Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
Cyprian
Posted - 10 January 2018 22:34
I read the BBC story. He jumped through such convoluted hoops I had to re read the headline and Vince Cable's tweet to be sure of what he said. But yeah, what a dick.
stop: wangertime!
Posted - 10 January 2018 23:17
Report as offensive
tbh i think he’s double dicking in (a) holding such disgusting views and (b) denying them (altho i spose the latter has some scriptual precedent)
Cyprian
Posted - 10 January 2018 23:31
Report as offensive
But he's so completely against double dicking...
Cyprian
Posted - 10 January 2018 23:55
Report as offensive
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, sure that's even worse!
Didge is blankety blank
Posted - 11 January 2018 00:21
Report as offensive
I can’t get my head around where religious fundies get their homophobia from.

There are so many things the gospels are full of. Good stuff about treating others fairly and compassion and loving others. And instead they are just absolutely obsessed with where consenting adults choose to put their bits in private.

Just plain nuts.
Didge is blankety blank
Posted - 11 January 2018 04:09
Report as offensive
I know that, darce. I bet he eats prawns though. It’s in the bits that are mostly ignored now. Which makes their obsession with it inexplicable.
cІubman
Posted - 11 January 2018 06:04
Report as offensive
old git roundabout
Posted - 11 January 2018 08:33
Report as offensive
As he has now come to realise, his mistake was not to be upfront about his religious convictions from the start.

Modern right on liberal orthodoxy in British politics would appear to rule out from high office Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. Apparently we are back in the early19th Century in that respect.
pancake humper
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:00
Report as offensive
lol

actually it's the homophobes that are being oppressed!!
bookem
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:20
Report as offensive
Why do they get so het up about this one element of life?

I mean, I'm sure there are loads of "sins" in the bible. They seems to be obsessed with this and abortion (and in the latter case i can kind of see why you would make such a big deal about it *if* you were to hold those opinions).

But gayety? Why the fuvk would you care?

Go do interviews about why disgusting sinners have relapsed into eating meat on Fridays ffs.
bookem
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:20
Report as offensive
heh - or what Didge said. Soz - hadn't read that far.
Montagueh
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:22
Report as offensive
Unfortunately, it is not just OT (Leviticus), but also Paul who condemns homosexuality...in Romans and Corinthians...I have a problem with quite a bit of Paul's teachings...
Sergio Bogface
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:35
Report as offensive
What Montagueh said. Except that, I think in some cases, the problem may lie with the current interpretations of what St Paul said, rather than what he actually said.

BREXIT!!
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:50
Report as offensive
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A GENIUS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE POOFTERS

ALTHOUGH OF COURSE I DOUBT THE SON OF GOD CAME ACROSS MANY POOFTERS AS HE AND HIS 12 CHUMS CRUISED AROUND ANCIENT JUDEA: THEY WERE PROBABLY ALL HANGING AROUND THE ROMAN BATHHOUSES
Montagueh
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:54
Report as offensive
I'm not sure it is, Serge - the word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the Greek word "arsenokoitai", which is male (arsen) and bed (koiten), which is difficult to interpret other than to refer to men having penetrative sex with each other...
Patience Groove
Posted - 11 January 2018 09:57
Report as offensive
"I mean, I'm sure there are loads of "sins" in the bible. They seems to be obsessed with this and abortion (and in the latter case i can kind of see why you would make such a big deal about it *if* you were to hold those opinions)."

There is a brilliant West Wing Scene when Jed Bartlett demolishes a rightwing Christian on this basis.
January Sails
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:01
Report as offensive
I assume that after all this wrestling with his conscience he'll come out of the closet soon.
Montagueh
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:02
Report as offensive
Not that clubbers has linked to it on this thread, party person...

Anyway, I'd rather follow the teaching of Jesus than Paul and it's pretty clear to me that Matthew 19:12 states that Jesus explicitly acknowledges (and does not condemn) men born homosexual...
Didge is blankety blank
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:17
Report as offensive
2 thoughts on Paul:

1. There is stuff to take issue with in his writings, not least misogyny. Again not very in step with the messages of the gospels and the way Jesus behaved towards women.

2. My understanding is that Paul (and where he stood in relation to the original message and how much of what he wrote was mostly driven by the politics of the early church) is a much debated issue among those who know a lot more than me about such things. Before we even get to which of them he actually wrote, or the very different culture the writings were aimed at.

In any event the pick and mix criticism still holds even if you take Paul as the authority for homophobia - pretty sure there are eg fundie women who braid their hair or wear pearls or costly garments...
Siegfreid
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:22
Report as offensive
There's a whiff support for thought crime on this thread.

May's belief is not different from Farron's. Farron has a very good legislative record on gay rights. Someone will be along in a sec to tell us what May's is, I don't know myself.

Farron is a liberal democrat and just what political consequence his now public religious belief has is moot. Compare and contrast with Arlene Foster. I'd call her out on it for bigotry and discrimmination, but not Farron. Check out his record.
Heffalump
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:23
Report as offensive
I don't really understand why Paul's letters are in the bible at all to be honest
bookem
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:24
Report as offensive
""arsenokoitai", which is male (arsen) and bed (koiten)"

Bentines
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:26
Report as offensive
"That fackin' guide book or whatever the fackin' thing is, don't half give me the horn."
bookem
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:26
Report as offensive
I think they were supposed to be like Viz's Top Tips, Heff.
Didge is blankety blank
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:32
Report as offensive
Sieg - Arlene Foster is just a khunt on many levels though.

