| Ann Widdecombe 16:51 - Jul 21 with 12221 views | GlasgowBlue |
Hit over the head with a hammer 21 times.
Regardless of one's views of her religious beliefs, no one deserves to go like that. Sickening. |  |
| |  |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:54 - Jul 24 with 924 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 11:42 - Jul 24 by positivity |
i think we can all agree that all humans are imperfect.
whether you believe that it's a natural consequence of evolution, or you understand it through an allegory, doesn't really change much.
the vast majority of humans want to be better and want others to treat them and the less fortunate better |
It changes the whole basis for salvation and the reasons for a messiah sacrificing himself, to himself, to activate a loophole to avoid rules which he made himself and has power to change at will.
(I know this is a somewhat crass simplification, but it does get to the heart of it all quite nicely. I don't claim credit for it fwiw) |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:58 - Jul 24 with 902 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:54 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
It changes the whole basis for salvation and the reasons for a messiah sacrificing himself, to himself, to activate a loophole to avoid rules which he made himself and has power to change at will.
(I know this is a somewhat crass simplification, but it does get to the heart of it all quite nicely. I don't claim credit for it fwiw) |
ok don't quite follow you; not sure that the reason is as important as the "solution" to the problem for christians, but each to their own! | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:06 - Jul 24 with 862 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 13:58 - Jul 24 by positivity |
ok don't quite follow you; not sure that the reason is as important as the "solution" to the problem for christians, but each to their own! |
Why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself (or have a rough weekend, followed by heaven, which he knew for a fact existed) if there was no original sin? | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:19 - Jul 24 with 811 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:06 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
Why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself (or have a rough weekend, followed by heaven, which he knew for a fact existed) if there was no original sin? |
if there was imperfection, what's the solution? would be the comeback
anyway we can take these philosophical arguments further and further back (what predated the universe? how did it get there? are we an example of many, many universes that have emerged?), but we're getting away from the point.
was widdecombe's intolerance of homosexuality her political belief, that she sought to justify by a wilful misreading of the torah/old testament or is it a religious belief?
given that loads of people of faith are gay or support gay rights, whereas the vast majority on the far right are intolerant of homosexuality, i'd still suggest it's a political belief [Post edited 24 Jul 14:21]
| |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:25 - Jul 24 with 795 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:19 - Jul 24 by positivity |
if there was imperfection, what's the solution? would be the comeback
anyway we can take these philosophical arguments further and further back (what predated the universe? how did it get there? are we an example of many, many universes that have emerged?), but we're getting away from the point.
was widdecombe's intolerance of homosexuality her political belief, that she sought to justify by a wilful misreading of the torah/old testament or is it a religious belief?
given that loads of people of faith are gay or support gay rights, whereas the vast majority on the far right are intolerant of homosexuality, i'd still suggest it's a political belief [Post edited 24 Jul 14:21]
|
I think its wrong to make that distinction. Many "political" homophobes are influenced into that position by their religions.
You can't excuse Christianity (and Islam among others) for their bigotry by saying its political and not religious.
Even people "of faith" are often in that awful position of being told that their sin is hated but they will be loved anyway; i.e. they are broken, and there is something fundamentally wrong with them. A touch of stockholm syndrome about it. Its an appalling concept. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:44 - Jul 24 with 757 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:25 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
I think its wrong to make that distinction. Many "political" homophobes are influenced into that position by their religions.
You can't excuse Christianity (and Islam among others) for their bigotry by saying its political and not religious.
