[Closed] Tim Farron

Do you not have conflicting beliefs? I certainly do and I think most people, who give it some thought, do too.

I would have thought that tolerance relies on having a different opinion to even exist. If everyone thought the same then there's no scope for showing tolerance. If two people hold different views, can take a stance where they accept the others right to hold a different view, can put that difference of opinion aside and while acknowledging it still get along as well as they would if it wasn't there, then tolerance is shown, perhaps even acceptance, of the person [i]and[/i] their opinion. That's what it means to me anyway, and I don't think disagreement is the same is intolerance. Disagreement or difference of opinion is just a thing, intolerance is a negative but optional response to it.

I’m an aetheist but even I know that Christianity teaches you to love the person but not the sin. Being a Christian doesn’t automatically make you a bigot but it might. Until you’ve spent time listening and understanding the person best not judge (or else you will be the bigot and a hypocrite).

I don't think disagreement is the same is intolerance.

Very true. However, calling for public servants to be allowed to withdraw their services from homosexuals is not just "disagreement". It is discrimination.

love the person but not the sin

You can acknowledge that what a muderer has done is wrong, and still show love for them. If you "love" someone who is gay, but still think that being gay is wrong, that will be viewed quite differently by many. It may be a logical position, but that doesn't mean that a politician who thinks that way can expect to win the votes of people who consider themselves socially liberal.

He just needs to switch to tory party, he would be seen as liberal in there.

If you "love" someone who is gay, but still think that being gay is wrong, that will be viewed quite differently by many. It may be a logical position, but that doesn't mean that a politician who thinks that way can expect to win the votes of people who consider themselves socially liberal.

Indeed, politics is a different ballgame altogether.

If Farron did vote in favour if same sex marriage, which I think someone said earlier in the thread, then surely that demonstrates tolerance of others views or opinions despite him not sharing them?

I assume that his stance on the registrar thing is based on the principle that someone should not be forced to participate in something that goes against their conscience, rather than a desire to prevent gay people getting married altogether.

If you say something is a sin, it's hard to argue you're not being intolerant

No it isn’t. Observant Muslims (and other reigions) don’t drink alcohol but they accept others chose to.

If you are a “strictly” religious Christian, Jew or Muslim homosexuality is a sin / forbidden

I am Christian and I can inderstand those people Farron included who believe it’s a sin but it’s not my view.

As I posted earlier the interview with Farron on Soundcloud is spot on, Atheism isn’t a neutral position it’s wedded to anti-religious prejudice in many cases

you are only intolerant or prejudicial, if you do something - just thinking something doesn't mean you are intolerant or prejudicial, doing something to stop them doing it would be.

Christianity teaches you to love the person but not the sin.

It is discrimination.

Positive discrimination.

Observant Muslims (and other reigions) don’t drink alcohol but they accept others chose to.

Are you genuinely interested in why Christians don't believe they are required to put homosexuals to death, and all those other OT things they don't do? Or is it just convenient to claim that it's an inconsistency and do rolly eyes? If it's the former, a few moments of googling will reveal plenty of articulate explanations from people who know what they're talking about.

I studied theology[ not my main subject to be clear] at Uni but thanks for your input and the advice to google
There is no wriggle room in believing it , its very clear it is abomination and stone them to death though it is amusing how many christians ignore the teachings and then want to lecture me on why not following the teachings is christians
The christians who do that really ought to read revelation some fairly forthright views on what happens to the churches who ignore the teachings- assuming that is a bit they believe

My view The idea is nonesense
the practice is irrational to the point even christians ignore the bible as so much of it is "inconvenient"

Seems to me many christians have not actually read much of the Bible or if they have they have massively cherry picked- granted I can be accused of the same . However god really does not tolerate homosexuals and if the biblical attitude was expressed by you or I in our jobs we would be in a disciplinary

Atheism isn’t a neutral position it’s wedded to anti-religious prejudice in many cases

This is a confusing statement. Are you arguing 'many' or 'all'? Because if it is not all (cases) then you don't get to simultaneously define atheism's 'position' predicated on an observance of 'many'. I would argue (as an atheist) that my 'position' is entirely my own, regardless of your or anyone's declaration otherwise. Some religions (or more correctly some forms of some religions) I am vehemently against, others not so much. Others not at all. I do not/did not have a 'guide book' or childhood induction (was raised agnostically) to tell me 'what to believe'. So my starting position (lack of belief) was indeed 'neutral'.

Presumably many theists don't automatically subscribe to all other religions, or are even opposed to (some of) them?

Interesting thread, and one through which runs the 'paradox of tolerance', as yet not addressed?

Am going to invoke Karl Popper:

I do not imply, for instance, that [b]we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies[/b]; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

(my bold)

The problem/paradox I see that is [i]not[/i] covered by Popper's quote is this:

The 'intolerant philosopher' will more often naturally believe (and label) any opposition to his/her intolerance to be 'intolerance'. 'I'm not the bigot, you're the bigot, for calling my beliefs bigoted'

This leads to a feedback loop where the calling out of bigotry will get you labeled a 'bigot' by the bigots (or the defenders of 'intolerant philosophy')

'Tolerance' itself is (IMO) more of a slow-burning battle-ground between authoritarianism/fascism and liberalism/egalitarianism.

