Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
But assuming we talking about it being a sin according to the bible it seems pretty clear that gay sex is a sin as it is written down in black and white and there hasn't been any scripture since to remove it's sin status :
http://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa
so if he had said it was a sin to start with, would that have been acceptable ?
And how can a gay person be a christian unless they are renouncing the validity of the scriptures ? It seems to me that is just as, or actually probably a lot more, hypocritical. They should choose a different religion/fairy-tale.
on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Like describing a Whale as a Fish, which he does a few lines later: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish"
But assuming we talking about it being a sin according to the bible it seems pretty clear that gay sex is a sin as it is written down in black and white and there hasn't been any scripture since to remove it's sin status :
As is touching pig skin and all manner of other things.
Like describing a Whale as a Fish
From the Greek k?tos meaning large sea creature. Take your pick. Probably the more troubling concept is how a bloke could be in the belly of a whale or fish for three days and come out alive at the other side, but I suppose that depends on how literally your particular sect takes its Bible interpretation.
I suppose there may be a special place in Hell for pisspoor Greek/Latin translation, though.
As is touching pig skin and all manner of other things.
...and eating shellfish.
Shall we suffer a witch to live???
I'm not sure what I would gain from claiming to be a Christian and then ignoring/overlooking the bits I don't agree with.
I'm aware this could come across as being an antagonistic series of posts, it's not intended to be.
I don't see you as being antagonistic.
That said, the idea of 'ignoring the bits I don't agree with' will depend entirely on what you understand faith to be drawn on.
In Catholic tradition (broadly speaking - so, including Orthodox, RCs, Anglicans), the faith has been explicitly predicated on what is sometimes called the three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
So, for example, if someone who claimed to speak for God declared that 2+2=5, and they could find some obscure 'proof-text' in the Bible to support them, both tradition and reason would trump such nonsense.
Then, as has been the case with certain views of women, or slavery, or whatever, where 'proof-texts' or even tradition have been found wanting in light of reason, then positions have changed. This, for example, is what the feminist theologians of the second half of the 20th century brought to the table: they said that the Church's view of the body was insufficient, based as it was on faulty Aristotelian categories, and the Church needed to re-evaluate its understanding. Which in some parts it did, and in other parts is still wrestling with it.
Which is all to say that there is no single list of 'bits' that a person must either agree or disagree with.
And how can a gay person be a christian unless they are renouncing the validity of the scriptures ? It seems to me that is just as, or actually probably a lot more, hypocritical.
Don't follow your thinking. Don't Christians preach that none of us are without 'sin' (their words not mine), none are righteous, none are good etc?
So it follows that whatever amd no matter what a Christian does or is, they are still 'proving' the validity of the scriptures? (As with other religions, everything 'proves' scripture 😉 )
I get that they cherry pick which 'sins' are 'worse' than others. Even totally ignoring some. The results of the cherry-picking often weirdly coincide with the individuals personal prejudices. Miraculous!
Ok.
He's a liar.
And he's a hypocrite.
And to the Christians;
You have life experience that has shown you that gay people are just people.
Against all logic, against your own common sense and the evidence gained throughout your life YOU have chosen to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
I find it hard to trust people like that.
People who ignore their own knowledge and experience yet choose to believe some flawed ideology, be it political or religious.
Such people are easily led.
Love to all,
Pete.
Don't Christians preach that none of us are without 'sin' (their words not mine), none are righteous, none are good etc?
so therefore a gay christian would have to accept that gay sex is a sin, but the ones I hear on the media don't accept that, which I think is a bit messed up. Invent a different religion that doesn't accept the scriptures then.
Remember, it was only 4 years ago that Alan Turing got his (heart-breakingly post-humous) ' pardon ' from the Queen.
'Pardon' for what? For him being driven to suicide after his genius/decisive help in saving the World from the Nazis and closing down WW2? It's not Turing's ghost who requires 'pardoning'. Messed up bullshit country we are.