Even people "of faith" are often in that awful position of being told that their sin is hated but they will be loved anyway; i.e. they are broken, and there is something fundamentally wrong with them. A touch of stockholm syndrome about it. Its an appalling concept. |
what kind of christianity have you been exposed to?
what did christ say to make people homophobic?
i have gay friends who are happy and validated and supported in their church, some married there
don't see the link between christ and homophobia, but i certainly do see the link between some churches and homophobia.
and i definitely see a far stronger link between most far right politicians ("christian", "jewish", "islamic" and atheist) and homophobia! | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:38 - Jul 24 with 687 views | Benters |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:44 - Jul 24 by positivity |
what kind of christianity have you been exposed to?
what did christ say to make people homophobic?
i have gay friends who are happy and validated and supported in their church, some married there
don't see the link between christ and homophobia, but i certainly do see the link between some churches and homophobia.
and i definitely see a far stronger link between most far right politicians ("christian", "jewish", "islamic" and atheist) and homophobia! |
We don’t often agree with each other but I agree with you on this. |  |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:46 - Jul 24 with 672 views | Benters |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:25 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
I think its wrong to make that distinction. Many "political" homophobes are influenced into that position by their religions.
You can't excuse Christianity (and Islam among others) for their bigotry by saying its political and not religious.
Even people "of faith" are often in that awful position of being told that their sin is hated but they will be loved anyway; i.e. they are broken, and there is something fundamentally wrong with them. A touch of stockholm syndrome about it. Its an appalling concept. |
Jesus H Christ you are having a laugh? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ann Widdecombe on 16:45 - Jul 24 with 605 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 14:44 - Jul 24 by positivity |
what kind of christianity have you been exposed to?
what did christ say to make people homophobic?
i have gay friends who are happy and validated and supported in their church, some married there
don't see the link between christ and homophobia, but i certainly do see the link between some churches and homophobia.
and i definitely see a far stronger link between most far right politicians ("christian", "jewish", "islamic" and atheist) and homophobia! |
You are using an equivocation. You are now talking about a link between "christ" and homophobia, rather than between christianity and homophobia.
The CofE's position, as I understand it, remains that gay marriage is not a thing, but that they can use a specially concocted set of prayers (called PLF) to "enable same sex couples to come to church for public prayers...." Though really bigotted vicars are still not required ot use those "against their conscience".
Love the sinner hate the sin is still very much the rhetoric in large swathes of the church of england. Gay vicars are expected to be celibate (though one imagines a blind eye is turned).
As for christ- we ar eback at the bible. Many christians still refer to Leviticus. Old testament again- but without the OT, the NT makes little sense.
. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 16:46 - Jul 24 with 604 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 15:46 - Jul 24 by Benters |
Jesus H Christ you are having a laugh? |
Absolutely not.
Here is the bit where I ask you to explain what I have said that you disagree with and why. And you proceed to tap dance around the question for a dozen posts. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:11 - Jul 24 with 560 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 16:45 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
You are using an equivocation. You are now talking about a link between "christ" and homophobia, rather than between christianity and homophobia.
The CofE's position, as I understand it, remains that gay marriage is not a thing, but that they can use a specially concocted set of prayers (called PLF) to "enable same sex couples to come to church for public prayers...." Though really bigotted vicars are still not required ot use those "against their conscience".
Love the sinner hate the sin is still very much the rhetoric in large swathes of the church of england. Gay vicars are expected to be celibate (though one imagines a blind eye is turned).
As for christ- we ar eback at the bible. Many christians still refer to Leviticus. Old testament again- but without the OT, the NT makes little sense.
. |
without christ, what is christianity? nothing at all!
without christ's clarifications and corrections of old testament stuff (which was often very clearly time and culture-specific) it's not christianity
in large swathes of the church in the 21st century, gay people are welcomed, celebrated and married.
ann widdecombe's position ties in more neatly with the political views of her reform buddies that she chose to be a part of than the religious beliefs of christ's | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:21 - Jul 24 with 538 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:11 - Jul 24 by positivity |
without christ, what is christianity? nothing at all!
without christ's clarifications and corrections of old testament stuff (which was often very clearly time and culture-specific) it's not christianity
in large swathes of the church in the 21st century, gay people are welcomed, celebrated and married.
ann widdecombe's position ties in more neatly with the political views of her reform buddies that she chose to be a part of than the religious beliefs of christ's |
What clarifications of the OT? He came not to change "a jot or tittle" of the old law. And why would the OT be culture and time specific if it was the word of god?
