Lansman in the usual fashion of away day visitors doesn't realise that the actual point is that the right-wing Labour msps are a bit rubbish, the Corbynista loyalist msps are a bit rubbish and those in between are a bit rubbish. Until that (admittedly fairly intractable) situation is addressed, they'll continue their factional blame game unto oblivion.
I did wonder from the one resignation, if what Lansman claims here is happening. Sort of a repeat of what happened in the Westminster parliament but in the Scottish one instead (just the factional right-left fight really)
Let's say you are right and they are all crap (not saying they are but hypothetically) then given that Labour probably can't realistically get rid of them all and the members did actually chose the current leader then they would actually do better if they worked together and worked with the leader. A crap team working together can actually beat a better team than is disunited.
Even if what you say is right, or possibly even more importantly if what you say is right than the factional fighting will just make things a lot worse and it is the only realistic short term fix.
My suspicion, with Corbyn down South but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same with Leonard is to trash the party as much as possible to justify the Blairites taking back over. Or to try and justify it, I can't see the plan working.
> @argyllrs said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @ Cyclefree > > > > > > > > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote - > > > > > > > > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that." > > > > > > > > Not much wriggle room there. > > > > > > > > 😊 > > > > You mean they can't do it standing up???? > > Sure it also gives the ok on boning your own daughter? > Religion is just another jumped up bunch of self righteous individuals who want to force one to live their life as they see fit.
New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
> @OllyT said: > > @viewcode said: > > Macmillan read Trollope in the No 10 garden in his spare time. > > > > Major was a fan of Anthony Trollope's "A Dance to the Music of Time" > > Major certainly liked Trollope but "Dance to the Music of Time" was by Anthony Powell , also an excellent read if you have the stamina for all 12 volumes.
The great thing is that they can (& probably should) be read as individual novels. Took me about 8 years to read them all (& not in sequence).
> @theProle said: > > @argyllrs said: > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > @ Cyclefree > > > > > > > > > > > > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote - > > > > > > > > > > > > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that." > > > > > > > > > > > > Not much wriggle room there. > > > > > > > > > > > > 😊 > > > > > > You mean they can't do it standing up???? > > > > Sure it also gives the ok on boning your own daughter? > > Religion is just another jumped up bunch of self righteous individuals who want to force one to live their life as they see fit. > > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27 > > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
I think there are three instances. From a very hazy memory... Lot's daughters Someone called Tamar? Also did one of Noah's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him?
> > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote -
> >
> > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that."
> >
> > Not much wriggle room there.
> >
> > 😊
>
> If you read the whole thing you must have noticed that something significant happens about 600 years after that bit, of particular relevance since Cyclefree specifically referenced "Jesus's teachings".
Did Jesus talk about homosexuality?
No, he did not. That is why I specifically referenced the teachings of Jesus when referring to Christianity. There is something odd in the way one tiny bit of the Old Testament has been elevated into Holy Writ on this point.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > > Apropos of the 'up to 20 candidates issue';,it would be nice if Jesse Norman ran because then along with Rory Stewart there would be two decent, sensible, thoughtful, intelligent, statesmanlike candidates to share bottom place in this Eatanswill bearpit of an election. > > > > > > > > A doctor of philosophy - in philosophy - in the parliamentary Conservative Party? > > > > > > > > I suppose a familiarity with philosophy could be quite useful in getting through the day, if you're a Tory MP. > > > > I think it's time we gave a try to having a PM with intellectual/cultural hinterland. I wonder if we missed a trick by not having Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Ken Clarke when we had the chance. A PM who actually read, understood and wrote (beautifully) books about Adam Smith and Burke would be a nice change. Stewart and Norman would still come bottom with the party in its current terminal state. > > Clinton was extremely well-read, and I think Obama too. Churchill certainly gave that impression, but not sure I can think of another PM. Michael Foot, I assume, if we include opposition leaders. Gaitskell, maybe?
Apparently Gordon Brown was very well-read. When he was PM I had an e-mail exchange with Polly Toynbee , who suggested that he was the most intelligent of our postwar PMs. I expressed disagreement, and suggested that Harold Wilson was more deserving of that accolade. Polly replied that it was her impression that Wilson ceased to read widely upon becoming a senior politician.
