[Closed] Tim Farron

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.

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.

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

http://www.swatlondon.com/

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 - Member

Thanks 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 - Member

For 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.

https://www.libdemvoice.org/11-liberal-democrat-mps-vote-for-registrars-to-be-exempt-from-marrying-same-sex-couples-34590.html

I have provisions in my will to give money to religion based charities

Careful TJ some might try and test that! 🙂

BTW my Burnley work colleagues all hate Farron cos he's a Rovers fan!

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

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

I think thats right mr Ape.

TJ, obliged.

Edit - was referring to the link.

[quote=Cougar ]Oh and, you're right, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality as far as I can find so far.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Its quite bizarre to argue he disagreed with god and the proof is he never said a word about something - still its the religious so no need for a rational evidence based point as they clutch at straws to explain why even they dont follow the word of god .

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

No guesses....

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.

Assuming that to be the case: the tracts I commented on were - I think - all Paul's writings. Paul did or didn't condemn homosexuality depending on how you choose to translate the original text. It's not definitive either way.

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

Pretty much the conclusion I drew. Except it's not limited to "gay" sex, it's anal generally which is verboten.

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

It really depends on the beliefs though, doesn't it. If someone believes something abhorrent then is it bigoted to oppose those beliefs?

What if I was an employer who "didn't want to hire ****s"? Are you then the bigot for forcing me to hire them and giving me no choice?

[img] [/img]

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

Easy one. the bigots are the ones who want to legitimise discrimination by public servants against homosexuals. If you don't want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

If you don't want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

Interesting

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

In this case, the amendment only applied to existing registrars, there was no question of anyone being denied a public service and thus being discriminated against, just certain people for whom the goalposts had been moved could opt out so someone else would have to be found. It seems to me a quintessentially liberal solution to the issue and thus the complete opposite of bigotry.

source please - genuine enquiry no agenda[news to me so interested]
ta

[url= http://https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002 ]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002[/url]

[b]"HOUSE!"[/b]

[sorry, troll bingo card filled up a bit quick there]

[url= https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002 ]This link works[/url]

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

Well spotted - I wondered if someone had enough smarts to make that connection. IMO no

I think the main difference is not against a particular group of people but a type of service so does not discriminate against any particular group.

Nice try - close but no cigar

Mefty - its clear and simple homophobic discrimination.

No one would have been deprived of the right to get married, no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

Lsaughable. to allow public servants to refuse to provide a service because of the recipients sexuality is allowing discrimination

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people. A catholic policeman could refuse to save a protestant person from being beaten

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people.

Not at all, the right to religious views is protected in law, none of those views are.

The right to your view yes but you are not allowed to discriminate in provision of goods and services. Plenty of law on this

I am really beginning to feel rather sorry for you as if you believe this nonsense. I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

Ok - how about a policeman who is a member of the free kirk refusing to save a catholic from being beaten? A muslim doctor refusing to treat an alcoholic?

So mefty - do you think a evangelical Christian doctor should be able to refuse to treat a homosexual? A policeman who is a member of the united free kirk refuse to protect a catholic? ( united free kirk are historically very hostile to Catholics) A teacher refuse to teach someone who is gay?

None of those things require anyone to compromise their beliefs, and none of them are new rules that someone previously doing those jobs without a moral dilemma suddenly has imposed upon them creating a moral dilemma for them.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that?

I fear you misunderstand atheism.

If the law was changed to say that as part of my job I was legally obliged to accompany a staff member whist they communed with Batman then I'd think they were somewhat silly but I'd nod and smile and go along with it if I had to.

Your fear is misplaced.

I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

😀

Mefty, can we check that you are not Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, in disguise?

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

GPs are independent contractors rather than public employees, so there is a difference there in what they can be compelled to provide. In terms of actually delivering the abortion procedure, doctors who are against abortion would not tend to gravitate towards that particular service, I'd imagine.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

somewhat hypothetical but you remember I put in my defense that I took a person in my care to church? I stood ,sat down,kneeled, closed my eyes etc at all the appropriate times etc. It would make zero difference to me. Praying is not offensive to me, just silly.

no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

FWIW i agree it was a reasonable fudge but the religious need special exemptions from fairness/equality legislation and then they want to preach/lecture me about tolerance when I question their belief ...the irony

Cheers for the link considere dme eduicated but I also noted this

No school shall be under any duty as a result of the guidance issued to promote or endorse an understanding of the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children that runs contrary to the designated religious character of the school.

the god of love and forgiveness is not that tolerant. No way i would worship that god ,i treat everyone equally
YMMV