- Tim Farron
the definition of who an ‘enemy of the people’ is is in the Daily Mail – so whomever it targets is an ‘enemy of the people’ . That must be pretty simple to understand, right ?
You may disagree.Posted 9 months ago
But you still can’t get past the fact that they are an enemy of the people, as it meets the Daily Mail’s definition.
I really have no idea if this was a joke or not tbh, I hope so but in this thread it’s getting hard to tell.
I can’t see what your argument is – it meets the definition of that word in the bible, so it’s a sin.
Or are you saying that your definitions of what are a sin is override what is in the bible, or that you dissagree with parts of the bible but not others, and find it offensive that those bits were written ?
So you find the bible offensive, which is fair enough, but you can’t find Farron offensive for pointing out that homosexual love is a sin as he is correct, that is what the bible says.
What exactly are you offended about ?Posted 9 months ago
turnerguy – just swap ‘Christian’ and ‘Bible’ in your argument with the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Quran’, or any other philosophy/religion. Then maybe you’ll understand why not everyone in a secular democracy accepts the ‘authority’ or ‘definitions’ of the religious. In fact, so contentious are they that even theocracies have constant internal division and fighting over definitions.
Why is it perfectly OK for random religious people to go around pointing the finger and marking innocent people as ‘evil’? Effectively demonising them? This kind of demonisation plays hard with authoritarian politics. It’s not a far stretch from pointing a finger to sewing on a pink triangle. It always starts with the pointing finger, which somehow you are OK with.
Freedom of speech is more than free when your are in power.Posted 9 months agotjagainMember
I am not sure if Turner guy is arguing devils advocate but what I find offensive is Farron thinks its OK for public servants to discriminate against homosexuals.
Now I do believe in religious freedom but religious freedom is trumped by the need to act without prejudice and this is even more important when its a public servant.
It goes back to ” religion s like a penis. Its fine to have one, its ok to be proud of it, its good to play with it but please don’t wave it around in public and try to stuff it down others throats”Posted 9 months ago
turnerguy – just swap ‘Christian’ and ‘Bible’ in your argument with the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Quran’, or any other philosophy/religion. Then maybe you’ll understand why not everyone in a secular democracy accepts the ‘authority’ or ‘definitions’ of the religious.
I don’t accept that authority either – it is BS – but if it meets the black-and-white definition written in their texts then it meets the definition – that’s it – there is no argueing against it.
Or has sin now got a secular meaning ?
Why is it perfectly OK for random religious people to go around pointing the finger and marking innocent people as ‘evil’?
It’s not – it is offensive, but that doesn’t get past the fact that the religious texts say the act is a sin.
The good news is that plenty of christians will give you a very different interpretation of all this to that which many evangelicals (and some trolls on a bike forum) offer.
well that would be more BS then as it is there in the bible, unless they are saying that the bible and the word of their god is BS. Which obviously it is, but that is another issue.Posted 9 months ago
Pretty sure a sizeable swathe of Christians don’t believe in the literal word of the bible and recognise large parts of it as allegorical and as having been edited, translated and interpreted by the early church onwards. That’s why you can buy the Good News/Kids bible etc which have edited and amended text compared to the King James Bible (which is significantly different to the latin versions that preceded it).Posted 9 months agotjagainMember
the stabiliser -0 indeed which is why the church of scotland is happy to marry gay folk in their church. Farrons views might have had a bit more traction with me if shared by a large part of the population like say abortion but on this one his views only shared by a tiny minority.Posted 9 months ago
Pretty sure a sizeable swathe of Christians don’t believe in the literal word of the bible
all the bits written by the prophets though are the ‘word of god/jesus’ so how can they not believe those bits?
the stabiliser -0 indeed which is why the church of scotland is happy to marry gay folk in their church
Marrying gay folk I suppose is OK in the eyes of the church, as long as they do not consumate the marriage.
What a joke religion is…Posted 9 months ago
Marrying gay folk I suppose is OK in the eyes of the church
Which church? Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Methodist, Episcopal, Brethren/Mennonite?
as long as they don’t consummate the marriage
While Christianity has traditionally forbidden sodomy, believing it to be parallel to homosexuality, some believe in the Hebrew text and history that the word sodomy literally means “male temple prostitute”, and not a translation for homosexual. Thus, homosexuality is not thought of as an act of sin in a growing population of churches today
Not all LGBT (or hetero) ppl like butsecks btw, even if Bible-types could agree on the definition of ‘sodomy’. What is ‘consummate’? Penetrate? Orgasm? Copping a feel? How do lesbians ‘consummate’ a marriage?
‘consummate’ is an odd term IMO. Marriage is so much more than what type of non-reproductive sexual activity is preferred. As I say, churches/temples/mosques mileages will vary im differing degrees.Posted 9 months ago
all the bits written by the prophets though are the ‘word of god/jesus’
New testament? Written by disciples not prophets innit? An account of the life of Jeebus by a few different folk, mortal, fallible folk? Not all of them agree on the events either. Sounds pretty open for debate to me.Posted 9 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.