Good gracious. Did he write that himself? Surely some poor sod of a secretary didn't have to do it with all the dreadful grammar and numerous punctuation errors?
I mean, if I were marking that for GCSE English I would send it back to be redone.
1) Write letter 2) Feed letter and Donald Trump social media posts into AI 3) Profit
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Quite right! Jesus was very down on the meek, if I remember correctly.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
£35k is an absurdly high threshold.
That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400
And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.
Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Jesus thought you did, according to Matthew 5:39.
Exodus 21:23-27.
Jesus also did not believe there would be people who would reject his message
On the first, I think you will find Exodus was a leetle before Jesus' time.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 19m BREAKING: Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the US will impose 25% blanket tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea starting August 1.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
My parents lived with me until they died (when I was 49). I doubt if one can draw any general conclusions.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
"you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you"
I know we now know that the world is one massive AI simulation but I am struggling to see the sudden glitch in the software that delivers that scenario in the bachelor headquarters of Camden.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
It’s a brave man who makes a similar joke about The Prophet, eh?
Not really, there's already been comments made (not by myself, but happy to repeat it) that by modern standards "the Prophet" would be a paedophile considering one of the people he reported slept with and her reported age.
Its you that seems to have this hang up with regards to Islam, not the atheists here. Funny that.
You don’t think there is a slight difference - in likely consequences - between insulting the Prophet and insulting Jesus Christ?
On this site?
Not unless the moderators have set a new rule that I'm not aware of, no.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Quite. I come home every day to three people who love me unequivocally, and my wife.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Quite. I come home every day to three people who love me unequivocally, and my wife.
I don’t have that issue, divorced ten years and counting.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
My parents lived with me until they died (when I was 49). I doubt if one can draw any general conclusions.
Do we think this Epstein stuff could genuinely harm Trump? Seems to have burst the alt-right bubble.
What's happened? (I haven't been following it.)
In short, they made a lot of noise about releasing flight logs etc during the campaign and at the start of this term, even claiming they had access to them and will release them.
They've just announced that the logs don't exist, to widespread incredulity.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
Coco di mama!
“Mammone” is a fascinating term. Whatever the Italian region it refers to men like @TSE who live with Mummy deep into adulthood, 30s and 40s and beyond
In the north it is absolutely an insult, and a cruel insult. It means you lack self reliance, you are immature, you get your washing done, can’t cope with the world without Mamma
But the further south you go the more affectionate it gets. It almost an expression of wry love and respect in the far south - Sicily and Calabria - “yes he’s a bit dippy about him Mum, but he loves his family comforts, he’s a good fellow”
We need as English equivalent; I think my Dad had a lot of Mammone in him. I was the opposite, couldn’t wait to get away
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
Coco di mama!
“Mammone” is a fascinating term. Whatever the Italian region it refers to men like @TSE who live with Mummy deep into adulthood, 30s and 40s and beyond
In the north it is absolutely an insult, and a cruel insult. It means you lack self reliance, you are immature, you get your washing done, can’t cope with the world without Mamma
But the further south you go the more affectionate it gets. It almost an expression of wry love and respect in the far south - Sicily and Calabria - “yes he’s a bit dippy about him Mum, but he loves his family comforts, he’s a good fellow”
We need as English equivalent; I think my Dad had a lot of Mammone in him. I was the opposite, couldn’t wait to get away
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
With all the wars and death and torture and misery and abuse and guilt and enforced ignorance and stunted lives that followed on arising just because it wasnt being done properly, presumably?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
Christians were interested in (and argued about), correct belief (like Jews).
Pagans were most concerned about correct religious practice and ritual. Both Christians and pagans believed that tolerating blasphemy, and allowing people to publicly disrespect the Divine, would have dire consequences for their societies.
In every ancient society, atheism was a capital offence. Atheism was essentially defined as failure to give the gods proper honour. And, that was the charge on which Christians were typically tried and executed by the Roman authorities - they refused to participate in the official sacrifices.
