Apparently the floods were the governments fault.

[TeePee]

There are the fundamentalists in the States who consider the first five books to be a literal description of the creation of earth - more enlightened consider it to be a parable - and as a parable one could argue that the sequence of events - if not the literal timing (depends on the interpretation or translation of a day) to be fairly prescient - darkness - big bang - light - generation of conditions to allow life - evolution of life - dawning of enlightenment of the human species.

Not really. In Genesis 1, the Earth is created first, before light sun and stars existed. Day and night were created before the sun and stars existed. Plants were created before The Sun, so not really the best conditions for photosynthesis to evolve. Whales were created before land animals, which we know is not how they evolved. Man and Woman were created at the same time. It's not even close to prescient in my opinion.

Of course, the alternative creation story in Genesis 2 tells us that man was created right after the earth, and then the plants, then the animals and then Woman. Even worse.

[Saracen]

....

So Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible, only the Hexus forum members of a PC leaning can?
Then call him a 'bigot' and a 'moron' rather than deal directly with the possibility that he might actually just be reading his choice or religious text with the plainest meaning?

....

Oh, I wouldn't say Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible however he pleases, or to express his opinion ..... provided those of us that consider that interpretation to be rather loony are also allowed to express that opinion. I'm not sure who said he isn't allowed to express his view, though I confess to not having gone back through every post here to see if anyone did.

However .... if you're referring to UKIP's reaction, with references to him not being allowed, they have not, as I understand it, told him either to not have that interpretation, or to express it.

The difference between him doing that, though, and me or you doing it is that he is a member of a political party AND an elected represenrative at that. And that carries obligations, especially when expressing a view as a member of that party.

It is perfectly reasonable for any party to expect and require members to take care to ensure personal views are clearly categorised as personal, and not either explicitly or implicitly, even by omission, give the imoression they are a party view.

Just about all the coverage given to this story has effectively been to paint UKIP as a bit loony, fringe, weird. I certainly wonder quite what makes such an, erm, unconventional view of the causes of these floods interesting enough to be the subject of, for example, newpaper headlines and a major segment of leading political and current affairs programs, like the Daily Politics?

It WILL be because he's an elected official, if of an extremely minor level, and this it's because of his party membership. Therefore, it reflects on the party.

Ming Campbell was on the DP, too, and among other things was asked about the Lord Rennard fiasco. The very first words out of his mouth were that anything he says on the subject are personal views not party views, and that he doesn't speak for or represent the party leadership on this issue.

Heck, even I've done it on here a few times, when I've felt that, as an admin, something I said might be seen as HEXUS policy, or HEXUS-endorsed, when in fact, everything I say on here is personal opinion with the sole exception of actual forum moderating.

Mr UKIP got suspended, as I understand it, for ignoring party instructions not to give further media interviews or comments about this subject, having already failed to clearly separate personal views and his position representing the party.

Personally, I regard the notion that these floods are divine retribution for Cameron's stance on gay marriage as, well, I think "seem loony" was was phrase I used. And yeah, I called him an idiot, because frankly, that belief strikes me as distinctly idiotic.

I wil concede a couple of things, though. First, that I'm relying largely on media portrayals of his views and they are perfectly capable of extreme distortion for a story. It is certainly conceivable that he's not quite the fruitcake that the portrayed views make him seem.

And second, that my regarding these views as loony is, indeed, a product of my own cultural context, education and experience. I've a broad, general understanding of the functions of weather and climate and that seems to me to offer a far more credible explanation of floods, but will concede I do not know for a fact that God, or some other form of omnipitent universal consciousness doesn't have a method, unknown to mankind, of controlling the weather, and that having read the papers and watched TV, lost his temper with Cameron and ordered up a flood or two.

It seems improbable, to the extent of bordering on lunacy, to me, to believe that, but hey, if that's what rocks Mr UKIP's boat, good luck to him. Now, if you'll excuse me for a bit, I'm just going to check on the price of sandbags in case God is reading this, and is irked enough with me to have ordered up a few rainclouds especially for me. Or perhaps not.

[scaryjim]

... most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god. ...

You keep trying to come back to this. Why? Haven't enough people disagreed with this statement to make you think that maybe it's wrong? Perhaps Christianity doesn't teach and believe everything you think it does?