There are, of course, christian sects which will do gay marriage But even today the C of E prohibits gay marriage. You cannot get married in a C of E church as a gay couple. The message is pretty clear, even if they celebrate and love the sinners!
The catholic church's position continues, technically, to be this:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
That was Widdecombe's position as I understand it... And if it is taught to people, as the word of a potentially vengeful god, from early childhood, it is clearly going to stick solidly with some, and continue to impact many more.
The idea that religious rhetoric is not a significant part of homophobic bigotry really doesn't bear scrutiny. [Post edited 24 Jul 17:23]
| |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:59 - Jul 24 with 490 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:21 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
What clarifications of the OT? He came not to change "a jot or tittle" of the old law. And why would the OT be culture and time specific if it was the word of god?
There are, of course, christian sects which will do gay marriage But even today the C of E prohibits gay marriage. You cannot get married in a C of E church as a gay couple. The message is pretty clear, even if they celebrate and love the sinners!
The catholic church's position continues, technically, to be this:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
That was Widdecombe's position as I understand it... And if it is taught to people, as the word of a potentially vengeful god, from early childhood, it is clearly going to stick solidly with some, and continue to impact many more.
The idea that religious rhetoric is not a significant part of homophobic bigotry really doesn't bear scrutiny. [Post edited 24 Jul 17:23]
|
an example would be in the ot was eye for an eye, christ was turn the other cheek. what's a tittle by the way?!
of course, it's relevant to be time and culture-specific. the ot readership were primarily dealing with pagan tribes, the nt they were mixing with greeks and romans, to suggest you use the same advice is like claiming that you should take on man city using the old corinthians 1-1-8 formation! the bible is a combination of poetry books, history books, songs and teaching, can't all be interpreted in the same way.
the establishment church's position is not christ's position. almost every far right-wing poiltician holds homophobic positions, a far lesser percentage of genuine followers of christ hold homophobic positions. widdecombe fitted in better with reform than modern churches | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:07 - Jul 24 with 473 views | DJR |
For those who find the Nicence Creed a stretch too far (eg. that Jesus was the son of God) but have a spiritual side like me, Quakerism is an option.
It has no dogma as such but has Christian roots.
This sums it up nicely.
"There are two fundamental aspects to Quaker faith. First, Friends believe that all people are capable of directly experiencing the divine nature of the universe—which is known by many names, God or the Holy Spirit or simply Spirit being among the most common. You don’t need a priest or any other kind of spiritual intercessor; you don’t need to perform any kind of ritual. When you need to hear from God, you will. When Spirit has a message for you to share, you should share it.
That leads us to the second key principle, our belief in continued revelation. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, we read many stories of God communicating directly with people. Friends believe God’s revelations have never stopped, and that God might reach out to any one of us at any time. When Quakers come together to meet for silent worship, we participate in a shared space in which we strive to become better able, and help each other become better able, to recognize such divine messages."
For what it is worth, I had an intense spiritual experience when I visited the chapel of the hospital where my father was slowly losing his life, and it made be accept what was about to come.
[Post edited 24 Jul 18:23]
|  | | |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:08 - Jul 24 with 469 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 17:59 - Jul 24 by positivity |
an example would be in the ot was eye for an eye, christ was turn the other cheek. what's a tittle by the way?!
of course, it's relevant to be time and culture-specific. the ot readership were primarily dealing with pagan tribes, the nt they were mixing with greeks and romans, to suggest you use the same advice is like claiming that you should take on man city using the old corinthians 1-1-8 formation! the bible is a combination of poetry books, history books, songs and teaching, can't all be interpreted in the same way.
the establishment church's position is not christ's position. almost every far right-wing poiltician holds homophobic positions, a far lesser percentage of genuine followers of christ hold homophobic positions. widdecombe fitted in better with reform than modern churches |
You have no idea what Christ's position is- only what was written long after the events by people who were not eye witnesses.
A tittle, as I understand it, is a pen stroke. And a jot, a hebrew letter. Not even the smallest detail of the old law was to be changed... That includes Leviticus, logically speaking.