All ancient societies were prepared to repress cults that they considered were against the public good and offensive to the gods. Jews were widely hated in Greek societies and both Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian (who was a philhellene), were almost genocidal towards them. The Romans repressed Christianity, Judaism, Druidism, and sometimes cults like Cybele or Magna Mater.
Tolerance, as we would understand the term, existed nowhere in the ancient world.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
With all the wars and death and torture and misery and abuse and guilt and enforced ignorance and stunted lives that followed on arising just because it wasnt being done properly, presumably?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
The way I see it, Christianity is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Islam is an intensely right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian version of Judaism.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
The way I see it, Christianity is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Islam is an intensely right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian version of Judaism.
Now maybe, though it is interesting how different how they have been in various places at various times - presumably showing how culture can have a big impact on the religion as well as the other way around.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
£35k is an absurdly high threshold.
That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400
And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.
Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.
You fecking halfwit , do you think they should be taxed for breathing. How the F*** can you tax someone for going to university when they have never gone and never will. You are the dumbest of the dumb. A nutter.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
The way I see it, Christianity is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Islam is an intensely right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian version of Judaism.
The way I see, Christ is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Paul and Mohammed are intensely right-wing etc authoritarian versions.
Regrettably for most of the past two thousand year "Christians" have followed the principles of Paul more than the principles of Christ.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
How do you feel about not very woke atheist or agnostic centrist or right liberals?
Sam Stein @samstein · 48m Press Sec says that when Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk what she meant was that she had files related to Epstein on her desk.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
£35k is an absurdly high threshold.
That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400
And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.
Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.
You fecking halfwit , do you think they should be taxed for breathing. How the F*** can you tax someone for going to university when they have never gone and never will. You are the dumbest of the dumb. A nutter.
I think everyone on the same income should pay the same rate of tax on that income. Try getting that through your thick noggin.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
Christians were interested in (and argued about), correct belief (like Jews).
Pagans were most concerned about correct religious practice and ritual. Both Christians and pagans believed that tolerating blasphemy, and allowing people to publicly disrespect the Divine, would have dire consequences for their societies.
In every ancient society, atheism was a capital offence. Atheism was essentially defined as failure to give the gods proper honour. And, that was the charge on which Christians were typically tried and executed by the Roman authorities - they refused to participate in the official sacrifices.
All ancient societies were prepared to repress cults that they considered were against the public good and offensive to the gods. Jews were widely hated in Greek societies and both Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian (who was a philhellene), were almost genocidal towards them. The Romans repressed Christianity, Judaism, Druidism, and sometimes cults like Cybele or Magna Mater.
Tolerance, as we would understand the term, existed nowhere in the ancient world.
I was referring to it changing from the perspective of someone following Christian teaching. They stopped talking about correct belief and started massacring heretics. That was the gift of Rome to Western Christianity and of Byzantium to Eastern Orthodoxy
Sam Stein @samstein · 48m Press Sec says that when Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk what she meant was that she had files related to Epstein on her desk.
I could almost believe it in the sense I doubt she even glanced at the information she had. But relying on very precise or very unprecise distinctions is never a good look.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
That doesn't follow at all. Volcanoes, being inanimate physical objects, don't manifest such a characteristic, positively or negatively. Whilst it is entirely possible (and fairly self-evident) that all religions are made up nonsense. Enough new religions have been created during recent recorded history that we can all see how it goes. They survive because there are enough credulous people in the world who are attracted first to the end product of believing in something, and willing to suspend all objective judgement to work backwards and believe whatever nonsense they are being fed.
It's really little different from you finding some interesting, wacky and dramatic conspiracy on twitter and deciding instantly that it's what you would like to believe.
Sam Stein @samstein · 48m Press Sec says that when Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk what she meant was that she had files related to Epstein on her desk.
