Alcohol-related hospital admissions reach record level

Yea they should pay ! cuz they are the one who started to drink and thats their fault and sometimes the government of UK also accountable for this issue


Whats the views of the government ?
Open many bars while opening many AA centers or do they have a proper plan ?

format_quote Originally Posted by Mr.President

Yea they should pay ! cuz they are the one who started to drink and thats their fault and sometimes the government of UK also accountable for this issue

Whats the views of the government ?
Open many bars while opening many AA centers or do they have a proper plan ?

Government doesn't 'open bars', but in terms of numbers it's actually the reverse. Pubs and bars have actually been declining in numbers for years as a result of the smoking ban, the recession and (mostly) just changes in leisure habits. The increase in hospital admission isn't the result of more drinking overall but an increase 'binge' drinking, especially among the young.

As to their 'views', same as the last lot. They can't increase restrictions on drinking, or levy much higher taxes as firstly they need the tax money and secondly they would never get re-elected. If it had been discovered recently alcohol would never have been made legal, but drinking is just so deeply ingrained in Western society it's impossible to change it now. The only real attempt was in the US in the '20s and '30s, and it was an unmitigated disaster (except for the gangsters who made vast fortunes); there ended up with twice as many illegal bars as there had been legal ones. Islamic countries are very fortunate in that respect.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Islamic countries are very fortunate in that respect.

And that's because the muslim population choose not to drink alcohol, hence alcohol ban works.
In the west, when almost the whole population wants to drink, it is impossible to ban alcohol.
In the west, when almost the whole population think extra-marital affairs is ok, it is impossible to ban prostitution.
In the west, when almost the whole population think nothing is wrong with gambling, it is impossible to ban gambling and casinos.

You can thank christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae", falsely attributed to Jesus, for those.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan

And that's because the muslim population choose not to drink alcohol, hence alcohol ban works.
In the west, when almost the whole population wants to drink, it is impossible to ban alcohol.
In the west, when almost the whole population think extra-marital affairs is ok, it is impossible to ban prostitution.
In the west, when almost the whole population think nothing is wrong with gambling, it is impossible to ban gambling and casinos.

You can thank christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae", falsely attributed to Jesus, for those.

Ah, the comedy relief has arrived. What would we do without you?

I'm afraid people were were indulging in all three long before Christianity came along so you might have to find someone else to blame. Not to mention that attempts to ban all of them (largely successful in the case of prostititition and partially so in the case of gambling) have been driven largely by the Christian community.

Actually, prostitution is legal in very few places 'in the west'. It still happens - just as it does in Islamic countries. 'Almost the whole population' most certainly do not think "extra-marital affairs are OK", they just don't think people should be executed for participating in them. I'm not a Christian as you know, but I get the impression Jesus probably actually did think that as well; he wasn't a 'throwing the first stone' type of guy. Or indeed throwing any stone at all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Ah, the comedy relief has arrived. What would we do without you?

You keep on throwing unnecessary insults, even if I did not do anything to warrant your insult in my post.

Is that very buddha? Are you not afraid you will be reborn as something sub-human?

You don't need to apologize. I have forgiven you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I'm afraid people were were indulging in all three long before Christianity came along so you might have to find someone else to blame.

Sure some people have been indulging in all those vices for a very long time, but the messengers of each religion, including Jesus, sure did command their followers not to do those vices.
I'm sure Buddha also said similar things?
Religion gives guidance to people to improve personal and society life, and unless I'm very mistaken, you also agree that those vices are not good for individuals and society in general?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I'm not a Christian as you know, but I get the impression Jesus probably actually did think that as well; he wasn't a 'throwing the first stone' type of guy. Or indeed throwing any stone at all.

what is your proof?

Id like to hear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan

Sure some people have been indulging in all those vices for a very long time, but the messengers of each religion, including Jesus, sure did command their followers not to do those vices.
I'm sure Buddha also said similar things?
Religion gives guidance to people to improve personal and society life, and unless I'm very mistaken, you also agree that those vices are not good for individuals and society in general?

Of course! It was your somewhat bizarre attempt to blame the whole lot on "christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae"" I was taking issue with.

what is your proof?

Id like to hear.

Had I 'proof' I would not have used the words "I get the impression". I don't think it's an uncommon one, though, do you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Of course! It was your somewhat bizarre attempt to blame the whole lot on "christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae"" I was taking issue with.

That's because majority of americans are christians and they believe in "pericope adulterae".

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Had I 'proof' I would not have used the words "I get the impression". I don't think it's an uncommon one, though, do you?

Well I can say that your impression about Jesus is not correct. Jesus threw out the traders and kicked their tables from the temple.
And if you going by definition of majority christians that Jesus is God, then I can show you hundreds of instance from the OT of very angry, spiteful Jesus.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

And you would would contend, presumably, that the 'majority of Americans' indulge in and approve of extra-marital affairs, prostitution, gambling and (excessive) drinking? Sorry, I thought that was only the booge..erm, atheists who did all that, not having any source of moral values and all? But the the dreaded pericope adulterae is even worse? Like, wow....