George Montague says it best:
George Montague was convicted in 1974 of gross indecency with a man. He says he wants an apology - not a pardon.
"To accept a pardon means you accept that you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything. I was only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time," he told BBC Newsnight.
"I think it was wrong to give Alan Turing - one of the heroes of my life - a pardon.
"What was he guilty of? He was guilty of the same as what they called me guilty of - being born only able to fall in love with another man."
He added: "If I get an apology, I will not need a pardon."
He added that there "never should have been an offence of gross indecency".
"It didn't apply to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals could do what they liked, in the doorways, in passageways, the back of their car.
Abrahamic religions (and descendant cultures) have long fueled negative prejudice towards homosexuals. It needs to stop now. Progress has been made. But things can go backwards very quickly. I would argue that the pendulum is swinging 'that way'. Horrible. Shameful.
Anecdote - leaving the M5 and heading home last week I saw a huge 'anti-gay' graffiti sprayed on the back of a large road sign. Visible to all motorists passing. This is the first time since 1970s/early 80s that I remember seeing such a disgusting display.
My Brexit-loving buddy (driving at the time) was as delighted as I was saddened. Make of that what you will. No I'm not saying all Brexiteers are hateful bigots. But there is a trend.
For him being driven to suicide
Not really relevant to the point but FWIW, I saw a documentary that included interviews with some of his friends and they said his suicide was triggered by his loss of mathmatical ability with age, nothing to do with being chased by the police. Maybe the editor cherry picked evidence to support that case, but it sounded plausible to me.
I thought he lost his mathematical ability due to the chemical castration drugs that he was forced to take.
EDIT - His conviction, for being gay, also removed his security clearance, so affected which job and where he could work.
Acording to Wiki they're not even sure it was suicide: "On 8 June 1954, Turing's housekeeper found him dead. He had died the previous day. A post-mortem examination established that the cause of death was cyanide poisoning.[131] When his body was discovered, an apple lay half-eaten beside his bed, and although the apple was not tested for cyanide,[132] it was speculated that this was the means by which a fatal dose was consumed. An inquest determined that he had committed suicide, and he was cremated at Woking Crematorium on 12 June 1954.[133] Turing's ashes were scattered there, just as his father's had been. Andrew Hodges and another biographer, David Leavitt, have both suggested that Turing was re-enacting a scene from the Walt Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), his favourite fairy tale, both noting that (in Leavitt's words) he took "an especially keen pleasure in the scene where the Wicked Queen immerses her apple in the poisonous brew."[134]
Philosophy professor Jack Copeland has questioned various aspects of the coroner's historical verdict. He suggests an alternative explanation for the cause of Turing's death, this being the accidental inhalation of cyanide fumes from an apparatus for electroplating gold onto spoons, which uses potassium cyanide to dissolve the gold. Turing had such an apparatus set up in his tiny spare room. Copeland notes that the autopsy findings were more consistent with inhalation than with ingestion of the poison. Turing also habitually ate an apple before bed, and it was not unusual for it to be discarded half-eaten.[135] In addition, Turing had reportedly borne his legal setbacks and hormone treatment (which had been discontinued a year previously) "with good humour" and had shown no sign of despondency prior to his death, even setting down a list of tasks he intended to complete upon return to his office after the holiday weekend.[135] Turing's mother believed that the ingestion was accidental, resulting from her son's careless storage of laboratory chemicals.[136] Biographer Andrew Hodges suggests Turing arranged the delivery of the equipment to deliberately allow his mother plausible deniability regarding any suicide claims.[137]"
My Brexit-loving buddy (driving at the time) was as delighted as I was saddened. Make of that what you will. No I'm not saying all Brexiteers are hateful bigots. But there is a trend.
Pot, kettle...
If you say you're a certain religion but you'll turn a blind-eye to the bits you don't fancy, then what's the point?
