every one of them out)...and little about actual worthwhile dialogue and the topic itself beyond what's useful for an argument. While I love debating I love my pacifism more.

I also have to admit that I don't really know what people do with corpses that are too old or graveyards that are too cramped. I guess it never occurs to me that the dead cares much about that stuff.

[Boyar Son]

nah this thread is gonna be locked anyway...might as well declare myself winner.

i'm still waiting for an argument.....

[Louis VI the Fat]

I also have to admit that I don't really know what people do with corpses that are too old or graveyards that are too cramped. In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries:


Warning, pictures of the deceased follow. May be gruesome or disturbing to some.

Behold the great catacombes of Paris and Rome:




Stop!
This is the Empire of the Dead.



https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4636/empiredelamortrb8.jpg


https://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5373/catacombsxx5.jpg


https://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9300/catacombeszb6.jpg


https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8497/romeoe7.jpg

[Tribesman]

In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries:

Ah tradition , its kind of like the question to Banquo , changes in practice , I wondered if in his part of the country when you dig a grave do you put the old bones on top of or under the coffin nowadays .

[Proletariat]

In a long Christian tradition dating all the way back to the first centuries AD, in large, cramped cities like Paris or Rome, they were moved elsewhere, to large ossuaries...


FWIW, in Rome it's apparently been against tradition to bury bodies inside where the city walls were, because of ancient tradition and hygiene. That's why the church of San Paolo was just outside of Rome, since even Paul couldn't have his sarcophagus inside the walls. Maybe this is bull, but that's what my tour guide there said a few weeks ago.

:tumbleweed:

[Boyar Son]

thats orginized

too bad bodies are dug up (if they were)

[AntiochusIII]

i'm still waiting for an argument.....What was your argument again?


Behold the great catacombes of Paris and Rome:Hey, and I always heard about the Catacombs of Paris. Curious indeed that I never made the connection that Catacombs + Paris can only translate into "Christian tradition in burying the dead." I suppose my IQ (ability to connect the dots) isn't all that high after all. :sweatdrop:

And of the pictures, they look kinda awesome in a way only necropolises can be. My first thought is about the Skeleton Warrior of RPG games. :inquisitive:

I presume they need to be buried first in actual graveyard ground unless you have a sarcophagus or something like that, is that right?

[Louis VI the Fat]

FWIW, in Rome it's apparently been against tradition to bury bodies inside where the city walls were, because of ancient tradition and hygiene. That's why the church of San Paolo was just outside of Rome, since even Paul couldn't have his sarcophagus inside the walls. Maybe this is bull, but that's what my tour guide there said a few weeks ago. Rome! I'm jealous! Hope you had a good time.

I would assume that your tour guide knew what he was talking about.

In Paris, the catacombs are under the city centre. They are also much younger than Rome's. Graveyards and cemeteries were to be found within the city walls, until they were banned in uh, some distant past I don't remember. 18th or maybe even 19th century I guess. It took Europe a while to catch up with the hygienic standards of the Romans...

[Proletariat]

I'm glad my ghey little fun fact was appreciated. :laugh4: And thanks, Rome and all of Italy I saw was really amazing.

(Sorry to derail the thread, but it was really just cossack being belligerent and a bunch of people taking the bait until we got on the catacombs thing anyway)

[Boyar Son]

actually... read the first two arguments pg 1 and 2. more like opinions but challanged nonetheless.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ah tradition , its kind of like the question to Banquo , changes in practice , I wondered if in his part of the country when you dig a grave do you put the old bones on top of or under the coffin nowadays .

I believe we have municipal gravediggers. I'm not entirely sure, as most of my relatives end up in our own mausoleum - where we pack up the bones of peripheral members and pop them in an ossuary after about a hundred years or so. A priest officiates at such events, of course - but then I guess we are godless Catholics disposed to such wickedness.

As far as I can tell about where the bones in graves go, I suspect in my part of the country the badgers dig most of them up, so it becomes moot. :beam:

[Tribesman]

I believe we have municipal gravediggers.
Well we have them in town , but out of town its usually the neighbours that dig the grave .

It was just that I have noticed changes over the years , it always used to be that you piled the bones on the spill then put them back when you filled , but now more often people put them back before the coffin goes in .


A priest officiates at such events, of course
Oh the priest will turn up , the family always supplies good stuff for whoever is digging and the priest ain't gonna miss out on a drink is he .:laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

It works both ways, but you are pretty eager in dismissing one of them. Can't change human nature. Homo sapiens non vrinat im vintum, you can find that on a house from 1560 in Amsterdam, 'a wise man doesn't piss against the wind'. Isn't diversity the one and only scource of every genocide in human history?


Not really; it's intolerance of diversity, which is a bit different thing and something civilized people these days are expected to learn out of because we're not a bunch of bloody illiterate savages who think the cow is infertile because a jealous neighbour looked at it funny.