So yes, we say it isn't the literal word of God. That's pretty much indisputable, given that within Christianity there is no consistent agreement about what constitutes scripture, and that there's a lot of Scripture that Jesus would've read and used for teaching that has since been declared non-cannon (there's even quotes from some of that scripture in cannonical texts, which is kind of self defeating). That doesn't cause any problems with the base teachings and message of the rest of the text. In fact, it's more problematic to believe that every word of scripture is the literal word of God, because there are places where scripture contradicts earlier scripture, and even one passage from one of Paul's letters where he specifically says "OK, this next bit is from me, not God, because I don't have any divine inspiration on this subject". The tower of cards tumbles a lot quicker if you start from the point of believing the Christian bible is infallible.

[Galant]

On the other end of all this, focusing less on the specific beliefs of Christianity, or even the man himself, does the fact that he said this warrant the sort of exposure or analysis that it has received - even as an elected official?

[wasabi]

You keep trying to come back to this. Why? Haven't enough people disagreed with this statement to make you think that maybe it's wrong? Perhaps Christianity doesn't teach and believe everything you think it does?

Some stats.

Some more stats

Also I grew up in rural religious Ireland in the 70s/80s. Dragged to church every sunday. Almost everyone of a religious mindset believed it was the word of god. i.e. belief that the bible is the word of god is the mainstream.

Sure there are a group of Christians who are either gay or not homophobic, and those who are prepared to question the literal word of god thing. Good for them. They're not the majority.

Sure - there are many interpretations of the bible. Why is Mr UKIP not allowed his interpretation of the bible, which happens to be by far the most likely to be the original meaning of a backward pre liberal-democratic scribe?

[kalniel]

Some stats.

Spoke to a (non-majority) branch of Christianity almost defined by their hard core interpretation of the bible and yet still only 59% of them thought it was literal.

Some more stats

Says only 31% of americans surveyed think it's literal. Also not backing up your statement.

Sure there are a group of Christians who are either gay or not homophobic, and those who are prepared to question the literal word of god thing. Good for them. They're not the majority.

Yes they are. Even your links back that up.

Sure - there are many interpretations of the bible. Why is Mr UKIP not allowed his interpretation of the bible, which happens to be by far the most likely to be the original meaning of a backward pre liberal-democratic scribe?

What is your evidence for saying it's likely to be the original meaning?

[scaryjim]

Some stats.

78% believe the Bible is divinely inspired and 34% believe that it is free from error

Some more stats

an average 31 percent of the respondents said that “the Bible is absolutely accurate and should be taken literally word for word,”

Since when was 31%, or even 34%, most? That means 66%, or 69% - in other words most Christians - do not believe the bible is without error/the literal word of God.

Sure - there are many interpretations of the bible. Why is Mr UKIP not allowed his interpretation of the bible, which happens to be by far the most likely to be the original meaning of a backward pre liberal-democratic scribe?

I never said he wasn't. I just said that your assertion - "most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god." - was wrong. And you've even provided the evidence, yourself, to support my statement. Most Christians don't believe that. Or are you going to try to refute your own statistics?

[opel80uk]

I spent my entire schooling going through the Catholic School system in England, was raised in a religious family, live in rural Ireland now and spend an awful lot of time with people who identify themselves as Christians, and I don't know a single person who believes that the Bible is the literal word of God.

That's not to say there are not some; I haven't asked them all individually, but the ones where this has been discussed do not believe it is all literal, and I would wager my life savings on those that do are in the minority as opposed to the majority.

[Knoxville]

So Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible, only the Hexus forum members of a PC leaning can?
Then call him a 'bigot' and a 'moron' rather than deal directly with the possibility that he might actually just be reading his choice or religious text with the plainest meaning?

Seeing as it was me that called him a bigot I guess I'd better back that up. My reason for referring to Mr Silvester as such isn't based on my opinion of his interpretation of whatever religious text he has chosen to live by or anything similar; but on his obvious lack of tolerance for beliefs other than his own, something which comes across pretty strongly. I'd rather not get into the debate about Christianity and the many different translations and interpretations of the texts associated with it either, as Sunday school was a very long time ago for me and other members are hitting nails on the head left, right and centre as far as I'm concerned. As I understood it back then though, forgiveness and tolerance to your fellow man, regardless of their beliefs was a fairly strong recurring theme throughout!