Lol the bimbo thought she would get away with slipping out that meno on July 4th weekend
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
Now you will get it all taken back in tax so why are you worrying, unless under £35K and even then you can phone up and tell them to stuff it.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Quite right! Jesus was very down on the meek, if I remember correctly.
Reminds of the story from a few years ago of a pastor in America bemoaning that quoting Jesus to his congregation saw him labelled a woke liberal, even after he pointed out he was quoting Him.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
That doesn't follow at all. Volcanoes, being inanimate physical objects, don't manifest such a characteristic, positively or negatively. Whilst it is entirely possible (and fairly self-evident) that all religions are made up nonsense. Enough new religions have been created during recent recorded history that we can all see how it goes. They survive because there are enough credulous people in the world who are attracted first to the end product of believing in something, and willing to suspend all objective judgement to work backwards and believe whatever nonsense they are being fed.
It's really little different from you finding some interesting, wacky and dramatic conspiracy on twitter and deciding instantly that it's what you would like to believe.
I think my point is a bit above your head. Outside your bandwidth. But no biggie
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
The way I see it, Christianity is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Islam is an intensely right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian version of Judaism.
Regrettably for most of the past two thousand year "Christians" have followed the principles of Paul more than the principles of Christ.
What approach works best for old men usually works as an explanation?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Well I'll happily and interestingly debate the divine with you (only not now, 'cos I've got to make tea) - but my point is that the secular/atheist position isn't woke and to dismiss it as such as if it went with the package of beliefs which involves keenness on immigration, Gaza and trans is daft. It's like saying volcanoes are woke.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Jesus thought you did, according to Matthew 5:39.
Exodus 21:23-27.
Jesus also did not believe there would be people who would reject his message
On the first, I think you will find Exodus was a leetle before Jesus' time.
On the second Matthew 10:34 would beg to differ.
The Old Testament is also part of the Christian Bible and as you state even Jesus knew he had brought a metaphorical sword to take on those who would reject him
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey precisely to avoid looking like someone wielding a sword metaphorical or otherwise. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar" to make it clear that he didn't want his message caught up in worldly politics or concerns.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
With all the wars and death and torture and misery and abuse and guilt and enforced ignorance and stunted lives that followed on arising just because it wasnt being done properly, presumably?
Yes, pretty much
Communism sounds quite good, too, if you just read the blurb on the packet
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Volcanoes shouldn't be talked about that way. Pyramids otoh.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
With all the wars and death and torture and misery and abuse and guilt and enforced ignorance and stunted lives that followed on arising just because it wasnt being done properly, presumably?
Yes, pretty much
Communism sounds quite good, too, if you just read the blurb on the packet
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
That doesn't follow at all. Volcanoes, being inanimate physical objects, don't manifest such a characteristic, positively or negatively. Whilst it is entirely possible (and fairly self-evident) that all religions are made up nonsense. Enough new religions have been created during recent recorded history that we can all see how it goes. They survive because there are enough credulous people in the world who are attracted first to the end product of believing in something, and willing to suspend all objective judgement to work backwards and believe whatever nonsense they are being fed.
It's really little different from you finding some interesting, wacky and dramatic conspiracy on twitter and deciding instantly that it's what you would like to believe.
I think my point is a bit above your head. Outside your bandwidth. But no biggie
Re: header - a very poor bet in my view. I doubt Corbyn would take the role even if offered now, and Sultana, although she has her fans, is never going to really wow the masses.
You could probably have got better odds on a wider pool of the unwashed.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
You wouldn’t need God’s DNA, just the father’s.
Who are you taking that from? Who is the alleged father here?
Those wise men always seemed like dodgy characters, turning up at the birth with gifts like that. Put them on the sample list...
Zoroastrians. Thousands of em. Well. 3 (maybe)
I would suspect whichever of the three of them fooled the other two into thinking they were following a star, rather than returning to the scene of the crime, so to speak
The detail of the timing of their visit is somewhat sketchy at best
As indeed is much of the nativity story.