When those two idealogical opposites start to close in (and even begin resembling each other) - you know that something better has to evolve. From the ashes of civility? (ie - the universal level of debate is more Twitterish of late)

Thanks JY. It was a genuine question BTW, although I appreciate that may not have come across, such are the limitations of typing on a forum.

I was prompted to read a bit more about it simply because it's a very good question. And when I did so, the explanations that I read for why the OT laws the Israelites followed do not all apply to Christians did seem to me to be logical in light of the supporting sources from the NT that were cited and drawn on to reach those conclusions.

I have to concede though that I have not studied theology, so I am not qualified to critique the reasoning of those that have, either you or the many other theologians that have reached different conclusions.

Presumably many theists don't automatically subscribe to all other religions, or are even opposed to (some of) them?

Many? A few? Some? Most ?

Personally can’t understand a narrow focus on one religion (outside convenience and context). Much more interesting IME to see what insights/guidance/knowledge can be derived from all of them including the similarities between theist and non-theist religions (eg Living Buddha, Living Christ).

Many? A few? Some? Most ?

It was slight sarcasm in response to #jambafact - 'atheism is not a neutral position'

I know. I was teasing 😉

I have to concede though that I have not studied theology

I just find it interesting how many christians ignore the Bible be it on homosexuality , creationism, contraception or any other number of facts.

FWIW the NT Is a cracking read and there is very little if anything to disagree with about the account of Jesus- some great parables as well

Despite what he said about the rich the rich christians dont seem intent n giving their , or their churches, wealth away
Revelation shows a vengeful hate filled god but it is relevant to th e"modernising" debate

Personally can’t understand a narrow focus on one religion (outside convenience and context). Much more interesting IME to see what insights/guidance/knowledge can be derived from all of them including the similarities between theist and non-theist religions (eg Living Buddha, Living Christ).

+1

Which reminds me, 'The Golden Bough' (vols 1-12) by Sir James Frazer (sp?) is a must-read for anyone interested in comparative religion, philosophy, anthropology...

Will look it up. Looks like free downloads.

Reminds me of a work trip to India in late 90s when I was reading LBLC, the Gita and M Gilbey’s “We believe” at the same time.

Despite what he said about the rich the rich christians dont seem intent n giving their , or their churches, wealth away

Exactly, people say they are Christian but certainly don't show it in their actions towards less privileged. I am more christian than a lot of Christians I have come across.

mefty - Member

Do you not have conflicting beliefs? I certainly do and I think most people, who give it some thought, do too.

Yup, loads. Sometimes I have to work very hard to overcome my own intolerances and biases- I don't pretend they don't exist just because I didn't act on them though.

I am more christian than a lot of Christians I have come across.

God bless you

"A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"

If you say something is a sin, it's hard to argue you're not being intolerant

"An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
‘a sin in the eyes of God’
1.1 An act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission.

I would have thought that whether it is a sin or not is clearly defined by the definition you provided, so saying it is a sin is a matter of fact and cannot be argued, and intolerance has nothing to do with it.

I would have thought that whether it is a sin or not is clearly defined by the definition you provided, so saying it is a sin is a matter of fact and cannot be argued, and intolerance has nothing to do with it.

[img] [/img]

so saying it is a sin is a matter of fact and cannot be argued, and intolerance has nothing to do with it.

Its not a great argument you just made is it ?

Its a fact as to whether someone is a poofta or a **** or the N word so these are not the terms of a bigot as they are just matters of facts

b ut you are using offensive slang terms there, are you not? Sin is the original word that was used.

If someone is Gay, or Pakastani, or Black, then that is what they are and I have not made a bigoted statement. Your phrase uses bigoted language.

I don't see the point in the argument, it's a sin by definition, but who cares - only religious people who think it matters, and therefore are themselves bigoted.

A previous boss confessed that back-door sex was the only thing his wife allowed as they had too many kids, but I wasn't aware anyone was bigoted against him because it was a sin.

And you can extend bigoted to all sorts of things. Can I not be bigoted against people from religions with misogynistic or homophobic views (therefore most of them :-)) ?

Why should I be tolerant toward people with those views?

offensive slang terms there, are you not? Sin is the original word that was used.

Its not as pejorative as the words I gave as examples but there is no way its a compliment and how accurate it is is not the real issue [ which is what my point was]
To be fair christains think everyone is a sinner but they dont think all acts are sinful IMHO calling homosexual love sinful is offensive

IMHO calling homosexual love sinful is offensive

but that is what the bible says so you have no reason to think it is offensive. It's sinful, end of.

You could, however, be justified in being offended if someone said homosexual love was wrong.

Whether that is of matter to someone depends on whether they are religious.

You can't believe in Jesus and the bible and the phophets and then say that homosexual love is not sinful.