> New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27 > > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Byronic said: > > > > @Chris said: > > > > > > > Oh sure, loud in the defence of their right to express eccentric and even offensive opinions. > > > > > > > > But we don't have to defend the opinions. Let's be loud in our ridicule of the opinions.< > > > > > > +++++ > > > > > > Widdecombe is an odd fish, but I think she has been slightly mis-represented here. She's not saying gayness is a disease (I don't think). Her phrasing is nonetheless clumsy. She seems to have been old and silly ever since she entered politics, somehow. > > > > "Wrongful" was apparently the word she used (for "homosexual acts") in a parliamentary debate on civil partnerships in 2004. > > > > Surely there can't be any doubt she thinks gayness is undesirable and people would be better off without it? > > Why someone who has never had sex should think she has anything useful or interesting to say about other peoples’ sexuality is a mystery. > > But it is people like her implying or saying that people like my son are somehow a problem, a defect to be cured or whatever, which makes the life he and other gay people live harder than it otherwise should be. They have to justify their existence, their desires, their yearning - like all of us - to love and be loved. They have to fight just to be, just to be left alone to live life in whatever way they want. > > And I am not having it - it is my flesh and blood she is harming or insulting with her idiocies and unkindnesses. This sort of thoughtless bigotry is not just aimed at gay people but at all of us, whose sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, colleagues they are. Harm them, attack them, insult them, deride them - and you do it to me, to all of us. We are all minorities somewhere, in some way. > > I feel very strongly about this - as I am sure those who have read some of my postings and headers on this will realise - because it’s personal and because this is about the sort of people we are and how we treat those around us. > > “Do as you would be done by.” Wise words. And words which those who cloak their bigotry in religion should ponder.
> @Ishmael_Z said: > > @theProle said: > > > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27 > > > > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > > > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > > > > > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse. > > Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough. >
What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people.
I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
> New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
>
> 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>
> 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
> @kinabalu said: > Not sure why people are so certain that Ann Widdecombe has never had sex. She may have announced that but if so I missed it. Otherwise, my strong sense is that she HAS had sex and lots of it. She was on Strictly Come Dancing remember.
Useless fact: 26% of the world's population are represented by the 10 teams playing at the Cricket World Cup, around 2 billion people. Most of those are in India of course.
> > Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough. > > Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well. > > I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well. > > Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
I'm not sure who your comment is directed at - me or Ishmael_Z.
I'm generally a fan of "the plain reading of scripture". Ignoring all Paul's teaching is a deeply weird modern theological fad, which frankly makes little or no sense. If you are willing to ignore the 1/3 of the New Testament written by Paul, why pay attention to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels (at least two of which, Luke and Mark, are written by Paul's traveling companions from Acts).
One of the remarkable features of the Bible is the way in which, despite it having been written by dozens of authors over thousands of years, it has lots of threads which hold it together. One of those threads is marriage - it arrives in Genesis 2, and for most of the Old and New Testament it serves as a picture of God's covenant relationship with his people - all the way through to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb in Revelation. Paul's teaching on marriage and sexuality fits perfectly into this - it's hard to see how it can be inconsistent. It's also worth seeing just how brutal Jesus is about divorce in Mark 10 - does this really sound like someone about to sign up for gay marriage? I think it's unlikely to say the least.
Major was a fan of Anthony Trollope's "A Dance to the Music of Time"
Major certainly liked Trollope but "Dance to the Music of Time" was by Anthony Powell , also an excellent read if you have the stamina for all 12 volumes.
> @Ishmael_Z said: > > @theProle said: > > > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27 > > > > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > > > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > > > > > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse. > > Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough. >
Even the old misogynist Paul said this... ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus....’
> > Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well. > > I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well. > > Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
Well, yes. I don't buy any of this stuff either. But we can distinguish Christianity from Islam in that Christians say the NT is the product of fallible mortals, some of whom knew Jesus and some of whom didn't, whereas the Koran is claimed to be the word of God as dictated to his prophet.
