Printable View
'UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-25793358
As I recall, devinely inspired floods aren't that uncommon, at least when the power of prayer doesn't save us all!
http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...ians-only.html
What do you think fuddam? Has the government condemned us all to a watery doom?
What a pathetic old man, people who believe storms are linked to a "God" are such utter morons, people can believe in what ever religion they want, but as soon as they impede on other people's rights, they should be shot down on the spot, how does this nonsense make it into the news, I really do "face-palm" at our new society.
It isn't UKIP policy so really the only storm is in a teacup.
Surely our democracy can survive the attack of a magic sky gnome believer's babbling?
What an arrogant, stupid, myopic, bigoted idiot! I know ukip has become the refuge for the daft and insane of British politics but do we have to give them actual attention like this?
More a storm over the UK, looking at the state of my garden - which is slightly bigger than a tea-cup :)Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
He is local councillor - so if you live in the area he represents, and he is impeding your rights, you will have the opportunity to cast your vote at an appropriate time. however, he is not in a position to impede any rights, AFAIK, although he is using his right to express an opinion through a free (ish) press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
More the fool who follows a fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Very true. I am pleaser to use a free(er) form of public speech to exercise my right to state my opinion that he's a moron.
Well, I suppose strictly speaking, that is a bit iffy, given the definition of a moronQuote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)
And therefore not something you could substantiate or uphold in court, should he sue you for libel.
But you are quite at liberty to say that, in your opinion, he is wrong or mistaken. :)
Oh dear.... Having read that all I can say is that until the seven trumpets sound, the seas become as blood and all the celestial bodies have been struck from the heavens I reserve my right to express the opinion that Mr Silvester is both a bigot and a fool.
According to Sky News UKIP suspended this old fool.
Fuddam is unlikely to join a 'debate' which consists mainly of insults; he's far too clever to be tempted. What purpose does name-calling serve other than to demean the value of our forum and discourage input?Quote:
What do you think fuddam?
Well gays like rainbows. Rainbows are only out when rain is about. There is clearly a link.
https://twitter.com/UkipWeather
Unfortunately in the UK, we have no such right, we are permitted to say whatever we like providing it isn't classified as one of a variaty of criminal or civil offenses such as libel, slander, incitement to commit crimes or hate speechQuote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
That said, we can only hope that he's investigated under the last example, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, though unfortunately I suspect the point was watered down too much to be able to make it stick.
Now that's criminal :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucio
I am in the USA. Here, a public figure can only win a libel claim if he is able to prove that I had knowledge that may statement was false. I obviously do not know the IQ of this individual. Based on his statements, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that it is diminished. It is also 'fair comment and criticism'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucio
For a libel prosecution in the UK, my statement would have to cause loss of trade (unlikely, since this individual isn't in business, to my knowledge), or to cause a reasonable person to think less of him. Nothing I say about him would make a reasonable person think less of him, since his own statements had succeeded in that.
Aren't there quite a few people in the US who might agree with and support his point of view?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
His views are entirely consistent with what his religion teaches though. Much as we may like to sweep it under the carpet because it doesn't appeal to a modern secular PC audience. A quick bit of research will show the Bible does not like homosexuality. I don't agree with him but at least his views are consistent with his religion. And this is a problem - and certainly a good reason for separation of church and state.
Actually they're not. You will find extremists in both religious and secular organisations, and in both cases it's wrong to assume they speak for the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
A quick bit of research will show that there is a considerable variation on what various religious groups consider what the words of the Bible actually mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
A lot depends on exactly how various phrases are interpreted, because from what I can gather, the Bible doesn't come right out and specifically condemn homosexuality per se, but rather, uses a series of phrases that are either cultural references that are subject to argument over precise interpretation or are euphemisms.
The mainstream view seems to be that homosexuality isn't "a sin", but homosexual behaviour is .... though even that doesn't seem to be viewed entirely consistently.
This UKIP councillor's views seem, erm, loony to me on a couple of points. First, even if we accept that a vengeful God will sent floods, how do we know these particular floods are in response to that particular bit of sinning by that particular political figure? Is that the only sin that occurred in the flooded area, or is this idiot claiming God contacted him directly and said, "Hey, these floods .... they're Camerons fault for supporting gay marriage"?
Secondly, and more generally, since nobody can prove anything in the Bible is actually the Word of God, or even that there is a God, any claims of this type are subject to the same objection. Why should the notion that these floods are God's retribution be any more or less credible than any other religious edict?
Bush and Blair "praying together" frankly worries me a lot more than this twit claiming a specific weather incident is punishment.
I think the real story here is the press latching onto anything they can to discredit the UKIP in the run up to European Parliamentary elections.
