southshorepool
Well-known member
Is a fundamentalist evangelical who believes the earth is 6000 years old. Interesting opinion.
Not like you to have a go at Muslims. You're normally all over anyone with even a hint of islamaphobia..No one with such idiotic, backward, blinkered, sticking two fingers up at scientific evidence beliefs should be allowed within a mile of any public office. There is believing in God and then there is lunacy that should have been left behind with the worship of the Great green Arkleseizure.
Just as long as its not some nutter who doesn't think its flat.Is a fundamentalist evangelical who believes the earth is 6000 years old. Interesting opinion.
Quite progressive for a DUP then?Is a fundamentalist evangelical who believes the earth is 6000 years old. Interesting opinion.
Quite progressive for a DUP then?
Except the creation story in the Qur'an is a little less silly than that in Genesis. Not by much though. Smiles.Not like you to have a go at Muslims. You're normally all over anyone with even a hint of islamaphobia..
Putting aside his view on blood donors of African origin or those in the gay community or his views on the role of women in society, he also thinks that Snakes can talk.In all seriousness though, do these types actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
'Do you ever notice how people who believe in Creationism usually look pretty unevolved. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.'
Bill Hicks.
I don't have any Muslim pals so I can't ask them to applaud me.I'm sure your pals in the Muslim community applaud your defence of gay folk. Them being all so tolerant of them and that...
Next time we have a beer I’ll wrap myself in cheesecloth, then you’ll have a Muslin palI don't have any Muslim pals so I can't ask them to applaud me.
Will it smell of cheese?Next time we have a beer I’ll wrap myself in cheesecloth, then you’ll have a Muslin pal
For an alleged intellectual educator you're a bit shit at spotting the irony...It is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
It's because he can't quite grasp the notion that some of us are as appalled by Muslim extremism/ fundamentalism as we are Christian fundamentalism. It's almost as though some think if we oppose one; we support the other. Rolls eyesIt is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
In fairness (and to add some balance) you have done exactly the same thing on posts about grooming gangs. So have I, by the way, but we can’t have it both ways.It is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
Don’t know what you’re on about...Well that’s not really having it both ways is it...? That’s just accepting it as it is...
Although I’m not sure I’d class the everyday religious freak in that way. ‘Mentalist’ in the Alan Partridge sense of the word as opposed to the Funded variety, is probably more appropriate or plain old Nutter, perhaps.
Only on avftt could you get a post deleted for homophobia...especially when you were actually pointing out the hypocrisy of the left and challenging their views of certain religious against others and actually providing support against homophobia. It's a strange world for sure. Interesting article below about countries to avoid. I see Gaza and the West Bank is in there - 10 years just for being gay...Me neither it seems that some ** is deleting/amending posts.
This is what the internet has boiled down to these days, black or white.It's because he can't quite grasp the notion that some of us are as appalled by Muslim extremism/ fundamentalism as we are Christian fundamentalism. It's almost as though some think if we oppose one; we support the other. Rolls eyes
Talking of irony. The views of the right are more aligned to fundamentalist Islam than the centre/ left will ever be.
This is what the internet has boiled down to these days, black or white.
Find a post where anyone has defended any atrocity.I look forward to your posts condemning the next mentalist atrocity then.
Not defended, just conveniently passed on by.Find a post where anyone has defended any atrocity.
As Lost Seasider would say, prove it.Not defended, just conveniently passed on by.
Wiz, next time one of the usual suspects commits a ridiculous atrocity I’ll let you know. I don’t have the time trawling through months and months of posts to show you a certain poster didn’t bother posting anything last time.As Lost Seasider would say, prove it.
That song really should have completely cured racism there and then 'right boys, what time are we lynching tonight?...wait Cleetus, I've just heard this song, I think we've been wrong all this time, on his piano keyboard for the love of God....'
That song really should have completely cured racism there and then 'right boys, what time are we lynching tonight?...wait Cleetus, I've just heard this song, I think we've been wrong all this time, on his piano keyboard for the love of God....'
If a person judges another's viewpoint by what platitudes they write on a football messageboard we really are in the age of shite.Find a post where anyone has defended any atrocity.
I’m not arguing for anyone, merely pointing out that Paisley is right in his assessment of the BBC and the reporter.The clip doesn’t seem to back up the argument
A women’s right to choose or the legalised murder of unborn children?I'd question the Islamic belief that Adam was made out of clay..like a really dangerous episode of Take Hart.
