Best Of

From the NTA’s.

This is the great British Public for you.



Freddie Flintoff - Nearly Died
Rob Burrow - Died
Strictly Amy - Living with cancer
Molly Mae - Split up with her boyfriend

Which one wins the NTA… absolute bollocks #ntaawards


https://x.com/jord9393/status/1965884420617023623?s=61

An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.

Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.

I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.

Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.

I hadn't heard of him either.

Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing.
After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.

Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.

I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".

It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.

It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.

I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.

While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.

I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.

But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.

Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:

https://youtu.be/kK3mOBvudZk?si=JNRo8b6ZVpr_Xqxr

So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.

That right?

Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.

You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.

Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.

If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.

From the NTA’s.

This is the great British Public for you.



Freddie Flintoff - Nearly Died
Rob Burrow - Died
Strictly Amy - Living with cancer
Molly Mae - Split up with her boyfriend

Which one wins the NTA… absolute bollocks #ntaawards


https://x.com/jord9393/status/1965884420617023623?s=61

An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.

Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.

I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.

Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.

I hadn't heard of him either.

Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing.
After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.

Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.

I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".

It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.

It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.

I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.

While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.

I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.

But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.

Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:

https://youtu.be/kK3mOBvudZk?si=JNRo8b6ZVpr_Xqxr

So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.

That right?

Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.

You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.