The churches seem to have a clear view on it though. And they are not shy about teaching people about what god's view is. And voting in the HoL on it. And that effects people and society. To say otherwise isn't really sustainable.
You are edging into "no true scotsman" stuff here as well. "Genuine followers" arent homophobic. Just the c of e, catholic church, most evangelical churches around the world etc etc. Who decides what the genuine supporters are? In a bizarre sense, one might have more respect for the people who actually followed what the bible says, rather than contorting themselves into all sorts of bizarre and contradictory mental positions to make their views fit with the bible.
Almost every right wing politician purports to be religious! Which is the chicken and which is the egg? | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:35 - Jul 24 with 418 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:08 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
You have no idea what Christ's position is- only what was written long after the events by people who were not eye witnesses.
A tittle, as I understand it, is a pen stroke. And a jot, a hebrew letter. Not even the smallest detail of the old law was to be changed... That includes Leviticus, logically speaking.
The churches seem to have a clear view on it though. And they are not shy about teaching people about what god's view is. And voting in the HoL on it. And that effects people and society. To say otherwise isn't really sustainable.
You are edging into "no true scotsman" stuff here as well. "Genuine followers" arent homophobic. Just the c of e, catholic church, most evangelical churches around the world etc etc. Who decides what the genuine supporters are? In a bizarre sense, one might have more respect for the people who actually followed what the bible says, rather than contorting themselves into all sorts of bizarre and contradictory mental positions to make their views fit with the bible.
Almost every right wing politician purports to be religious! Which is the chicken and which is the egg? |
i've given an example of how jesus corrects the ot.
i don't agree with fundamentalist christians, muslims, jews, homophobes or atheists, they'll never change their views and always have a tract or position to contradict someone's lived experience.
my position is live and let live and respect other people's views (as long as they don't negatively impact another's life).
to sum up, i believe right-wing politicians are the chickens! not sure about the eggs... | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:38 - Jul 24 with 414 views | positivity |
| Ann Widdecombe on 18:07 - Jul 24 by DJR |
For those who find the Nicence Creed a stretch too far (eg. that Jesus was the son of God) but have a spiritual side like me, Quakerism is an option.
It has no dogma as such but has Christian roots.
This sums it up nicely.
"There are two fundamental aspects to Quaker faith. First, Friends believe that all people are capable of directly experiencing the divine nature of the universe—which is known by many names, God or the Holy Spirit or simply Spirit being among the most common. You don’t need a priest or any other kind of spiritual intercessor; you don’t need to perform any kind of ritual. When you need to hear from God, you will. When Spirit has a message for you to share, you should share it.
That leads us to the second key principle, our belief in continued revelation. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, we read many stories of God communicating directly with people. Friends believe God’s revelations have never stopped, and that God might reach out to any one of us at any time. When Quakers come together to meet for silent worship, we participate in a shared space in which we strive to become better able, and help each other become better able, to recognize such divine messages."
For what it is worth, I had an intense spiritual experience when I visited the chapel of the hospital where my father was slowly losing his life, and it made be accept what was about to come.
[Post edited 24 Jul 18:23]
|
never underestimate the power of personal experience, very powerful
i have massive respect for quakers, very strong pacifist roots there too | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 05:06 - Jul 25 with 273 views | Benters |
| Ann Widdecombe on 16:46 - Jul 24 by redrickstuhaart |
Absolutely not.
Here is the bit where I ask you to explain what I have said that you disagree with and why. And you proceed to tap dance around the question for a dozen posts. |
As old Alan Partridge said ‘God created Adam and Eve he didn’t create Adam and Steve’.
But of course two people of the same sex can love each other. | |
| |
| Ann Widdecombe on 09:34 - Jul 25 with 173 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ann Widdecombe on 05:06 - Jul 25 by Benters |
As old Alan Partridge said ‘God created Adam and Eve he didn’t create Adam and Steve’.
But of course two people of the same sex can love each other. |
So what did I say that you disagree with and why? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