I think the floods were in response to Monty Python's "Life of Brian". God is just a bit late as he has a huge backlog of cases to work through, and must have fewer staff as the economic downturn has affected Heaven.com.
Some truth in that - this was a local councillor in some backwater that wrote to his local rag. The wider press press got hold of it and decided it was newsworthy. He really is insignificant in the scheme of mainstream politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galant
It is fairly clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
See Levitikus 18 on wikipedia
Now if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God.... While we'd like Christianity to be a fluffy Jesus is Love above-all-else-athon, I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too. I completely disagree, but there it is.
So you don't believe, yet you claim to be able to say what Christianity teaches us?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
In case my earlier comment passed you by, in my opinion you'd have to be a fool to believe that he speaks authoritatively or accurately for the Christian religion.
Ah, to get involved or not in a conversation on Biblical interpretation?
Probably an unnecessary conversation since, if anything, the Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't the question here but rather it would be the Bible's stance on interpreting weather patterns as the will of God.
Suffice to say the Bible provides no grounds for making such interpretations in any sort of specific sense.
I can read a book. That apparently doesn't count now?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Spot on. I went to a Jesuit school (which incidentally is the order the Pope belongs too) and while I was there the Headmaster was a priest called Michael Holman, who went on to become Provincial superior of the Jesuits in the UK and is now Principal of Heythrop College, University of London. Whilst students, he told us that there was nothing in the Bible that would suggest acts of nature are God’s work. He did say that it would be difficult to not interpret the bible as condemning homosexual acts, but that it is no different, and given no more importance, than say eating shell fish or pork, or wearing gold jewellery and given that it does not appear in the 10 Commandments, can be considered of less importance than what appears there.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Ultimately, people can, and do, interpret the Bible (and the Koran, Torah, etc….) in whatever way they wish to reinforce their own, predetermined, views. I doubt there are too many people that read the Bible with no preconditioned ideas beforehand, and then have them all shaped by the book, as opposed to say, a homophobe, reading the Bible to give credence to his/her homophobia. It is far more likely that it was/is society at large that placed the importance on specific interpretations of the contentious parts of the Bible, and ultimately the vast majority of religious people think it is for individuals to interpret the Books whatever way they want to. To equate an extremist with the mainstream view, and then say ‘they all believe it’, is to ignore the majorities interpretation. What makes the extremists right and the mainstream wrong?
I can't believe I'm about to put a huge space to give fair warning as the remainder of the post, a direct quote from the King James Bible, may be NSFW:
Good grief. What other way can you interpret the following?
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)[1]
20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)[2]
i absolutely disagree with the above, but I'm stumped as to how you can take anything other than the obvious meaning out of it.
Where he gets the floods from is another matter...
The bible isn't a book that you can simply read once and then assume you have as good understanding of it as those who spend years studying it, taking account of the provenance of the passage in question, who it was addressing, what has happened since the events described and so on. For you to tell such people what they believe is pretty offensive really - we wouldn't accept a religious person telling an atheist what to believe, so why is the reverse acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
On the positive side, if that's what you truly think Christianity is saying then there's a lot more hope that if you ever bother to delve into it some more and understand it better you'll change your opinion of it.
I'm currently in Soho, and saw two gents holding hands walking down the street, and yet the sun is shining. How can this be?
Not if you're going to quote Torah at us, no. Judaism clearly teaches that once God handed the law to man, it became man's responsibility to choose how to interpret and enforce the law, and that's done through the approriate structure - the council of Rabbis back then, the elected government now. God doesn't get a say in it any more (no, seriously, I've studied this).Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Then Jesus came along and said "fine, you want to punish this person for their sin; the person who is without sin throws the first stone." No stones were thrown that day.
So just because it's written down, doesn't make it black and white.
Well, I'll be buggered; it's a miracle that the sun is shining :mrgreen:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudger
Leviticus is Old Testament - which is pre Christ and therefore pre-Christianity. The Old Testament is primarily concerned with Jewish tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Oh Dear. Religious scholars are locked in never ending debate regarding the interpretation of various books. For example, what you have quoted is Old Testament Law and when Jesus was Crucified, Old Testament Law was replaced by the Law of Christ. In fact, Old Testament Law is widely accepted as only having ever been applicable to Jews, not Christians anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
It really is quite an interesting topic, whether you are religious or not, (Many prominent Atheists are very well versed in such topics) so might well be worth informing yourself with it, especially if you are going to quote from it.
A: UKIP bloke isn't Jewish andQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
B: if religion types get a free pass to interpret anything any way they want, what point is there in it?
This is all going to end in tears.