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
I'm not sure who your comment is directed at - me or Ishmael_Z.
I'm generally a fan of "the plain reading of scripture". Ignoring all Paul's teaching is a deeply weird modern theological fad, which frankly makes little or no sense. If you are willing to ignore the 1/3 of the New Testament written by Paul, why pay attention to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels (at least two of which, Luke and Mark, are written by Paul's traveling companions from Acts).
One of the remarkable features of the Bible is the way in which, despite it having been written by dozens of authors over thousands of years, it has lots of threads which hold it together. One of those threads is marriage - it arrives in Genesis 2, and for most of the Old and New Testament it serves as a picture of God's covenant relationship with his people - all the way through to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb in Revelation.
Paul's teaching on marriage and sexuality fits perfectly into this - it's hard to see how it can be inconsistent.
It's also worth seeing just how brutal Jesus is about divorce in Mark 10 - does this really sound like someone about to sign up for gay marriage? I think it's unlikely to say the least.
Mark 10 provides no support for hatred of or discrimination against gay people.
> @TheJezziah said: > > @theProle said: > > > > > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27 > > > > > > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > > > > > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse. > > > > Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough. > > Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well. > > I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well. > > Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
> > What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people. > > I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life.
The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since. The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures. The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies.
It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
> @brendan16 said: > > @AndyJS said: > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far? > > > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
> @theProle said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people. > > > > I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either. > > Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life. > > The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since. > The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures. > The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies. > > It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
Evidence?
The Gospels cannot be viewed as historically reliable There is a lot of reliance on the Roman historian Josephus - but that is also not reliable and there is evidence that it was altered to closer fit what the Christians wanted it to say
Fitting in with an existing older narrative is exactly what you would do if you were wishing to give credibility to a new narrative.
This issue seems to be that those who want to believe will find the Bible to be reliable. I do not find it to be in any way a credible source and as such the Christian Church is built on stories, not facts. There may be some facts in there - but you will never convince me that the whole narrative is anything other than a story.
> @justin124 said: > > @kinabalu said: > > Not sure why people are so certain that Ann Widdecombe has never had sex. She may have announced that but if so I missed it. Otherwise, my strong sense is that she HAS had sex and lots of it. She was on Strictly Come Dancing remember. > > If she has, it makes here a megahypocrite
> @AndyJS said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > @AndyJS said: > > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far? > > > > > > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign? > > Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
> @theProle said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > > > What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people. > > > > I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either. > > Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life. > > The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since. > The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures. > The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies. > > It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
Christianity had it's roots in Greek Mystery Cults. The bible is a version of it's time. Think of it as the equivalent of a West Side Story version of Romeo and Juliet. It was probably written by the Essenes at Qumran around (one of two) teachers of righteousness. Written from maybe just before year 0 to about 30AD. These people were the equivalent of the Judean's Popular Front. There is not one piece of evidence that Jesus existed that stands upto scrutiny. It is amazing what information (often written unconsciously as an aside) can be drawn from the texts though.
> @HYUFD said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far? > > > > > > > > > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign? > > > > Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything. > > Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
In a secret ballot, he may do better than expected.
Working. I've hit the bit where I can still keep going for a couple of hours. IPlayer has Stephen Poliakoff box-sets, and I've got "Perfect Strangers" on in the background. Posh English people talking in elliptical non-sequiturs, full of meaning with no content. Quite fun really...
> > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
>
> >
>
> > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>
> >
>
> > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
>
>
>
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
Bit like Marx then.
Politics is pretty dangerous as well, I'm just not sure organised religion is actually necessary whereas politics seems like something we do need, maybe AI could take over...
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
Well, yes. I don't buy any of this stuff either. But we can distinguish Christianity from Islam in that Christians say the NT is the product of fallible mortals, some of whom knew Jesus and some of whom didn't, whereas the Koran is claimed to be the word of God as dictated to his prophet.
I fail to see the practical difference that has actually made, Christians who base their prejudice on words in the book still have existed, if they didn't because any argument about God saying anti Gay messages was defeated with a simple message about fallible mortals transcribing the book then that would be fair enough...