The idea that this particular person believes that Adam and Eve commited Original Sin because they were duped by a reptilian apple salesman in the Garden of Eden Wildlife and Petting Zoo has potential implications on his ability to be even handed with the electorate. If his personal religious beliefs, not shared by a majority of Christians in the West, has no impact on policy, then it's all good. Hopefully his views that those of African descent or homosexuals shouldn't be able to give blood or that women should stay at home or that there should be no legal basis for divorce or that women have no right to choose are things of the past and that he's mellowed somewhat.
Btw: I know that some of you are desperate to turn this into a debate about Christianity and Islam and wokeness/ BBC/ MSM but you can't do that logically. Christianity itself has 45000 different denominations. It's not a homogeneous entity.
Not really. I never used the word nutter.A women’s right to choose or the legalised murder of unborn children?
I’m yet to speak to a woman who doesn’t deeply regret a past termination.
BTW, I’m on the fence with this particular debate, but I do find it interesting that you feel you can categorise that kind of ‘opinion’ in the context note that you have.... (almost a suggestion that there’s no room for debate and anyone who values life over choice is a nutter).
No, but you did slip that particular issue in alongside a number of other issues that could ‘reasonably’ be considered to be ‘unreasonable’ or ‘extreme’. Plus you questioned the fitness of someone who held the opinions for public office.Not really. I never used the word nutter.
Your last paragraph is spot on imo.No, but you did slip that particular issue in alongside a number of other issues that could ‘reasonably’ be considered to be ‘unreasonable’ or ‘extreme’. Plus you questioned the fitness of someone who held the opinions for public office.
Do you think it’s extreme or unreasonable to stand up for the rights of unborn human beings ?
I accept you may have an opinion either way, a lot of people do, but I’m not convinced the alternative opinion is totally invalid or unreasonable and it feels to me like the ‘odd one out’ in your grouping above.
I agree that Religion needs to be challenged by the way and in particular it needs to be challenged on its attitude towards women... Other issues such as genital mutilation (male & female), marriage practices, shunning (across all religions), abuse, attitude to sexuality and sex in general etc.. also need to be called out
I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say SSP, I just found it interesting regarding right to choose.Your last paragraph is spot on imo.
I understand exactly where you are coming from, hence the lack of response.I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say SSP, I just found it interesting regarding right to choose.
I find both sides of that debate quite compelling and equally valid. The right of the child vs right of the mother feels like something that ought to be balanced (for example). By contrast the views on race or homosexuality just feel plain wrong.
Of course that’s only my perspective
I suspect you are right regarding the law. Though I do think the balance could easily swing on the issue depending on how society might choose to view morality at any particular time.... I could for example envisage a future where humanity might look back in absolute horror at the very idea of abortion for example... Morality is very much a moving feast in that regard.While it is possible for a person to believe that abortion is wrong, it is hypocritical to say the least, to then support the extermination of a human life by supporting the death penalty for criminals as so many fundamentalist religious believers do.
As far as balance is concerned the law gets it about right in considering the point where a termination is legal.
As a further thought CATs, what do you think about the counter argument.While it is possible for a person to believe that abortion is wrong, it is hypocritical to say the least, to then support the extermination of a human life by supporting the death penalty for criminals as so many fundamentalist religious believers do.
As far as balance is concerned the law gets it about right in considering the point where a termination is legal.
So far as abortion is concerned my starting point is that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being, and I think most people would agree with that proposition.Not in the slightest. The difference is whether you believe that an embryo is a living human being. The reason why I think the law gets it about right is because it picks a time in foetal development when give or take a bit in terms of development, the foetus is capable of survival as an entity in itself. Otherwise you begin to have problems accepting the morality of IVF, as far more zygotes are produced than will ever be implanted, and subsequently a lot of stem cell research into treatments for disease becomes unacceptable. That's before you consider the millions of IVF babies leading normal lives and the families it effects.
I always stress when teaching this topic, that it is fine to hold a view how you would proceed in difficult circumstances but unacceptable to force your viewpoint on to others who may hold different opinions as to what is the right thing to do for them. And in blunt exam terms make sure you can give a valid reason for both arguments.