Seeing as how it's nowadays regarded as a distinctly bad form to want to gut your neighbour and burn down his house just because he reads the Bible a bit differently (or more banally, competes with you in business), which was not the case in, say, the 1500s...
As far as I can see, most genocides in history arose from all of the following conditions being fulfilled:
1. in a heterogenous population there are clearly identified groups with an intuitive feeling of difference between them - they have different needs, and different ideas of how a country/piece of land should be ruled. These may be very loose correlations, but sometimes also stronger and more accurate correlations
2. these needs/political ideas, which are usually based on their cultural heritage, must seem incompatible
3. there must be a perceived or real threat from the other group, which may be one or more of:
i. the group which currently holds power fears they may lose power soon and thus be assimilated by another, large population group.
ii. the group which previously didn't hold power, is growing stronger and now sees a chance to overthrow the previous group, and claim power, thus introducing their own political ideas as the ruling ones, but they fear the previous holders of power, and their revenge in case of failure in the revolt, and decide to strike preemptively and genocide the previous group that held power
iii. the previously ruling group was considered, by the other group, to not be tolerant enough to that group, and therefore the new group, which is believed to be able to increase its power soon, may wish to do some form of "revenge" (whether the perceived unjustice they suffered was real, or imaginary). The ruling group fears either revenge against intolerance, or actions in response to imaginary cases of unjust treatment. Then, the other group may be genocided. Or - the previously ruling group may lose power, and the new group commits a genocide of the previous group.
iv. a minority group is more successful on average than the other groups. There is a fear among the majority group that these may gain power inofficially, even if they don't do so officially. The fears of what they may do once in power, may be real or imagined. There may also be envy and/or poverty driving the poor to target the rich.
v. a group containing a few very nasty characters who are given much attention give the entire group a bad name. When the fear of innocents within this group grows, the fear from them to the other groups grows too, and this becomes a vicious spiral towards increased mistrust. The group will in some cases start protecting even its criminals and feel more in common with them, than with the non-criminals of other groups. When this happens, things will soon explode
vi. a group is given privileges and very different treatment by the law, even if its crimes are no less disgusting than the crimes of others. This is another case of the last part of v, i.e. the group which has been identified as a group, protects criminals of its own group, over non-criminals of another group.
4. when the fear that individual-based actions against the persons that the fear is really directed against, will receive opposition from the group, in that the group will protect its criminals either for fear of the whole group going to be next anyway (this may be a perception, or a correct analysis), or because of scenarios such as under 3v.
5. the potential victim group must be large and/or strong enough that the perception of the threat makes it at least somewhat realistic to believe they do stand a chance to gain a large amount of influence. Alternatively, the hatred from the potential victim group must be strong enough, that their fighting spirit is worth fearing.

A few well-known examples of the points under no. 3:
3ii - French revolution, Russian revolution
3iv - The massacre of the Huguenots
3v - almost all cases of massive heterogenity coupled with mistrust
3vi - Huguenots, French revolution, Russian revolution

I may have forgotten a few points under no. 3. I have also not always added the necessary detail that most of the time the threat is perceived and not real, but the problem is when one side mistrusts the other, the other side must mistrust the first, and so the fear may eventually no longer be perceived, but real. Indeed, with large enough mistrust, both parts will feel they are in a situation where the only options are to commit a genocide, or suffer one.

As for the situation in Europe today, we have no. 1, no. 2, 3ii, 3iii (the multiculturalists try to make the immigrants feel oppressed by the entire local population, based on their race and/or religion, even though in Europe minorities are tolerated more than anywhere else in the world, or in history), 3v, some people try hard to create 3vi, and some people are trying hard to create no. 4 which we've only seen partly so far. Only no. 5 is missing to create a situation that historically, within around 20 years, usually results in a genocide.

Edit: naturally, the whole thing about preaching multiculturalism and trying with contacts between individuals bridge gaps and create trust by social interactions, is slowing down and pushing conflicts between groups forward in time. However, can they really prevent genocide completely? I have seen nothing yet, which convinces me it can. But since any public statement against multiculturalism is called racism and all who protest are thrown in jail or fired from their jobs in a lot of European countries, is there then any way of avoiding and solving the underlying conflicts that risk causing such events? Or will we rush towards another disaster, and those who suspect its coming can do nothing but cry over the stupidity of mankind? Even if a lot of people have friends among the group that may become victim, will that prevent the bloodshed? I don't think so. Many of the survivors of various genocides have told stories about being betrayed by people who were once some of their dearest friends, or seeing friends within their own group killed by friends within another group. At the heated moment where there was no choices except joining the genocide or being killed, most people out of self-preservation chose to save themselves, or try to avoid contributing to it but without daring to interfere with it. At a moment where the perceived threats are strong, or the probability of these threats being true increases high enough, human beings tend to switch from rationality to irrationality. The whole idea that preaching will prevent the disaster, forgets this fact: that when the pressure goes high enough, the rationality that is being preached (for example, that racism is madness), is forgotten.

At the moment, one may question what group will be identified as a threat, and genocided. Will it be "all immigrants", "all non-immigrants", "all muslims", or "all who at any time at all spoke about dangers of multiculturalism"?