But the reason that doesn't happen is it pretty much discredits the entire book, every single line can be defeated with that take. You may as well not follow Christianity at all unless there is some special reason you understand which lines are false and which are true...
If anything that could be worse, if you are a particularly nasty piece of work you can ignore the good parts and just concentrate on the bad parts. Although this is pretty much what a lot of Islamic extremists do according to many, I've seen many examples of things from the Koran which the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda seem to fall foul of, and much the same with Christian extremists.
They interpret things to mean what they want, a get out of this bit is wrote by a flawed man doesn't actually really help IMO and possibly just makes it easier to ignore the good bits and pick out the bad bits.
Edit: @theProle I think we may agree on the subject, although I'm approaching the subject from a slightly different angle and my response was directed to Ishmael rather than you.
> @HYUFD said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far? > > > > > > > > > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign? > > > > Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything. > > Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
I think Mark Field has just endorsed Jeremy Hunt. The others look possible.
> @kinabalu said: > @ Cyclefree > > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote - > > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that." > > Not much wriggle room there. > > 😊
I thought that was an instruction to always fly economy
> @TheJezziah said: > > @TheJezziah said: > > > > > > > > Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well. > > > > > > I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well. > > > > > > Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying. > > > > Well, yes. I don't buy any of this stuff either. But we can distinguish Christianity from Islam in that Christians say the NT is the product of fallible mortals, some of whom knew Jesus and some of whom didn't, whereas the Koran is claimed to be the word of God as dictated to his prophet. > > I fail to see the practical difference that has actually made, Christians who base their prejudice on words in the book still have existed, if they didn't because any argument about God saying anti Gay messages was defeated with a simple message about fallible mortals transcribing the book then that would be fair enough... > > But the reason that doesn't happen is it pretty much discredits the entire book, every single line can be defeated with that take. You may as well not follow Christianity at all unless there is some special reason you understand which lines are false and which are true... > > If anything that could be worse, if you are a particularly nasty piece of work you can ignore the good parts and just concentrate on the bad parts. Although this is pretty much what a lot of Islamic extremists do according to many, I've seen many examples of things from the Koran which the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda seem to fall foul of, and much the same with Christian extremists. > > They interpret things to mean what they want, a get out of this bit is wrote by a flawed man doesn't actually really help IMO and possibly just makes it easier to ignore the good bits and pick out the bad bits. > > Edit: @theProle I think we may agree on the subject, although I'm approaching the subject from a slightly different angle and my response was directed to Ishmael rather than you.
I am not defending this stuff, I don't believe a word of it. Or rather I think Jesus was an historical figure, I just don't believe his claims to divinity. I was just making the point that there are huge conceptual differences between reports of what he actually said, and things other people have said about him and his teachings. As far as I know you are right to say that this has never made any practical difference to anything; all churches treat all the canonical books of the nt on an equal footing.
Good God. I go away for a couple of hours and apparently PB is now devoted to source criticism of the New Testament and The Quest for the Historical Jesus!
I'm afraid this approach is barking up the wrong tree. No doubt Jesus existed, but even by the period of the earliest records we have several quite different pictures of him, none of them self-consistent. In historical terms it's very difficult to know precisely what he thought about anything. But supposing somebody found an autograph scroll saying he was sick of these gays and hanging was too good for them, would it really make us reintroduce the death penalty for sodomy? Jesus was a man of his time, after all.
Who really believes that anyone has a choice about their sexuality, or that its physical expression between two people of the same sex is any more "wrongful," as Ann Widdecombe would put it, than intercourse in similar circumstances between a man and a woman?
Such views are self-evidently nonsensical. When everyone believed it out of habit, it may have been understandable. When people choose to believe it not only against all common sense but also against the prevailing consensus, it's incomprehensible and perverse.
> As Trump arrives in the UK his approval rating reaches 48%, its highest level since June 2017 and 2% above the 46% he got in the popular vote in 2016
Comments
Let's say you are right and they are all crap (not saying they are but hypothetically) then given that Labour probably can't realistically get rid of them all and the members did actually chose the current leader then they would actually do better if they worked together and worked with the leader. A crap team working together can actually beat a better team than is disunited.