I’d call out anyone who thinks hatred and bigotry in any way accords with the message and behaviour of the guy they claim as their saviour. Calling BS is not thought crime.
Massive fuckwit
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:36
Report as offensive
Big deal. He's entitled to his views. Lots of things are sins. Jesus wasn't too hot on bankers and lawyers either.
pancake humper
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:38
Report as offensive
The view I'm entitled to is that anyone who goes around saying gay people are sinners on radio shows is a massive fuckwit.
Obadiah Hakeswill
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:40
Report as offensive
"Time for a revolution"

Yeah, cos the man on the street doesn't hold views like this...
Siegfreid
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:41
Report as offensive
Tim Farron's record on gay rights is excellent. I expect parilament is stuffed with people who harbour far more egregioius thoughts than FF's, yet they take no flack.

Foster is an out and out ladypart . May is just quiet about it and the media has allowed her to be, unlike TF who was bullied.
January Sails
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:41
Report as offensive
I think the issue is the fact he keeps changing his views. Yes people can change their opinions over time but it looks a bit odd if you're changing your mind a couple of times a year depending on what stage of a political campaign you're at.

Arlene may have some strange views but she's consistently held them.

Remember also that we're working from translations of the bible that may contain errors and were also written to fit in with the views of the church at the time of the translation.
Patience Groove
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:45
Report as offensive


BARTLET: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an “abomination!”

JACOBS: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!

JACOBS: 18:22.

BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

(Bartlet only waits a second for a response, then plunges on.)

BARTLET: While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?

(Bartlet barely pauses to take a breath.)

BARTLET: Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.
stop: wangertime!
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:47
Report as offensive
Siggy do you think gay sex is a sin?
Sergio Bogface
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:49
Report as offensive
@ -

Steve Chalk would do this more justice than I can. My understanding of the gospels is that Jesus tends to peddle quite softly when confronted with sexual sin, but is quite condemning when he sees social injustice or hypocrisy. He was quite gentle with the woman caught in adultery, and refused to stone her to death; he was friends with the prostitutes and tax collectors (the dregs of society) - not because he condoned what they did, but because, as others have remarked he was filled with love and compassion, especially for the friendless and the marginalised.

In 1 Cor ch6 St Paul writes 'flee from "sexual immorality." ' As I understand it, the original Greek word is porneo, which literally means 'what prostitutes do.' The translation as sexual immorality, which might bring Leviticus 18 into play, is not a slam dunk.

There is a theory that the bee in his bonnet is all about the temple prostitutes at the HQ of Aphrodite. I have read that there were over 1,000 prostitutes working there. Even for modern London that would be a big brothel. For Corinth as it was, that is huge (do your own calculations of the total aggregates supply of shags per week, and assume that demand was roughly matching supply; then divide by the probable population....).

Now the theory goes that St Paul didn't even care about people having a bit of extra marital shagging, but what he couldn't allow was the idolatry involved in going with a prostitute in the temple of Aphrodite. Hence why this was specifically addressed to the new church in Corinth.

Presumably a quickie with Aphrodite, on the way home from the office, was all part of the prevailing culture. Idolatry is the big no-no throughout the bible, and if sex was involved as well, it would be likely to lead the new church goers astray faster than a rat up an aqueduct.

The same argument could be applied to 1 Cor 6:9: It's not necessarily the homosexuality that he is against, it's the prostitution, perhaps the promiscuity, but very definitely the doing of anything in the temple of Aphrodite. The English translation gives 'male prostitutes and homosexual offenders.'

In the same chapter he goes on to talk about food offered to idols, and states that 'everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial.'

It's just a theory - and I am sure that some evangelicals would have a different view.

Siegfreid
Posted - 11 January 2018 10:49
Report as offensive
Gabriel Oak, probably all of the rights you enjoy today as a homosexual are owed to people like Tim Farron, and in some cases to how Tim Farron campaigned and voted in parliament.

I get the inconsistancy point, ok, but it's actually fairly irrelvant. Most modern politicians would NOT say anything that would lake them unelectable. Tim's done that.
Massive fuckwit
Posted - 11 January 2018 11:18
Report as offensive
In Christianity pretty much everyone is a sinner and everyone commits some form of sin either through choice or as a result of their intrinsic nature. If you don't like that then don't be a Christian. Its ridiculous to demand/ expect/ imagine that gay sex should be given a free pass by a faith when almost nothing else people nowadays regard as their rights in a self-centered, consumerist society is
Patience Groove
Posted - 11 January 2018 11:38
Report as offensive
Loads of "sins" are given a free pass fuckwit
pancake humper
Posted - 11 January 2018 11:42
Report as offensive
Being gay, that noted product of a self-centered, consumerist society.
bookem
Posted - 11 January 2018 15:49
Report as offensive
Siegfreid
Posted - 14 January 2018 21:01
Report as offensive
Er, I enjoy the right to vote, etc.

Put the drink away, dude.
Massive fuckwit
Posted - 14 January 2018 21:32
Report as offensive
Not really Party Lightweight. A core assumption of many versions of that faith is that everyone is sinful so getting upset because one of the things deemed to be sinful is your sexual preference is at best to completely miss the point.