Forum menu
Thanks for the clarification.
Tim's unique problem, is that while clearly he votes Liberal (see his record on gay rights and so on) those are not his beliefs. Now, that isn't a problem until you try to suggest that you believe both evangelical teachings and this particular issue are correct.
His choices are; ignore his religious beliefs on particular issues (see Trudeux) or vote accordingly (see Ress-Mogg) but his choice cannot sensibly be "I want to please both camps, so I'm going to lie now, then retract later, while complaining all the while that no-one understands me"
To be fair, I see different flavours of churches as being on a sliding scale of societal compromise - with most people choosing on the basis of how much of God's teaching they can put up with while still being able to do pretty much everything they want.
How else could it be in one of the richest nations on Earth?
A true liberal believes in the separation of Church and State. It is possible, therefore, to hold personal beliefs derived from one's religious tradition, and also believe that it is neither possible nor even desirable to impose those beliefs on the people. Especially through legislation!
That's where I am on the wider question here. I see no reason whatsoever why (say) a devout Muslim, couldn't seperate out his public decisions from his private beliefs and govern perfectly perfectly capably. I suspect it's always happened.
Saying 'As a Christian Farron *ought" to believe X and therefore he shouldn't be in office' is just a straw man.
I read this thread and see that fundamentalists are not just limited to religions.
I like him as a politician. I don't feel he has what it takes to be the party leader.
To be fair Clegg has to resign which left them with a choice from 7 MPs. As soon as a big hitter came back Farron went. They did their best with what they had.
Also they were the only 100pc remain party at the last election. Frankly to discount them over the term 'sin' which has no significance is bat poo mental.
Kind of amusing if people voted for a parties that were going to implement Brexit for fear of imposition of death camps for gluttons if the liberals won.
I read this thread and see that fundamentalists are not just limited to religions.
This.
Trouble is, Farron has not entirely separated his private beliefs from his public decisions - his votes on delayed abortion and his only partial support for gay marriage are testament to that.
For evangelicals, there is no 'Church and State', there is simply the church and those lacking the church. There is no shared authority - God has the sole authority.
That is the difference between this form of the church and pretty much any other variety in the UK. Evangelical Christianity, unlike the CofE, does not allow the convenient separation of your weekly worship from the rest of your life. You are supposed to be an active reflection and exemplar of your beliefs at all times.
Farron voted to allow public servants to discriminate on grounds of peoples sexuality. Bigoted and illiberal
For evangelicals, there is no 'Church and State', there is simply the church and those lacking the church. There is no shared authority - God has the sole authority.That is the difference between this form of the church and pretty much any other variety in the UK. Evangelical Christianity, unlike the CofE, does not allow the convenient separation of your weekly worship from the rest of your life. You are supposed to be an active reflection and exemplar of your beliefs at all times.
Your argument falls apart at "supposed to be.". You're just straw manning. Your just attacking what you claim people *ought* to do, not what they do in practice.
People of faith fudge these kinds of issues all the time. There is no reason why (say) a devout Muslim can't beleive that democracy is bad but also take part in democracy very effectively or that (say) a deviout Jewish person can't (say) run a sports centre that opens 7 days a week.
Gay sex is a sin FFS get in the world of now.
IMO any religion that has these ridiculously outdated views can eff off.
If Farron were the member of a CofE congregation, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Most varieties of UK religion are built for compromise and convenience and Church/State separation is to be expected.
Evangelical Christianity, however, is not built for compromise, which is why many onlookers sensed the disconnect between Farron's liberal persona and his professed faith.
In the same way I would be surprised to see an self-professed strict orthodox Jew working on Shabbat, or similarly a self-professed strict muslim working in an off-licence.
There is no disqualification for people of faith generally, I'll allow a fudge, but there comes a point where the gulf between private faith and public duty is so vast that it becomes an electoral issue, and the individual has to choose what he stands for.
We now know what Tim Farron stands for. That gay relationships are wrong in the eyes of God. That discrimination against gay people is acceptable in some circumstances. That abortion is wrong. We can accept or reject that in our politicians using the time-honoured methods of voting for them individually or for the party they lead, or not.
Thanks for your input, ctk. If only the world's philosophers, theologians, and historians would listen to you, everything would be so much better.
or that (say) a deviout Jewish person can't (say) run a sports centre that opens 7 days a week.
sure, that's fine. Tim's problem was that he was telling the public that the sports centre was open, whilst at the same time time trying to tell his Rabbi (so to speak) that he was a devout Jew...
Edit although, bad example. Going by the Jews I know, they'd find a way around it... 😆
This is possibly a subject for a different thread (and likely unintentionally inflammatory) but I genuinely don't understand the non-evangelicals.
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?
#FundamentalistAtheist
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?
Definitely a subject for a different thread. But in this context, let us say that "turning a blind eye" is NOT what a religious person does in the context of politics.
It's called separation of Church and State. Even in countries like England, where the Church still has an advisory role, there can be no question of imposing a theocracy. Besides, the Church of England is by its very nature, quite liberal (in the full sense of the word), and therefore quite accommodating.
I thought Farron was the right choice for leader. I was wrong.
I thought Clegg was the wrong choice for leader. I was wrong.
Maybe he can reconcile his position by: "Hate the Sin, love the Sinner"?
But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.It's called separation of Church and State
So are you in essence damning yourself?
then what's the point?
Everyone fudges stuff.
But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.So are you in essence damning yourself?
Not remotely. I am not trying to deride you or what you are asking, but such a notion of God is not what the Christian tradition subscribes to.
Some individuals within, perhaps, and maybe some fundamentalist communities; but certainly not the actual Christian tradition as a whole.
In the same way I would be surprised to see an self-professed strict orthodox Jew working on Shabbat, or similarly a self-professed strict muslim working in an off-licence.
I suspect there are thousands of devout Jewish People and Muslim People working in (say) Supermarkets which sell bacon and alchahol.
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?
That's just people in general, not religious people. We all have contradictory/inconsitent views on all kinds of things. We're not machines, cognitive dissonance is part of who we are.
verses - MemberThis is possibly a subject for a different thread (and likely unintentionally inflammatory) but I genuinely don't understand the non-evangelicals.
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?
#FundamentalistAtheist
some parts of each religion treat the texts as parables / guides. some treat them as th e sacred holy word which every bit is 100% true.
Mainstream COE is the former. Farron belongs to the latter group
I'm genuinely not trying to be awkward but it does bring me back to "what's the point?".
I live by largely moralistic (Christian influenced) liberal values; 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.
But presumably on judgement day, God will see that your actions have gone against his word.
So are you in essence damning yourself?
You will certainly have some explaining to do. Luckily Tim has now reflected on his prior characterisation of gay sex as OK and issued a retraction, so he's on track for the afterlife.
Matthew 12:36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
verses - MemberI'm genuinely not trying to be awkward but it does bring me back to "what's the point?".
Now that I cannot help you with 😉
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.