Even if what you say is right, or possibly even more importantly if what you say is right than the factional fighting will just make things a lot worse and it is the only realistic short term fix.
My suspicion, with Corbyn down South but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same with Leonard is to trash the party as much as possible to justify the Blairites taking back over. Or to try and justify it, I can't see the plan working.
> Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far?
>
He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > @ Cyclefree
> >
> >
> >
> > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote -
> >
> >
> >
> > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that."
> >
> >
> >
> > Not much wriggle room there.
> >
> >
> >
> > 😊
> >
> > You mean they can't do it standing up????
>
> Sure it also gives the ok on boning your own daughter?
> Religion is just another jumped up bunch of self righteous individuals who want to force one to live their life as they see fit.
New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-heads-for-britain-with-approval-rating-at-record-high-9xzbgd3vx
> > @viewcode said:
> > Macmillan read Trollope in the No 10 garden in his spare time.
> >
> > Major was a fan of Anthony Trollope's "A Dance to the Music of Time"
>
> Major certainly liked Trollope but "Dance to the Music of Time" was by Anthony Powell , also an excellent read if you have the stamina for all 12 volumes.
The great thing is that they can (& probably should) be read as individual novels. Took me about 8 years to read them all (& not in sequence).
> > @argyllrs said:
> > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > @ Cyclefree
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not much wriggle room there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 😊
> > >
> > > You mean they can't do it standing up????
> >
> > Sure it also gives the ok on boning your own daughter?
> > Religion is just another jumped up bunch of self righteous individuals who want to force one to live their life as they see fit.
>
> New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
>
> 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>
> 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
I think there are three instances. From a very hazy memory...
Lot's daughters
Someone called Tamar?
Also did one of Noah's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him?
> As Trump arrives in the UK his approval rating reaches 48%, its highest level since June 2017 and 2% above the 46% he got in the popular vote in 2016
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-heads-for-britain-with-approval-rating-at-record-high-9xzbgd3vx
He's going to be tough to beat next year.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> >
> > > Apropos of the 'up to 20 candidates issue';,it would be nice if Jesse Norman ran because then along with Rory Stewart there would be two decent, sensible, thoughtful, intelligent, statesmanlike candidates to share bottom place in this Eatanswill bearpit of an election.
> >
> >
> >
> > A doctor of philosophy - in philosophy - in the parliamentary Conservative Party?
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose a familiarity with philosophy could be quite useful in getting through the day, if you're a Tory MP.
> >
> > I think it's time we gave a try to having a PM with intellectual/cultural hinterland. I wonder if we missed a trick by not having Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Ken Clarke when we had the chance. A PM who actually read, understood and wrote (beautifully) books about Adam Smith and Burke would be a nice change. Stewart and Norman would still come bottom with the party in its current terminal state.
>
> Clinton was extremely well-read, and I think Obama too. Churchill certainly gave that impression, but not sure I can think of another PM. Michael Foot, I assume, if we include opposition leaders. Gaitskell, maybe?
Apparently Gordon Brown was very well-read. When he was PM I had an e-mail exchange with Polly Toynbee , who suggested that he was the most intelligent of our postwar PMs. I expressed disagreement, and suggested that Harold Wilson was more deserving of that accolade. Polly replied that it was her impression that Wilson ceased to read widely upon becoming a senior politician.
> New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
>
> 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>
> 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
> > @Byronic said:
>
> > > @Chris said:
>
> >
>
> > > Oh sure, loud in the defence of their right to express eccentric and even offensive opinions.
>
> > >
>
> > > But we don't have to defend the opinions. Let's be loud in our ridicule of the opinions.<
>
> >
>
> > +++++
>
> >
>
> > Widdecombe is an odd fish, but I think she has been slightly mis-represented here. She's not saying gayness is a disease (I don't think). Her phrasing is nonetheless clumsy. She seems to have been old and silly ever since she entered politics, somehow.
>
>
>
> "Wrongful" was apparently the word she used (for "homosexual acts") in a parliamentary debate on civil partnerships in 2004.