You missed the point. Pericope adulterae set the stage for lax attitude towards sins and vices because it gives excuse that people who do vices should not be punished. This process of course did not start today but has happened in the past 1,400 years (pericope aduterae was first added in the gospel of john of latin vulgate bible around 600 ad). The result is today you get churches lax attitude towards outright public sinful acts which would have surely angered Jesus. Ever heard of churches sanctioning gay marriage? of practicing homosexual as priests, etc?
This include lax attitude towards drinking, adultery and gambling.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I don't think so. You might say it's not the same as yours, but otherwise, He did indeed. And your point is? Surely you aren't claiming that that somehow suggests Jesus would be first in line to stone an adulterer?!

The passage is important because it shows Jesus was very firm against immoral people and that was not shy to use violence to establish law.
You are over reacting. I never said Jesus would be the first in line to stone an adulterer.
I think you need to calm down.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Nope. I don't think Jesus was God, or a third of God, or whatever. Just a nice, spiritual guy who preached peace and love as opposed to malice, war and chucking rocks at people, who wound up the wrong people and got nailed to a tree for it, and found himself an excellent post-mortem publicist. Totally agree on that point, the God of the OT is clearly very different from that of the OT or the Qur'an

Umm... if you go by only jesus sayings and actions, he was not the lovey dovey hippy jesus singing kumbaya who current christians and athiests are trying to portray him.
He was a reformer of many incorrect jewish practices, and he was given sent the message to tell the people of isarel to go back to obeying the mosaic laws.

I am surprised that you base your opinion about jesus not on evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan

You missed the point. Pericope adulterae set the stage for lax attitude towards sins and vices because it gives excuse that people who do vices should not be punished. This process of course did not start today but has happened in the past 1,400 years (pericope aduterae was first added in the gospel of john of latin vulgate bible around 600 ad). The result is today you get churches lax attitude towards outright public sinful acts which would have surely angered Jesus. Ever heard of churches sanctioning gay marriage? of practicing homosexual as priests, etc?
This include lax attitude towards drinking, adultery and gambling.

You are suggesting a trend over time that there seems to be little if any evidence for. The debates regardings gay 'marriage' and practicing homosexuals as priests are contemporary, and even that regarding women priests only goes back to the 1970's. That surely suggests they are the result of recent changes in society, including a perception that the Church needs to remain 'relevant',l rather than anything to do with Christian dogma, let alone dogma which goes back that far? With drinking as perhaps the only exception, there is little record of 'lax' attitudes regarding any of the rest until the second half of the last century, either. Over the vast majority of that time, there seems no trace of these 'lax' attitudes as church policy. That doesn't mean all churchmen were paragons of virtue themselves, of course.

The passage is important because it shows Jesus was very firm against immoral people and that was not shy to use violence to establish law.

There's violence, and there's violence. No harm was done to the moneylenders beyond damaging their pride.

You are over reacting. I never said Jesus would be the first in line to stone an adulterer.

In which case, please clarify your position. Did, in your opinion, Jesus support the enforcement of stoning to death for adultery or not?

Umm... if you go by only jesus sayings and actions, he was not the lovey dovey hippy jesus singing kumbaya who current christians and athiests are trying to portray him.
He was a reformer of many incorrect jewish practices, and he was given sent the message to tell the people of isarel to go back to obeying the mosaic laws.

I'm not interested in how others portray him, but I'll admit to exaggerating somewhat on the peace and love front. They were hard times.

I am surprised that you base your opinion about jesus not on evidence.

There is very little evidence, as we have no original sources and few direct secondary sources that can be assumed to be even partially reliable. Any sources after that (including all Islamic ones) are just a re-hash of those proceeding them. Plausible cases can be made for Jesus having both personality and agenda comparable to anyone from Che Guevara to Gandhi.

*Reads this thread while drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, and playing craps with dice*

Don't mind me, guys...

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

There's violence, and there's violence. No harm was done to the moneylenders beyond damaging their pride.

Jesus destroyed their tables.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

In which case, please clarify your position. Did, in your opinion, Jesus support the enforcement of stoning to death for adultery or not?

Jesus said that he come not to abolish the law but to fulfill them. stoning for adultery is part of the mosaic law. If all conditions met for such punishment, then obviously Jesus would fulfill it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I'm not interested in how others portray him, but I'll admit to exaggerating somewhat on the peace and love front. They were hard times.

I'm glad you realized that you speak of Jesus not based on evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

There is very little evidence, as we have no original sources and few direct secondary sources that can be assumed to be even partially reliable

This is true. That's why the closest way is only to limit Jesus direct sayings and actions in the gospels and the relevant verses of the OT.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Any sources after that (including all Islamic ones) are just a re-hash of those proceeding them.

You speak without evidence again. The Qur'an verses and ahadeeth about Jesus is completely different from every book in the NT, except the gospels, and even then there's fundamental difference about resurrection too.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Plausible cases can be made for Jesus having both personality and agenda comparable to anyone from Che Guevara to Gandhi.

not if you take only from jesus direct sayings and actions.