As for me calling him a fool, well. I have my own opinions of organised religion and no, I don't look all too fondly upon it for a number of reasons I won't go into. However, I didn't call him a fool because of what he believes, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants, as are we all. It's how he's gone about things and the claims he's made coupled with his inability to seperate his beliefs from his professional life that have lead me to that assumption. He may well be a very switched on individual (I doubt it though) but as Saracen said, I think there are many, many far more credible reasons for some flooding in the UK at this time of year than the wrath of God himself.

I might be wrong, I might be struck down for my blasphemy next time I walk out the front door. That said though, I think if I were in the almighty's shoes and I was displeased with Mr Camerons decision and I really had a point to make, putting a few towns in South Wales below the waterline wouldn't be the place I'd start!

[santa claus]

.....putting a few towns in South Wales below the waterline wouldn't be the place I'd start!

Very true; the Almighty can leave such trivialities to the English.

Flooded for a reservoir.

That flood WAS the Government's fault.

[wasabi]

So is he allowed to say the stuff he says or not? Or should he be arrested like Tony Miano?

Edit: Or arrested again in Scotland.

[wasabi]

Since when was 31%, or even 34%, most? That means 66%, or 69% - in other words most Christians - do not believe the bible is without error/the literal word of God.



I never said he wasn't. I just said that your assertion - "most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god." - was wrong. And you've even provided the evidence, yourself, to support my statement. Most Christians don't believe that. Or are you going to try to refute your own statistics?

OK I could nitpick your reading of the figures but really can't be bothered. Happy with 'a significant percentage of Christians'?

[kalniel]

So is he allowed to say the stuff he says or not? Or should he be arrested like Tony Miano

If there is any reason to believe that he's done something criminal then he should be arrested of course. That suspicion was apparently ultimately unfounded in the case you quote.

[wasabi]

As for me calling him a fool, well. I have my own opinions of organised religion and no, I don't look all too fondly upon it for a number of reasons I won't go into. However, I didn't call him a fool because of what he believes, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants, as are we all. It's how he's gone about things and the claims he's made coupled with his inability to seperate his beliefs from his professional life that have lead me to that assumption. He may well be a very switched on individual (I doubt it though) but as Saracen said, I think there are many, many far more credible reasons for some flooding in the UK at this time of year than the wrath of God himself.

As a local councillor aren't his beliefs also his professional life? If his leaflet though the door previously said 'I'm an atheist', then there is a problem. I doubt it did. Do we want people making decisions who don't believe what they're doing is right? Personally I'm rather fed up with the endless yes-men mindlessly repeating the official party doctrine.

Besides, as a local councillor, unless he is found to be siphoning off money to the church, what is the incompatibility between his personal views and professional role?

Again - I'm not defending his views. There is no invisible omnipotent sky elf.

[scaryjim]

... is he allowed to say the stuff he says or not? ...

He's allowed to say whatever he wants. But he also has to accept any consequences (and that people will almost inevitably disagree with him, in both directions).

OK I could nitpick your reading of the figures but really can't be bothered. Happy with 'a significant percentage of Christians'?

No. 31% isn't significant in a binary choice. I'd like you to accept that most Christians *don't* believe that bible is the literal word of God. I wrote a lengthy and analytical post on the topic, but decided it wasn't going to take this thread in a helpful direction, so I dumped it (but i still have the full text if you're actually interested in my analysis of the discussion so far). But apparently you're set on having the teachings and beliefs of Christians conform to your stereotype. So I guess neither of us is going to end this conversation happy...

[scaryjim]

.. as a local councillor ... what is the incompatibility between his personal views and professional role? ...

a) Councillor isn't actually a profession - you don't get paid for it. So him being a councillor has nothing to do with professionalism.

b) As a local councillor, he holds office *purely* to represent the occupants of his ward. Unless he can provide evidence that significant numbers of his ward had made the same point to him, he is using his office to propagate his personal agenda, which is at the very least a breach of trust. And I doubt many people came up to him and said "ooh, these floods you know - I bet God's angry about the gays".