>
>
>
> Surely there can't be any doubt she thinks gayness is undesirable and people would be better off without it?
>
> Why someone who has never had sex should think she has anything useful or interesting to say about other peoples’ sexuality is a mystery.
>
> But it is people like her implying or saying that people like my son are somehow a problem, a defect to be cured or whatever, which makes the life he and other gay people live harder than it otherwise should be. They have to justify their existence, their desires, their yearning - like all of us - to love and be loved. They have to fight just to be, just to be left alone to live life in whatever way they want.
>
> And I am not having it - it is my flesh and blood she is harming or insulting with her idiocies and unkindnesses. This sort of thoughtless bigotry is not just aimed at gay people but at all of us, whose sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, colleagues they are. Harm them, attack them, insult them, deride them - and you do it to me, to all of us. We are all minorities somewhere, in some way.
>
> I feel very strongly about this - as I am sure those who have read some of my postings and headers on this will realise - because it’s personal and because this is about the sort of people we are and how we treat those around us.
>
> “Do as you would be done by.” Wise words. And words which those who cloak their bigotry in religion should ponder.
Very well said!
> > @theProle said:
>
> > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
> >
> > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
> >
> > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
>
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people.
I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > As Trump arrives in the UK his approval rating reaches 48%, its highest level since June 2017 and 2% above the 46% he got in the popular vote in 2016
> >
> > https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-heads-for-britain-with-approval-rating-at-record-high-9xzbgd3vx
>
> He's going to be tough to beat next year.
Especially as the Democrats have yet to find a really decent candidate
I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/02/pollsters-blatant-dishonesty-brexit-ruining-public-trust/
> Not sure why people are so certain that Ann Widdecombe has never had sex. She may have announced that but if so I missed it. Otherwise, my strong sense is that she HAS had sex and lots of it. She was on Strictly Come Dancing remember.
If she has, it makes here a megahypocrite
> > @theProle said:
>
>
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
@TheJezziah
I'm not sure who your comment is directed at - me or Ishmael_Z.
I'm generally a fan of "the plain reading of scripture". Ignoring all Paul's teaching is a deeply weird modern theological fad, which frankly makes little or no sense. If you are willing to ignore the 1/3 of the New Testament written by Paul, why pay attention to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels (at least two of which, Luke and Mark, are written by Paul's traveling companions from Acts).
One of the remarkable features of the Bible is the way in which, despite it having been written by dozens of authors over thousands of years, it has lots of threads which hold it together. One of those threads is marriage - it arrives in Genesis 2, and for most of the Old and New Testament it serves as a picture of God's covenant relationship with his people - all the way through to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb in Revelation.
Paul's teaching on marriage and sexuality fits perfectly into this - it's hard to see how it can be inconsistent.
It's also worth seeing just how brutal Jesus is about divorce in Mark 10 - does this really sound like someone about to sign up for gay marriage? I think it's unlikely to say the least.
> > @theProle said:
>
> > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
> >
> > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
> >
> > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
>
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
Even the old misogynist Paul said this...
‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus....’
>
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
Well, yes. I don't buy any of this stuff either. But we can distinguish Christianity from Islam in that Christians say the NT is the product of fallible mortals, some of whom knew Jesus and some of whom didn't, whereas the Koran is claimed to be the word of God as dictated to his prophet.
> https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1135303229976272898?s=20
Is it me or does Phillip Hammond look like a funeral director or a member of the Addams family
> > @theProle said:
>
>
>
> > New Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1 v 24-27
>
> >
>
> > 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>
> >
>
> > 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm not sure where you get the idea that incest is OK from the Bible. Possibly you are thinking of the activities of Lot's daughters. If so, I think you miss the point of that episode - and indeed you fail to understand the all important rule of reading the narrative parts of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) - not everything which is recorded is approved of - indeed sometimes quite the reverse.
>
>
>
> Paul =/= Jesus, and there is no particular reason for a Christian to attach any particular weight to anything Paul says about anything. Paul was a complex and troubled individual, and a cogent case can be made that he was fundamentally a bully whose USP was that he transitioned from persecuting Christians for being Christian, to persecuting them for not being Christian enough.