Not more rain :(Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
I stated what their holy book says and asked how it could be interpreted differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
And as another thread descends into a spat - probably time to close it. Pity - it might have developed into an interesting discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Oh, I did read that entry in Wikipedia, and quite a few other religious and non-religious sites too, before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Re: that Wikipedia entry, the para following the references points out ....The emphasis in bold is mine.Quote:
The two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. More recent interpretations focus on its context as part of the Holiness Code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of Israelites from the Canaanites.[3][4]
But it reinforces my point.
And what, exactly, is "the Bible"?
I have at least half a dozen here, but take just three ....
- King James
- NIV
- Jerusalem Bible
If you examine them closely, you will find differences, not just in exact content, but in both translation and interpretation.
That Jerusalem bible is a 1966 translation and, essentially, has a Catholic flavour, which I acquired (in a really nice leather binding, book-wise it's a thing of beauty) from Westminster Cathedral about 35 years ago. The King James is a reprint of the old 'school' reference version, and the NIV is one I acquired during a year or two spent with what might be disparagingly referred to as the happy-clappy brigade .... which, I must say, was much more fun than the other two.
Anyway, the point .... they are ALL interpretations. All of them.
They are all translations, and translations of collections of fragments passed down initially by word of mouth and a very few written fragments, but then translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and so on. And religious scholars have been arguing over exactly how to interpret many parts, for centuries. Partly, it's about the exact translation of specific words, but in many cases, such as those Leviticus passages, it's about what those words meant in the cultural context of the times in which they'd been used.
Ever studied literature? I mean, relatively modern literature? If you read Dickens, with a reasonable understanding of the state of late 19th Century England, you will get a deeper understanding of his meaning than without. At one level, they're ripping good (or not, depending on taste) stories. On another level, they're a biting social satire, and social condemnation, with more than a hint of a reforming agenda.
And Dickens is easy compared to, oh, James Joyce. Trying reading "Portrait ...." without an understanding of Irish politics and, more importantly, Catholic idiom and allegory, and you're going to be really struggling.
And that's child's play compared to understanding, say, Chaucer in the original, which for nearly all practical purposes is a foreign langauge, despite being in English. And that is about half the elapsed time, without the potential for distortion of the hundreds of years of verbal passing down, in merely an ancient form of our own language.
One example of difficulties in "translation and interpretation" ....
"Thou shalt not kill" is a form, and a somewhat archaic form at that, that most of us raised as Christian would recognise. But there are a number of extremely well educated scholars that insist a better translation, in a modern idiom, would be "You must not commit murder".
The difference between killing and murder is significant, especially given that the "murder" option includes a requirement for illegality, which is, of course, a variable given that legal definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So, if "murder" were to be the correct interpretation, what legal jurisdiction? That prevailing in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, or that where the killing/murder took place, at the time of the act of killing. Certainly, if it's "murder" then that Commandment does not even preclude the death penalty, because in states where that is legally sanctioned, it's not murder. On the other end of the spectrum, you cannot kill even if it is the only way to save your life, that of your family, or even hundreds or thousands of others. Fot instance, suppose shooting a suicide bomber or terrorist is the only way to stop him/her blowing up a cafe, or a school, or a plane? A strict and exception-free interpretation of not 'killing" means assuming God's will is for hundreds to die, when it could be prevented, at the hands of an extremist, or even madman.
If scholars, those that do understand social contexts of the time, at least as well as anyone does that wasn't there, and that can read Aramaic, Hebrew, etc, can't agree on precise interpretations, even of a major commanment, what chance do the rest of us stand with Leviticus 18?
As the thread still has potential to remain interesting - provided the debate remains within HEXUs rules - i.e., avoiding personal insults - I am reopening it.
However, if it again descends into the snide comment territory it will be closed again - permanently. There is a useful 'report post' function that may be used if a member objects to comments made by another.
All good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I understand perfectly well how the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. I went to an old-fashioned religious Irish grammar school and studied classics to A level. I have also read the New testament several times cover-to-cover in Greek.
To quote myself:
'I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too' (quoting me, my emphasis)
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?
Again - I don't have any deist beliefs whatsoever and strongly disagree with him. However the cultural blindside we have, where we cannot criticize the actual core doctrines of a religion, is odd.
Anyway - thanks for one of the more informed posts on the thread.:)
Whatever one's interpretation that is one thing, however it is another to impose their beliefs onto others, patronsing and undermining other sections of the human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
What happened to tolerance and humility?
Would a non believer be happy if a christian came up to them and said they would be going to Hell ?