If it stops (or at least offers a disincentive for) you thieving, murdering folk or cheating on your spouse etc - then surely the other bits are conveniently covered by asking 'forgiveness'? Don't you still get a ride to paradise with Dad? I'm not a believer but I can atleast see the attraction of truly believing in eternal life with endless pie and gold. Plus a handy 'guide-book' whilst alive. Not forgetting the community benefits and social influence. Martyrdom opportunities for those inclined. The list is surely endless. It's complicated and simple. It's good and sinful. It's empowering, powerful, influential, it's also persecuted and weak. It's simultaneously eternal and under threat. Covers all bases as far as I can see?
My Brexit-loving buddy (driving at the time) was as delighted as I was saddened. Make of that what you will. No I'm not saying all Brexiteers are hateful bigots. But there is a trend.
Pot, kettle...
'Saddened' and 'hateful bigotry' are not the same thing. Noting a trend neither. Happy to discuss.
Ordinarily, I don't believe that anyone has the right to criticise the nature of a relationship between two consenting adults. So long as the relationship isn't abusive or exploitative then everything is all good so far as I'm concerned.
But Tim Farron as an MP is a lawmaker and politician in a representative democracy. His job is to sift through the various arguments and adopt a compromise which satisfies legislation, party policy and constituents. There will be times when a politician has to back a policy that is at odds with their own belief (witness the large number of Conservative remainers backing Brexit, for example).
I get that it's difficult to separate one's own beliefs with a political standpoint, especially as we demand (but rarely ever get) politicians with personal integrity. I don't have much time for Farron's personal views on gay marriage, but at least he's able to recognise that his views aren't necessarily in step with the modern world.
As for the homophobic graffiti, I'm shocked and horrified that it's a thing in 2017. I honestly thought that we'd gotten over this.
However, his defence that the media would be uninterested in his nuanced viewpoint about homosexuality is feeble.
Perhaps, but absolutely correct, it was a grubby line of questioning.
Tim's issue is that Evangelical Christianity is incompatible with many issues on the Liberal Left hence his stumbling nonsense over this
But not the Liberal tradition in this country, the non conformist church was one of the main breeding grounds for modern liberal thought.
He made an very good speech at the end of last year, which you can read [url= https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in-the-news/2037/11/28/what-kind-of-liberal-society-do-we-want-theos-annual-lecture-2017-full-text ]here.[/url] He comes across as a very thoughful, brave and decent man. Yet people on here use perjorative terms about him, which says a lot more about them than him.
Mefty - anyone who thinks it is right that public servants can discriminate against gay people is an illiberal bigot. And Farron voted for exactly that. He is in favour of the state discriminating against gay folk.
I am not really interested in your views, it has been quite self evident what you are for some considerable time.
mefty - Member.... it was a grubby line of questioning.
I agree.
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
He made an very good speech at the end of last year, which you can read here. He comes across as a very thoughful, brave and decent man. Yet people on here use perjorative terms about him, which says a lot more about them than him.
He's a self confessed liar and hypocrite.
People don't like that and voice their opinions in a robust and sometimes unpleasant manner.
It's human nature, what people do, especially on the internet.
Crucially, are people reacting any differently to him BECAUSE the subject of his lie involves his religious belief?
If so, why?
I'm sorry if any of my comments have caused offence, I genuinely liked the bloke for a while.
it was a grubby line of questioning.
A fair question would be: "Do you beleive that gay people should be discriminated against in any way whatsoever."
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
It's a question designed to force a lie because effectively 'sin' has two meanings. None of us could answer it truthfully. If I ask you: "Is gluttony a sin" you have to say yes, it's one of the deadly ones, but then your opponents can represent that as you making a value judgment about over-eaters.
I suppose if you're an atheist you can get out of it by saying 'It's a sin, but I don't beleive in the concept of sins.' but even that could be reported on front pages as "Ruusty Spanner claims 'it's a sin'".