>
> Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
Bit like Marx then.
>
> What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people.
>
> I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life.
The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since.
The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures.
The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies.
It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far?
> >
>
> He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
I have no idea why he does it.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125574963
> > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> >
> > What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people.
> >
> > I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
>
> Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life.
>
> The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since.
> The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures.
> The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies.
>
> It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
Evidence?
The Gospels cannot be viewed as historically reliable
There is a lot of reliance on the Roman historian Josephus - but that is also not reliable and there is evidence that it was altered to closer fit what the Christians wanted it to say
Fitting in with an existing older narrative is exactly what you would do if you were wishing to give credibility to a new narrative.
This issue seems to be that those who want to believe will find the Bible to be reliable. I do not find it to be in any way a credible source and as such the Christian Church is built on stories, not facts. There may be some facts in there - but you will never convince me that the whole narrative is anything other than a story.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > Not sure why people are so certain that Ann Widdecombe has never had sex. She may have announced that but if so I missed it. Otherwise, my strong sense is that she HAS had sex and lots of it. She was on Strictly Come Dancing remember.
>
> If she has, it makes here a megahypocrite
She has not
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/cbbs-ann-widdecombe-proud-virgin-11795767
> > @brendan16 said:
> > > @AndyJS said:
> > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far?
> > >
> >
> > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
>
> Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
> > @oxfordsimon said:
>
> >
> > What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would choose to live their lives based on stories written long after the death about people who may or may not have ever existed or experienced the events being described? Stories that were then edited and collated by an organisation trying to control people.
> >
> > I know that people will say 'faith' but that just doesn't make sense either.
>
> Because of the evidence. Where did Christianity come from? Something went on Jerusalem in about AD30 which has rocked the entire world. And it did so on the premise that a condemned and executed criminal came back to life.
>
> The original eye-witnesses were so convinced that when they went to their deaths (in various places, and at different times) for saying it had happened, not a single one recanted. The Jewish leaders, for whom this had become a massive problem, could have killed the whole thing stone dead in minutes, had they had a body to produce. A bunch of rather wet behind the ears Jewish fishermen and tax collectors somehow changed in character overnight so much that they kicked off a mass movement which had reached most of the Roman empire inside 30 years, and which has dominated the course of much of world history ever since.
> The gospel accounts and the theology fit perfectly into a much older narrative - the Hebrew Scriptures.
> The surviving documentary evidence is in historical terms remarkably close in date to the original copies.
>
> It's one of those "if you disprove all the alternatives, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth" things. When I first started thinking about the claims of the Bible, they seemed pretty far fetched - but the more I looked into them, the more they stood up - until eventually I certainly reached a point where I could honestly say the evidence is so overwhelming, I had no option but to believe.
Christianity had it's roots in Greek Mystery Cults.
The bible is a version of it's time. Think of it as the equivalent of a West Side Story version of Romeo and Juliet. It was probably written by the Essenes at Qumran around (one of two) teachers of righteousness. Written from maybe just before year 0 to about 30AD. These people were the equivalent of the Judean's Popular Front. There is not one piece of evidence that Jesus existed that stands upto scrutiny. It is amazing what information (often written unconsciously as an aside) can be drawn from the texts though.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > > @brendan16 said:
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far?
> > > >
> > >
> > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
> >
> > Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
>
> Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
In a secret ballot, he may do better than expected.
Archbishop Cranmer"
https://archbishopcranmer.com/tory-leadership-contest-how-christian-are-candidates/
But the reason that doesn't happen is it pretty much discredits the entire book, every single line can be defeated with that take. You may as well not follow Christianity at all unless there is some special reason you understand which lines are false and which are true...
If anything that could be worse, if you are a particularly nasty piece of work you can ignore the good parts and just concentrate on the bad parts. Although this is pretty much what a lot of Islamic extremists do according to many, I've seen many examples of things from the Koran which the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda seem to fall foul of, and much the same with Christian extremists.
They interpret things to mean what they want, a get out of this bit is wrote by a flawed man doesn't actually really help IMO and possibly just makes it easier to ignore the good bits and pick out the bad bits.