It's easy being a Christian but living a Christian life is harder. I wonder if we dig into Mr UKIP he would have a 'plank' in his own eye. People shouldn't judge others, noone's perfect, even his bible teaches that. The fact that he does is even more evident he is using religion for his own agenda.
Problem is you go from a reasonable idea that Mr UKIP is just giving his own interpretation here:To the wholly unreasonable idea that his interpretation somehow represents the core doctrine of a religion here:Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Stating his opinion is in agreement with the core doctrine of Christianity (as also here:Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
is what I take issue with - it's simply not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by =wasabi
UKIP weather is indeed amusing, nice to see it gaining traction.
https://twitter.com/ukipweather
The threads on religion always get pretty close to the bone don't they ? :)
Not very. I get pairs of annoying people in suits round the door every other weekend trying to ram some of this cobblers down my throat. Still better than Southern electric conmen trying to trick me into signing up to their services on the back of a scam though.Quote:
Originally Posted by csgohan4
Whether you account for The Apocrypha, or possible revisionism at the Council of Nicea (disputed), most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god. And not just the New Testament.
I don't get the PC anger at the idea that a bunch of superstitious hillbillies several thousand years ago decided gays should be killed, and chucked their (by modern standards) illiberal ideas into their holy book.
Problem now is, do we simply say it isn't the literal word of god? The whole tower of cards quickly comes tumbling down if you do that.
Most? 90%, 80%?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
I would suggest few actually consider the Bible to be a literal word of God (and there are different versions of the Bible anyway - the version that "the pairs of men in suits" use is markedly different from that used by the Catholic or Protestant Churches.)
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.
As for your contention that homosexuality would be frowned upon - that could be explained by the fact that almost be definition, homosexuality will not result in procreation, and therefore the strength and ongoing growth and survival of the tribe.
By the same token, the restrictions on diet also make sense in an age where refrigeration was unknown, the risk of food poisoning was v(and still can be) very real from shellfish or pork or the cross contamination from meat to dairy products.
And that is not justifying any prejudice against homosexuality today.
I think anyone can have their own religion, but if you impose onto others forcibly or in an unwanted manner, that's where you have crossed the line.
When people don't take no for an answer, they deserve everything they get.
Religion doesn't harm people, people do, they use religion as an excuse for their actions. Interpretation is still a human thing and human nature to destroy for their own greed.
On a seperate note, there was a nationl survey done in the U.K years back and a large proportion put 'Jedi' as their religion lolz. Lightsabers FTW
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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. :D
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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.
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?
Some stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Says only 31% of americans surveyed think it's literal. Also not backing up your statement.Quote:
Yes they are. Even your links back that up.Quote:
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.
What is your evidence for saying it's likely to be the original meaning?Quote:
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Quote:
Originally Posted by the 1st link
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by the 2nd link
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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! ;)
Very true; the Almighty can leave such trivialities to the English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
Flooded for a reservoir.
That flood WAS the Government's fault.
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.
OK I could nitpick your reading of the figures but really can't be bothered. Happy with 'a significant percentage of Christians'?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
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".
And what if some of the bible teaches what in modern terms is hate speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Likewise I could go into a long post about why your analysis of the numbers is wrong. If you really are bothered, PM it and I'll send you a long PM back later in the week when I'm off the current work project. It becomes a close match of an example chapter of the book of How to lie with statistics.Quote:
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...
when the bible's a work of fiction who the hell cares I know I don't if we did not have religion in this world it would be a far better place for it, look back through history and just about every man made catastrophe has been to do with religion and ideology .as for politicians I would get rid of every last one of them as they are all in it for what they can get out of it and not to serve the people that put them in office
in this digital age why are we not now self governing using policy think tanks and everyone over 18 gets to vote on a Friday night with a simple yes no vote through your digital enabled tv.
A - I used the term profession as Knoxville used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
B Perhaps an element is true in theory - but the idea of representative democracy is that you elect someone for a term to make all decisions within a fixed scope on you behalf. Subtly different. Most are still Tory / LibDem / Labour, UKIP etc And funnily enough in N Ireland are heavily split on religious / Unionist / Nationalist grounds.
And results in local elections get swayed heavily by party politics at a national level. The two are intertwined.
So his ideas are embarrassing for UKIP at a national level - even though he is a local councillor and this has nothing to do with his remit anyway. So I question the motives of his critics.