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
He ended up lying because it was all the media were interested in talking about and his party was struggling to get coverage on the issues that they believed were important, which this certainly wasn't. I think that is pretty understandable and you have to recognise the reality of modern politics and the importance of media coverage.
People don't like that and voice their opinions in a robust and sometimes unpleasant manner.
It's human nature, what people do, especially on the internet.
Just because people do it doesn't make it right, but frankly it doesn't bother me, just speeds up reading a thread as they telegraph the fact that there is no need to bother reading their posts.
@ turnerguy
Among Brexit voters, 59 per cent said cycling was unnatural, compared to a quarter of Remain voters.Sixty-eight per cent of Brexit supporters said children should not be taught about cyclist's relationships in primary school, compared to 29 per cent of Remain voters.
Half of Leave voters did not approve of male cyclists becoming parents, compared to 78 per cent of Remain voters who generally approved.
FTFY
Whichever way you slice it, I'm saddened by the overall figures. Saddened also that you feel somehow qualified to call me a 'hateful bigot' for noting a trend towards bigotry. What's that all about? Reading comprehension?
As an atheist, no, I don't believe in the truth of the concept of sin.
It's a man-made construct that some people choose to impose on themselves.
Tim Farron made the conscious choice to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
He then chose to lie.
That's the important bit.
My view, that sin does not exist, is irrelevant.
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
mefty - MemberI am not really interested in your views, it has been quite self evident what you are for some considerable time.
Yes I am a person who believes in equal opportunities and freedom from bigotry for all.
Remember he voted to allow state employees to discriminate against homosexuals . that is bigotry. Believing homosexuals are less valuable and should be discriminated against. The man is outed as a bigot by his own words
Saddened also that you feel somehow qualified to call me a 'hateful bigot' for noting a trend towards bigotry. What's that all about? Reading comprehension?
I only meant bigot, not hateful bigot 🙂
But remainers seem to constantly lump all brexit voters in the same bucket and cast them all as ignorant and racist, and possible scum...
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
The party that championed gay marriage? DUP though...
He ended up lying because it was all the media were interested in talking about
He didn't [i]need[/i] to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
Rusty - he voted for allowing state employees to discriminate against homosexuals. that makes him a bigot. NO ifs or buts. He believes on the basis of his religious convictions that discrimination against homosexuals by the state is acceptable.
I got and am still getting a hard time on here for outing him at the time for this act but now he is condemned by his own words
He didn't need to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
I can assure you that it is not easy to communicate any sort of nuanced ideas through the media. Think Rowan Williams.
Remember he voted to allow state employees to discriminate against homosexuals
In 2011 two judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld previous statements in the country's jurisprudence that the (non-canon) laws of the United Kingdom 'do not include Christianity'.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
As an atheist, no, I don't believe in the truth of the concept of sin.
It's a man-made construct that some people choose to impose on themselves.
Tim Farron made the conscious choice to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
He then chose to lie.
That's the important bit.
My view, that sin does not exist, is irrelevant.
So if you were in a pub quiz with Tim Farron, if you were asked is gluttony a sin and he said yes, and you said no, you would expect Tim to be marked wrong, and you to be marked right? Which is the point. You're an atheist and even you would have to lie to this question. You'd say gluttony was not a sin, when you know it's famously on the big list of sins.
He didn't need to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
I think he did, and if you think he didn't then how do you explain the form the question took? It was obviously constructed to be impossible. The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" which would have been easy to answer and deal with exactly the same issue.
I can assure you that it is not easy to communicate any sort of nuanced ideas through the media.
This.
The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form"
Farron voted to allow discrimination in state services against homosexuals
tjagain - Member
Rusty - he voted for allowing state employees to discriminate against homosexuals. that makes him a bigot. NO ifs or buts. He believes on the basis of his religious convictions that discrimination against homosexuals by the state is acceptable.
Well, he's either a bigot, or someone willing to vote in a discriminatory manner because of his self imposed beliefs, despite the evidence of his eyes and a lifetime of experience telling him otherwise.