The Magi were strollers and brought gold (for a King) Frankincense (for a prophet) and myrrh (for a corpse). The story is there to reinforce the divine portents of Jesus's birth, as indeed was the supposed census that placed the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth in order to fulfil another prophecy.
Quite. Its why, for me, defining my own faith and knowledge of God requires me to delve into things in a different way and work out my own Gnosis. Its up to everyone to decide what their relationship is, or is not, with God and what that means. Its much more interesting (for example, and from my perspective) to look at the gospels the Romans booted and ask why and what they are telling me compared to, in opposition to, or in tandem with the 'accepted' ones
The problems come from over literal interpretations of the Biblical texts (and these do differ between sects) when many or most biblical stories were parables, fictions to make a moral or philosophical point. I think the ancients (like many pre-modern cultures) were very comfortable interpreting the texts figuratively rather than literally. Our supposedly more sophisticated culture struggles with that, being paralysed by concrete thinking.
I think it all changed once the Romans got control of Christianity personally. The treatment of what they defined as 'heresies' has very little to do with Christianity. It became a tool of suppression and societal control and denied people access to God except through the intercession of the priests if they remained within the Church. Gnostics tend to believe the world is evil. Salvation comes through knowledge (of God the divine creator, not the demiurge of the Old Testament) But there we go, to each their own journey and destination
I believe each to their own, but I think there's something to be said for religion adhering to a standardised moral code - it adds guardrails that occult spirituality doesn't have. I can go to a Church and pray for healing, peace of mind, forgiveness, and even prosperity, but I can't pray for my annoying boss to drive off a cliff. Because I know that's against what God tells me, and he's not going to help with it. I can however use witchcraft to place a curse to do so. A benign intermediary between man and spiritual power is a useful thing.
Yes, up to a point. Ethical monotheism is one of our most remarkable discoveries/inventions. However Plato's great question remains: Does God command a thing because it is good; or is a thing good because God commands it?
(An atheist can play too: Is torturing children for fun wrong because we think it is wrong, or do we think it is wrong because it is? Give reasons for your answer.)
Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. That's it. All you need. Once you've conceived of other people as deserving of the same treatment as you expect for yourself then you're sorted. Love and empathy. Everything else is just ornamental.
Nicely phrased
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
The way I see it, Christianity is a happy-clappy, wokey, lefty version of Judaism, whereas Islam is an intensely right-wing, misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian version of Judaism.
As one wag put it "Christians unfortunately are a people who mostly fail to live up to the teachings of their founder, while Muslims fortunately are a people who mostly fail to live up to the teachings of their founder"
I don't think that is true, as Islam too contains much Wokeism, espousing charity and equality of all as core principles. On the one hand Muhammad was himself a merchant, and on the other he despised financial instruments like interest and gambling.
The reality is there's room for both left and right in each, as their kingdoms are not about this world.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Religion is definitely bollocks.
I was reading today that Galilleo suggested that god had written two books - one of the soul, spirit, morals, etc, and one of the world as it is. I rather liked that.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Well I'll happily and interestingly debate the divine with you (only not now, 'cos I've got to make tea) - but my point is that the secular/atheist position isn't woke and to dismiss it as such as if it went with the package of beliefs which involves keenness on immigration, Gaza and trans is daft. It's like saying volcanoes are woke.
Quite - it's a flaw common to strands of the left to try to link everything together, it doesn't need replicating from the right.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Derr
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Religion is definitely bollocks.
I was reading today that Galilleo suggested that god had written two books - one of the soul, spirit, morals, etc, and one of the world as it is. I rather liked that.
I like Galilleo's magnifico teachings on the afterlife. Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Quite right! Jesus was very down on the meek, if I remember correctly.
We all know that he said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth". Unfortunately most versions of the Bible miss out the crucial qualifier "but until then they are there to be trodden on".
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Most C of E congregation are Tory or Reform voters, or at most LD.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
Meanwhile, in "are you entirely sure that's wise, Sir?" news,
Reform UK has told its members it is introducing a less stringent “common sense” vetting system for would-be candidates after complaints the previous checks were too strict, despite a recent series of controversies linked to the party.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
Coco di mama!