It's a pointless argument as it is there in black and white.

mefty

Not really, you are only intolerant or prejudicial, if you do something - just thinking something doesn't mean you are intolerant or prejudicial, doing something to stop them doing it would be.

Well well well.

Farron did something - something pretty abhorrent in my eyes in that he voted to allow public servants to discriminate against homosexuals. so Farron did more than think - he allowed his thoughts too influence his actions thus by your own words he is proven to be intolerant and prejudicial

Whereas I have never allowed my thoughts on the matter to affect one iota how I acted. Why? Because to act in a prejudicial manner is very much against my moral code and is abhorrent to me. Indeed I make sure I act more than fairly including taking people to their place of worship many times when it is not a part of my duty to do so.

So by your own words and definitions mefty I am not not intolerant and prejudicial but Farron is

Hoist by your own petard.

Farron did something - something pretty abhorrent [b]in my eyes[/b] in that he voted to allow public servants to discriminate against homosexuals

You could open them and realise why others reach a different conclusion. He didn’t as is clear

As could you - I love the way you give advice you yourself could actually do with implementing.
Its enjoyable watching him get to you without even trying and by simply ignoring you where as I personally love being ignored by you. the only person to get a free pass from your trolling gentle abuse - Bless you and praise the lord 😉

but that is what the bible says so you have no reason to think it is offensive. It's sinful, end of

So if the bible said being asian or black was a sin then it would not be offensive to say this to them?

You can't believe in Jesus and the bible and the phophets and then say that homosexual love is not sinful.

something pretty abhorrent in my eyes in that he voted to allow public servants to discriminate against homosexuals.

Of course he did in your eyes, because you as a morally superior being, you know that that public official would have to be feeble minded to believe such things and therefore forced to do the "right" thing. On the other hand, Farron voted to allow him or her their conscience whilst preserving the obligation of the state to provide the ceremony, thus not prejudicing the couple's position. A compromise that recognizes everyone's views and keeps them all happy.

Whereas I have never allowed my thoughts on the matter to affect one iota how I acted.

Well that's what you say, but based on what you say on here I don't give it any credence.

Yup, loads. Sometimes I have to work very hard to overcome my own intolerances and biases- I don't pretend they don't exist just because I didn't act on them though.

Do you self identify as a bigot then?

The point I am making is that politicians are as human as us, but with the additional scrutiny they face, the contractions that we all suffer from can become exposed and I don't think it is right to write someone off on that basis alone. Calling them bigot, which I appreciate you probably wouldn't, does that.

Amazing how forgiving the christian is of Farron* and how scornful of TJ

Thankfully some bias, and poor arguments, are very easy to see

The point I am making is that politicians are as human as us, but with the additional scrutiny they face, the contractions that we all suffer from can become exposed and I don't think it is right to write someone off on that basis alone. Calling them bigot, which I appreciate you probably wouldn't, does that.

I agree with you, but I just couldn't resist (sorry)...

You can't believe in Jesus and the bible and the phophets and then say that homosexual love is not sinful.

Utter bullocks.

Arguably true but more importantly, what a wonderful choice of phrase 😉

You can't believe in Jesus and the bible

Quite so. 🙂

Utter bullocks.

afraid not.

the definition of what a sin is is in the bible - so whatever acts it says are a sin, are a sin. That must be pretty simple to understand, right ?

Whether you find the concepts of sin and things being labelled a sin, and religions having the gall to catagories actions as evil/a sin, as offensive is something different and fair enough.

But you still can't get past the fact that it is a sin, as it meets the definition.

If you believe in the bible you have to accept that those things are sins, you can't get round it. If you don't like it then you have to follow some invented 'middle-ground' - I suppose like liberal muslims do - and pretend that there is some justification for your views.

Liberal Muzlimz.... hahahahahahaha.... thanks Turnerguy for that gem

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.

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.

TurnerGuy - Member

but that is what the bible says so you have no reason to think it is offensive. It's sinful, end of.

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 read that the bigots and fundamentalists are still at play.

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 ?

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.

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.

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"

*erratum

This kind of demonisation plays [s]hard[/s] right into the hands of authoritarian/fascistic politics

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.

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).

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.

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...

Will this country adopt atheism if Corbyn and McDonnell get in ? Like many other Marxist states :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

if so I might consider voting for them...

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?

Westboro Baptist?

ymmv

as long as they don't consomethinge the marriage

Hmm.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT

Not all LGBT (or hetero) ppl like butsecks btw, even if Bible-types could agree on the definition of 'sodomy'. What is 'consomethinge'? Penetrate? Orgasm? Copping a feel? How do lesbians 'consomethinge' a marriage?

'consomethinge' 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.

Will this country adopt atheism if Corbyn and McDonnell get in ? Like many other Marxist states

No, it is not one of their policies
No, because it won't be a Marxist state

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.

New testament? Written by disciples not prophets innit?

in one of the links I provided eartlier it said Pauls writing were the words of Jesus.

Oh well, if it's on the internet it must be gospel ;P