That's quite an interesting claim. On one hand, yes - everything that anyone writes down is a work of fiction because they're telling an account of something, whether it's a story, or their recollection of an event that took place, or the recollection of what someone said took place. On the other, the Bible's a largely accurate representation of very old documents, which themselves were written in some cases by the people involved, or passed down through oral history through not all that many generations before being written down. So in some cases the Bible's representation of a letter that say St Paul wrote, is in fact not at all fiction, but really the letter he wrote. Likewise it contains various peoples accounts of things that happened - whether you believe their accounts is one thing, but it's harder to deny that the Bible makes a fairly accurate attempt at portraying those accounts (as far as historical documents that old go).Quote:
Originally Posted by eltel
To try and read the Bible as one simple textbook would be to misunderstand how it was physically and historically created.
That's an opinion that's come up before, and I highly disagree with it. Bad people do bad things, and will use any tool and excuse for it that they have available to them. Wars have taken place on many grounds, religion is one, but territory, race, family, culture, gang whatever are at least as frequently the cause. People fight when they have differences, and religion is but one.Quote:
if we did not have religion in this world it would be a far better place for it
Ideology, arguably, but not religion.Quote:
look back through history and just about every man made catastrophe has been to do with religion and ideology
In fact most religions could even claim to have a beneficial effect on society.
That worked so well for the athenians ;)Quote:
as for politicians I would get rid of every last one of them as they are all in it for what they can get out of it and not to serve the people that put them in office
in this digital age why are we not now self governing using policy think tanks and everyone over 18 gets to vote on a Friday night with a simple yes no vote through your digital enabled tv.
I think it's safe to say religion is an interpretation of current scriptures and whether they are the word of God or not is another entire discussion.
Simply reading the bible is not enough, there is so much more meaning and interpretation when analysed in bible study. I am sure the same goes for other religions.
People run a dangerous path in imposing their ideals onto others especially what we would term as inflammatory and /or derogatory in current terms.
I find it Mr UKIP to be quite the hypocrite, judging others so quickly before looking at the 'plank' in his own eye.
Political and own personal life/ opinions should always separated or there will be repercussions. You may alienate the people who don't worship the same God or believe in the same religion for example.
I am glad he was suspended.
Whether he believed what he said was true for Christianity, he held office and he would be better to resign and just hang around Oxford circus with a loud speaker shouting 'your going to hell'.
Whether he was small political fry or not is irrelevant. He represented UKIP not just his local church.
Do doctors hold daily prayers with their dying patients? No because they will get struck off. Personal and professional life MUST be separate.
How did he 'impose' his ideals?Quote:
Originally Posted by csgohan4
Interesting. While the floods bit is logically bonkers, the Bible has plenty of anti-gay remarks. Now I actually agree they are inflammatory, but is freedom of speech so onerous he can't even utter the words? I'm scared for our democracy if he can't.Quote:
especially what we would term as inflammatory and /or derogatory in current terms.
Which plank?Quote:
I find it Mr UKIP to be quite the hypocrite, judging others so quickly before looking at the 'plank' in his own eye.
Did he hide his Christian beliefs from voters in the council elections? I doubt it, though happy to be proved wrong if anyone knows more.Quote:
Political and own personal life/ opinions should always separated or there will be repercussions. You may alienate the people who don't worship the same God or believe in the same religion for example.
I am glad he was suspended.
Whether he believed what he said was true for Christianity, he held office and he would be better to resign and just hang around Oxford circus with a loud speaker shouting 'your going to hell'.
Whether he was small political fry or not is irrelevant. He represented UKIP not just his local church.
Do doctors hold daily prayers with their dying patients? No because they will get struck off. Personal and professional life MUST be separate.
To me this is why we need a formal separation of church and state. Not so that we stop offending poor sensitive souls who are too fragile to have their cosy beleifs challenged, but simply to make abuse of power through religion irrelevant through impossibility. In this respect the USA is way ahead of the UK. The ban on school prayers for example being the most commonly challenged side-effect.
I don't follow your argument. That would have no effect whatsoever on the UKIP chap saying what he did. He was not acting in any way as part of an official state religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I also disagree that the bible is fiction. If someone writes a biography, it is by definition non-fiction, even if it's spectacularly inaccurate and the events contained did not actually happen.
In the case of the bible, it's very hard to determine what is true and what simply didn't happen. We know that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, and the authorship is very dubious. But they may have been drawing from eyewitness accounts. We know that some of the more important stuff, like the Exodus simply didn't happen. The historical Jesus is probably a later invention.
Paul is an important part of this. The Bible is probably fairly accurate in representing the writings of Paul, but there are some very big differences between Pauline Christianity which influenced the creation of The Bible, and Jesuism.
This is the UK. Everything is the government's fault and everything that isn't the government's fault is the fault of the EU.
I actually felt sorry for Cameron yesterday. When Obama and Gaillard went to disaster zones they received a warm welcome from the locals and admiration. When Cameron went to a flooded village he received complaints about the local council.