“Mammone” is a fascinating term. Whatever the Italian region it refers to men like @TSE who live with Mummy deep into adulthood, 30s and 40s and beyond
In the north it is absolutely an insult, and a cruel insult. It means you lack self reliance, you are immature, you get your washing done, can’t cope with the world without Mamma
But the further south you go the more affectionate it gets. It almost an expression of wry love and respect in the far south - Sicily and Calabria - “yes he’s a bit dippy about him Mum, but he loves his family comforts, he’s a good fellow”
We need as English equivalent; I think my Dad had a lot of Mammone in him. I was the opposite, couldn’t wait to get away
There's another dynamic, where the children leave home & become established, then in later years the parents pack up and move in with one of the adult children. I was able to care for both my parents that way. There's nobody here but me, now, but my home is still filled with love.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Most C of E congregation are Tory or Reform voters, or at most LD.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
In my experience most clergy are quite far left. Not to say their congregations are, though.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Most C of E congregation are Tory or Reform voters, or at most LD.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
In my experience most clergy are quite far left. Not to say their congregations are, though.
Some of that is generational; CofE congregations tend towards the retired, whereas most clergy are working aged. That tends to put them either side of many cultural divides.
(Has any other politician ever been that unpopular? Even Nicholas II and Louis XVI had supporters up to their executions.)
If someone was genuinely that unpopular I think that whether democratic or dictatorial they'd have lost power by some means fair or foul. It just wouldn't be sustainable.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Most C of E congregation are Tory or Reform voters, or at most LD.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
In my experience most clergy are quite far left. Not to say their congregations are, though.
Yes, but if corrected for age (most congregations are as elderly as the residual Tory vote) probably no different to age matched non church-going controls.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
Another point Leon has made in the past is that especially in London some of these homes that now demand two high-flyer incomes were built originally for ordinary sons of toolmakers.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
"you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you"
I know we now know that the world is one massive AI simulation but I am struggling to see the sudden glitch in the software that delivers that scenario in the bachelor headquarters of Camden.
All the travelling braggadocio is obviously a cover for the search for four people that love him. One even.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
And yet we continue to build 99% tiny huts with zero suitability for such use.
Everyone upping sticks to work in London has a lot of social consequences as well as financial ones.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
And yet we continue to build 99% tiny huts with zero suitability for such use.
Everyone upping sticks to work in London has a lot of social consequences as well as financial ones.
I don't know how we fix it.
Because the number of 3-4 kid families is smaller than before, and the number of one-person households is much larger. The houses built for the 3-4 kid families are still there and usable, but the dwellings for smaller households were not built or were cleared after the war.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
The Italians have a word for men who live with their mums into middle age
Mammone
Some kind people regard the term as affectionate rather than pejorative; I am sure the menage must be consoling. Also saves on laundry bills
Coco di mama!
“Mammone” is a fascinating term. Whatever the Italian region it refers to men like @TSE who live with Mummy deep into adulthood, 30s and 40s and beyond
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Did Farage write that for you ?
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
Well I know you would let them walk all over you, the culture wars would already have been long lost to the atheist woke progressive left if you were leading the resistance to it BG
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
Another point Leon has made in the past is that especially in London some of these homes that now demand two high-flyer incomes were built originally for ordinary sons of toolmakers.
I think it was Rory Sutherland who described it as overpaying just to live like a 1920s Postman (at least in terms of the house size/quality, not amenity).
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Did Farage write that for you ?
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
Well I know you would let them walk all over you, the culture wars would already have been long lost to the atheist woke progressive left if you were leading the resistance to it BG
Jesus WAS a woke, progressive lefty. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
£35k is an absurdly high threshold.
That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400
And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.
Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Also lives with his Mum
I also live with my Dad.
I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.
Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
Another point Leon has made in the past is that especially in London some of these homes that now demand two high-flyer incomes were built originally for ordinary sons of toolmakers.
Pretty much every homeowner is living in home that they couldn't get a mortgage on, based on their income, whether brickie or stockbroker. Its a sign that houseprices are not sustainable, at least not at historically normal interest rates.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
Comments
2) Feed letter and Donald Trump social media posts into AI
3) Profit
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400
And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.
Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.
I know we now know that the world is one massive AI simulation but I am struggling to see the sudden glitch in the software that delivers that scenario in the bachelor headquarters of Camden.
Not unless the moderators have set a new rule that I'm not aware of, no.
They've just announced that the logs don't exist, to widespread incredulity.
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1942200376079401253
In the north it is absolutely an insult, and a cruel insult. It means you lack self reliance, you are immature, you get your washing done, can’t cope with the world without Mamma
But the further south you go the more affectionate it gets. It almost an expression of wry love and respect in the far south - Sicily and Calabria - “yes he’s a bit dippy about him Mum, but he loves his family comforts, he’s a good fellow”
We need as English equivalent; I think my Dad had a lot of Mammone in him. I was the opposite, couldn’t wait to get away
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/italian-supreme-court-says-parents-do-not-need-financially-responsible-adult-children-1682210
In a way Christianity is just mildly advanced Theory of Mind applied to, well, reality
You’re brighter than this
Saying “religion is bollocks” is like saying “volcanoes are stupid”
(Tho I entirely agree on the CofE)
Pagans were most concerned about correct religious practice and ritual. Both Christians and pagans believed that tolerating blasphemy, and allowing people to publicly disrespect the Divine, would have dire consequences for their societies.
In every ancient society, atheism was a capital offence. Atheism was essentially defined as failure to give the gods proper honour. And, that was the charge on which Christians were typically tried and executed by the Roman authorities - they refused to participate in the official sacrifices.
All ancient societies were prepared to repress cults that they considered were against the public good and offensive to the gods. Jews were widely hated in Greek societies and both Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian (who was a philhellene), were almost genocidal towards them. The Romans repressed Christianity, Judaism, Druidism, and sometimes cults like Cybele or Magna Mater.
Tolerance, as we would understand the term, existed nowhere in the ancient world.
When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.
Regrettably for most of the past two thousand year "Christians" have followed the principles of Paul more than the principles of Christ.
@samstein
·
48m
Press Sec says that when Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk what she meant was that she had files related to Epstein on her desk.
It's really little different from you finding some interesting, wacky and dramatic conspiracy on twitter and deciding instantly that it's what you would like to believe.
It's like saying volcanoes are woke.
Nice to see Kamski back the other day.
PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.
I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.
The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.
As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.
(Set and a break down.)
You could probably have got better odds on a wider pool of the unwashed.
I don't think that is true, as Islam too contains much Wokeism, espousing charity and equality of all as core principles. On the one hand Muhammad was himself a merchant, and on the other he despised financial instruments like interest and gambling.
The reality is there's room for both left and right in each, as their kingdoms are not about this world.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
Reform UK has told its members it is introducing a less stringent “common sense” vetting system for would-be candidates after complaints the previous checks were too strict, despite a recent series of controversies linked to the party.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/07/reform-uk-to-introduce-less-stringent-common-sense-vetting-system-for-candidates
🇵🇪#Peru, President Boluarte approval rating poll:
🔼Approve: 1,8 % (+0,2)
🔼Disapprove: 97,2 % (+0,2)
This is the highest disapproval rate ever recorded for President Boluarte.
https://nitter.poast.org/ElectsWorld/status/1942276624667357215#m
Djokovic = definite anti-vaxxer
Fecking slacker! Needs 100% hating him.
(Has any other politician ever been that unpopular? Even Nicholas II and Louis XVI had supporters up to their executions.)
One even.
Everyone upping sticks to work in London has a lot of social consequences as well as financial ones.
I don't know how we fix it.