The latter worries me more, because he was prepared to lie about it.
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
No there are still a few in the other two parties who understand what liberalism entails.
Yes I am a person who believes in equal opportunities and freedom from bigotry for all.
You obviously don't read your posts. Oh look, Peppa Pig is coming into land.
No there are still a few in the other two parties who understand what liberalism entails.
Whoosh.
He did in 2010, didn't have any problem voting for a budget that was completely at odds with his party's stated aims....Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
Whoosh.
Back at you laddie.
The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form"
Farron voted to allow discrimination in state services against homosexuals
All the more reason to ask him: "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" rather than a theological 'have you stopped beating your wife" style question.
Mefty - we have danced this one before. If you can give a single example to backthat up I will give you a tenner.
I have never discriminated against anyone. I have employed muslims and Christians and I have worked for religious organisations. I have put measures in place to ensure that the muslims I employed were comfortable in their employment.
Unlike you I can separate my personal feelings from how I act.
But then I do not make excuses for and support a bigot like Farron who wants state employees to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
laddie
🙁
Fair point out of breath. A decent journalist could have completely pinned him on that line of questioning given his voting record.
outofbreath - Member
So if you were in a pub quiz with Tim Farron, if you were asked is gluttony a sin and he said yes, and you said no, you would expect Tim to be marked wrong, and you to be marked right?
I wouldn't say no.
🙂
Of course I believe sin exists.
It's a human construct, along with millions of others.
I just don't believe in the fundamental truth of the concept.
I'm better on the history and music rounds, tbh.
I wrote:
(offers a poll in support of my suspicions)No I'm [b]not saying all Brexiteers are hateful bigots[/b]. But there is a trend
turnerguy then accuses labels me a 'bigot', and in the next sentence:
But remainers seem to constantly lump all brexit voters in the same bucket and cast them all as ignorant and racist, and possible scum...
The ironing and projection is strong with this one 😕
Sorry but this won't end well. I'm oot.
I wouldn't say no. I believe sin exists.
Then you'd look like a fundamentalist nutter and the papers would crucify you. It's a totally unfair question.
No discussion of TF would be complete without this clip which, I think, shows him in a good light:
outofbreath
Then you'd look like a fundamentalist nutter and the papers would crucify you. It's a totally unfair question.
It's a totally fair question!
You:
Do you believe in sin?
Me:
Yes, sin exists as a man-made construct.
What's hard about that?
Farron could have said 'yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin and I will/will not allow this to affect my vote on relevant topics.
Simple.
Then we know where we stand.
But he lied about it.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects his vote.
What's hard about that?
You said:
A) "I wouldn't say no." - ie You think gluttony is a sin.
B) "Of course I believe sin exists."
That already makes you *look* like a nutter.
Replace gluttony with sodomy and you're into serious bigot territory. That's why it's an unfair question.
Whereas if I simply asked you "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" yo could just say 'No' and all would be well.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted.
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
What is wrong with asking him him a direct question about his beliefs?
But then I do not make excuses for and support a bigot like Farron who wants state employees to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
if we assume that the distribution of different views of MP reflect the distribution of differing views of the population, then his vote with the discriminatory view should be valid, as a percentage of the population also hold that view.
Similar to a jury - should people with homophobic views be purged from jurys or should they be left there as the jury makeup is suppossed to be roughly/hopefully representative of the population, and a percentage of the population will have that view (if they are properly religeous).
The issue is the lying.
then his vote with the discriminatory view should be valid, as a percentage of the population also hold that view.
Problem is I doubt the percentage of the population who also hold that view really overlaps with those who might vote liberal.
So he is going to lose votes rather than gain them.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted.
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
What is wrong with asking him him a direct question about his beliefs?
That's *exactly* what I'm advocating.
But I thought you objected to me doing that:
Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.
Its not biogotry.
Let's see some of the reactions:
That's a disgrace from a sensitive intelligent bloke such as yourself mate, seriously.