Edit: @theProle I think we may agree on the subject, although I'm approaching the subject from a slightly different angle and my response was directed to Ishmael rather than you.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > > @brendan16 said:
> > > > @AndyJS said:
> > > > Has Sam Gyimah picked up any endorsements so far?
> > > >
> > >
> > > He presumably is endorsed by the people's vote campaign?
> >
> > Not sure, I'll have to see whether they've said anything.
>
> Dominic Grieve, Philip Lee, Justine Greening, Bob Neil and Mark Field are amongst those who might back Gyimah
I think Mark Field has just endorsed Jeremy Hunt. The others look possible.
> @ Cyclefree
>
> I once read a modern language version of the bible cover to cover and I regret to inform you of the following passage from the OT which very much stuck in my memory. It's an exact quote -
>
> "A man must not lay down with another man. God hates that."
>
> Not much wriggle room there.
>
> 😊
I thought that was an instruction to always fly economy
> As Trump arrives in the UK his approval rating reaches 48%, its highest level since June 2017 and 2% above the 46% he got in the popular vote in 2016
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-heads-for-britain-with-approval-rating-at-record-high-9xzbgd3vx
Trump's approval rating has barely budged for two years:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
> > @TheJezziah said:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Isn't this exactly what every other religion does though, ahh you can't actually take that one line out of context but have to consider several other factors as well.
>
> >
>
> > I have seen Muslims do exactly the same thing in regards to various lines from the Koran and I would be amazed if similar doesn't happen in other religions as well.
>
> >
>
> > Which is actually my problem with holy books in general, it is the holy book but can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what you want God to be saying.
>
>
>
> Well, yes. I don't buy any of this stuff either. But we can distinguish Christianity from Islam in that Christians say the NT is the product of fallible mortals, some of whom knew Jesus and some of whom didn't, whereas the Koran is claimed to be the word of God as dictated to his prophet.
>
> I fail to see the practical difference that has actually made, Christians who base their prejudice on words in the book still have existed, if they didn't because any argument about God saying anti Gay messages was defeated with a simple message about fallible mortals transcribing the book then that would be fair enough...
>
> But the reason that doesn't happen is it pretty much discredits the entire book, every single line can be defeated with that take. You may as well not follow Christianity at all unless there is some special reason you understand which lines are false and which are true...
>
> If anything that could be worse, if you are a particularly nasty piece of work you can ignore the good parts and just concentrate on the bad parts. Although this is pretty much what a lot of Islamic extremists do according to many, I've seen many examples of things from the Koran which the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda seem to fall foul of, and much the same with Christian extremists.
>
> They interpret things to mean what they want, a get out of this bit is wrote by a flawed man doesn't actually really help IMO and possibly just makes it easier to ignore the good bits and pick out the bad bits.
>
> Edit: @theProle I think we may agree on the subject, although I'm approaching the subject from a slightly different angle and my response was directed to Ishmael rather than you.
I am not defending this stuff, I don't believe a word of it. Or rather I think Jesus was an historical figure, I just don't believe his claims to divinity. I was just making the point that there are huge conceptual differences between reports of what he actually said, and things other people have said about him and his teachings. As far as I know you are right to say that this has never made any practical difference to anything; all churches treat all the canonical books of the nt on an equal footing.
I'm afraid this approach is barking up the wrong tree. No doubt Jesus existed, but even by the period of the earliest records we have several quite different pictures of him, none of them self-consistent. In historical terms it's very difficult to know precisely what he thought about anything. But supposing somebody found an autograph scroll saying he was sick of these gays and hanging was too good for them, would it really make us reintroduce the death penalty for sodomy? Jesus was a man of his time, after all.
Who really believes that anyone has a choice about their sexuality, or that its physical expression between two people of the same sex is any more "wrongful," as Ann Widdecombe would put it, than intercourse in similar circumstances between a man and a woman?
Such views are self-evidently nonsensical. When everyone believed it out of habit, it may have been understandable. When people choose to believe it not only against all common sense but also against the prevailing consensus, it's incomprehensible and perverse.