Really I haven't always agreed with you buti never thought you were a biggot.
TJ you appear to continue to go down the "losing it" route.As a friend, take a break.
TJ you're a hypocrite.
Amen to that, and I think Ton would agree.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you loathe and despise the people you care deeply about?Or are you so "feeble minded" that you can't even keep track of what you're saying?
You are a bigot, and worse that that, you are a bully, which given how much you've complained about others bullying you on here, makes you a hypocrite as well.
There's a lot of truth in what you say Kenny Senior, but there is nothing particularly new concerning TJ's hypocrisy and deeply insulting attitude towards people who have religious convictions. In that respect he isn't much different to Woppit's obsessive intolerance, other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.
And another from when I posted it since your comeback
Believing people are feeble minded when you have never met them or listened to them explain their views - that's prejudice and yes, bigotry. Sorry - you're bang to rights. If you're not happy with this label then don't just complain - have a sit down and a bit of a think. Re-assess your views.
Just send the £10 to Christian Aid and don't forget to tick the Gift Aid box.
outofbreath - Member
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
I disagree.
It's a different question.
Oh I missed this one which is spot on.
TJ, either you're about to declare the Edinburgh defence, or you're just a bigot. I'd like to think that it's the former, but sadly I don't believe that's the case.I've been one of those who's supported you and refrained from commenting even when I thought you were wrong. No longer.
For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views. There's nothing wrong with opinion, but the sheer forcefulness of your incessant desire to prove everyone else wrong is simply unedifying. I can only hope that you're not as unpleasant off-screen, and wonder (in all seriousness) whether you need some professional help.
You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise. That was a much more pleasant TJ; if I see you on a thread I simply look away now. I urge you to take another break and ask yourself whether you really need to be so combative to everyone, on pretty much every subject.
But I thought you objected to me
Second time I've seen this stalking / bullying nonsense aimed at TJ. Guess it may not have been you, but...
Get a grip. Thinking the religious are idiots is entirely reasonable. They have invisible friends.
Feel free to quote this again and again if that's what turns you on.
For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views.
But you could say the same of Farron, he's traded on his caring side.
Ask TJ if he lets those views (note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you 🙂 ) influence his work.
Bet you he doesn't lie.
You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise.
He's really nice.
He's just a pain in the arse on the internet.
😀
Second time I've seen this stalking / bullying nonsense aimed at TJ. Guess it may not have been you
No it was probably me, when he stops calling people bigots I will stop, but on this occassion he specifically invited it and pleasingly Christian Aid will hopefully be £12.50 better off.
It's a different question.
Well the drawback of your preffered question is in your own words: "And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted."
The problem is sin is a wooly & meaningless word. Whatever answer TF gave to a question about 'sin' would leave everyone not having a clue what he really thought. You've told me that you think gluttony is a sin, apart from making you look a bit odd, it's told me nothing about what you really think about over-eating.
I am certain gluttony is a sin, but you have no idea if that means I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins and rembered it from that or if I torture fat people to death in my spare time.
Rusty Spanner - MemberFarron could have said 'yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin and I will/will not allow this to affect my vote on relevant topics.
Simple.
Yep, and then the next question would have been "Isn't that a lie Mr Farron? Your voting record certainly suggests it is". The fact is, that line was never open to him- his beliefs [i]have[/i] influenced his voting. Because he's basically honest, I think.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having your beliefs influence your voting- otherwise you're just a blank card and nobody knows what they're voting for. But you can't lie about it.
Fallon could probably be honest with his constituents and get elected, but it was a problem as leader. Theresa May's supposedly a christian but she certainly doesn't let her faith influence her votes or leadership or apparently her day to day life, is that better?
He had to either come up with a response that'd let him explain honestly where he stands and what it means as leader- which he bottled- or he'd have to weasel out- which he did. And tbh at that point it's not just about the lie or the reality, it's about being a party leader that can't even stand for your own position never mind your party.
I think Fallon's actually a pretty good guy, and a valuable MP but he wasn't equipped to be a party leader, least of all for the lib dems at that time
I am certain gluttony is a sin, but you have no idea if that means I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins and rembered it from that or if I torture fat people to death in my spare time.
If you think being straight is not a sin, but being gay is… many people will have a problem with that, and tell you so. Nothing to do with "gluttony"… think what you like on that, I have no desire to comment on it… few would. Your suggested actions seem a tad extreme though, I'd advise avoiding torturing or killing people generally. Weird thing to bring up.
If you think being straight is not a sin, but being gay is… many people will have a problem with that
Not christians obviously. There's a manual.
Every Christian I know accepts gay people and doesn't think they sin simply by being gay. They follow the word of some guy called Jesus. He never said anything about homosexuality being a sin.
If you think being straight is not a sin, but being gay is
I'm not an expert on sin but I'm pretty sure being straight *is* a sin, in the sense that shagging without being married is a sin and sodomy is a sin even if you indulge in it with a woman which I'd guess most people have now and then. Equally I'm not 100pc sure being gay is a sin in itself.
Perhaps someone who knows more about 'sin' than me can answer that definitively.
That's why I chose gluttony for my example - it's much less complicated.
outofbreath - Member
It's a different question.
Well the drawback of your preffered question is in your own words: "And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted."
No, I'm sorry, that's wrong.
That sad outcome is due to his lying.
Nothing else.
That's why I chose gluttony for my example - it's much less complicated.
Gluttony is a thing.
My views on it vary depending upon how hungry you are, but generally not a huge fan.
🙂
The concept of gluttony exists independently from the concept of sin.
As do forgiveness, love, hate, duty etc.
Ask TJ if he lets those views (note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you ) influence his work.Bet you he doesn't lie.
It does not affect at all how I treat people at work or outside of work. I treat everyone as equal, always have, always will. I gave plenty of examples of this in previous debate.
The difference is I am able to separate my thoughts and opinions from my actions because I am not blinded by a creed like Farron but because I have a strong moral sense.
to be a bigot is to treat people as lessor for their beliefs or other aspects such as race or sexuality. - I do not. Unlike Farron who wants to allow state employee to discriminate. I gave plenty of examples of this before.
I'll repeat one example of this. It is NOT a part of my duty to take to take people in my care to church so I cannot instruct someone else to do so nor if they want to go to church do I HAVE to take them. When a patient wishes to go to church I take them myself. Sometimes in my own time, sometimes in work time. I have done this many times. Why? Not because I believe in a god nor because its my duty but I do it because its important to the person and thus is the morally right thing to do. Yes I think they are daft to believe in God but that does not affect my actions.
Tenner to Christian aid - no issue at all. I have provisions in my will to give money to religion based charities. Christian aid are a fairly inclusive outfit IIRC. I have also donated money in the past to the local Sikh temple. MY Christmas dinner goes to them - or at least the money I would spend on one if I had one. I fast instead on Christmas day.
[img][url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4704/25763567518_66d393e7b7_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4704/25763567518_66d393e7b7_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/FfD22Y ]Image1[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr[/img]
Oh and mefty - part of the reason for this all is I am calling out Farron as a bigot for his bigoted views. this is a man who thinks and has voted for public employees to be able to discriminate against homosexuals. thats bigotry
thinking anyone who believes in any God is a sandwich short of a picnic but being able to put those feelings aside to treat them all as equal is not bigotry. YOu might not like it but my moralcode - to treat all as equal no matter what trumps my dislike of religion.
Its the advantage of being a rational being not in thrall to some ancient text and creed.
If Farron had been able to say " My personal belief is that homosexuality is a sin but in my professional capacity I will not let this affect my actions" I would have applauded him. But unfortunatly as an evangelical christian he cannot do that.
I am certain gluttony is a sin, but you have no idea if that means I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins and rembered it from that or if I torture fat people to death in my spare time.
The second one?
Quid pro qou mefty. Sikhs are my favoured religious charuity because of the way they operate. Can't find a donate link to my local lot ( I give them cash) but these guys have a donate link. Or paypal me a tenner and I'll hand it to them for their feed the homeless work
I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins
I saw one of those. There was a shocking true-life bit at the end involving a box. 🙂
I read this thread and see that fundamentalists are not just limited to religions.
Inverse bigotry is a sight to behold
mefty +1, 2, 3
Not a Sikh and know little about Sikhism so am wondering how their views on abortion differ from Farron’s?
They follow the word of some guy called Jesus. He never said anything about homosexuality being a sin.
I had a quick look at this. Discounting the OT is standard practice these days yeah, so we'll look at the NT. The OT mostly just says "don't be a bit rapey, and don't put it in the botty" anyway.
[b]Romans 1[/b] talks about both sexes and it basically boils down to saying "don't put it in the botty" again. It talks about things which are "unnatural" which [i]could [/i]be an argument against homosexuality if ipso facto we consider homosexuality to be unnatural, or if we infer that it's talking individuals acting unnaturally then it could actually be in favour of homosexuals not being true to themselves by masquerading as straight.
[b]1 Corinthians 6[/b] says you're not going to heaven if you're a gay man (or a thief, adulterer and a bunch of others). On the face of it this is pretty explicitly suggesting that being gay is a sin. However there's some wiggle room in translation here though because the word for homosexual is the same word for male prostitute, and indeed the New International bible refers to "male prostitutes and homosexual offenders" rather than "men who practice homosexuality" which I think is a subtle but important difference. Also, in case you missed it earlier, don't put it in the botty.
[b]1 Timothy 1[/b] refers to male homosexuals being unjust and against doctrine, but suffers from the same translation issue as Corinthians.
[b]Conclusion:[/b] as far as the bible is concerned it's probably fine to be gay depending which version you read, but a fun evening playing Hide the Sausage is right out.
As an aside, was buttsecks a big problem a couple of millennia ago, or is this just an extension of the "go breed and make new followers" schtick?
Oh and, you're right, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality as far as I can find so far.
SaxonRider - MemberThanks for your input, ctk. If only the world's philosophers, theologians, and historians would listen to you, everything would be so much better.
Sorry Sir I'll try harder next time
🙄
For TJ, and a genuine question...What's the legislation you refer to that's to do with permitting discrimination?
Oh and, you're right, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality as far as I can find so far.
well apparentluy all the stuff that Paul said is his word so he might as well have said it.
I posted a link to the NT stuff earlier, but see this quote and link:
So did Jesus address homosexuality? Yes, He did. He did so by sending His Spirit to superintend the writing of Paul such that what Paul wrote was precisely what Jesus intended, so much so that it could be said to be “God-breathed.” Jesus condemned homosexuality by means of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. And therefore, to deny that homosexuality is sinful is to deny Jesus Himself, and that is irreconcilable with true, biblical Christianity.
https://www.tms.edu/preachersandpreaching/jesus-never-address-homosexuality/
Every Christian I know accepts gay people and doesn't think they sin simply by being gay. They follow the word of some guy called Jesus. He never said anything about homosexuality being a sin.
well how can they be Christians if they don't accept the word of God, as higlighted in that link. More hypocrisy and make it up as you go along so it suits you. No wonder Aetheists get frustrated and angry at people with religious beliefs, as it is all so irrational.
thegreatape - MemberFor TJ, and a genuine question...What's the legislation you refer to that's to do with permitting discrimination?
It didn't make it into law. IIRC on the homosexual marriage bill there was an amendment he voted for an exemption from registrars having to perform same sex marriages if they didn't want to.
Ie allowing a public servant to discriminate against homosexuals in the performing of a public duty. 11 lib dems voted for this.