Boo Khaki Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 minute ago, ScotiaNostra said: I will need to read or listen to that, where is it? Sorry, just realised it's actually an excerpt from his candidacy launch speech yesterday. Having a bit of trouble finding the clip I just watched (twitter), but I'll post it if I can locate it again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Some backers now pulling out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 46 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: Even if that is the case, I suppose that might depend on which of the thousands and thousands of branches/sects of Christianity you mean. That's the true 'benefit' of pick 'n mix approaches to "faith". One can decide what one wants and justify it. Well, justify it to one's self, anyway. From the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Westboro Babtists, they all claim to know "the truth". "Belief" appears to be a get out of jail free card for all ranges of opinion, and the religious use it with, I venture to suggest, gay abandon. Mate, I wasn’t really wanting to get into a combative back and forth, but I’m a Christian and simply don’t agree with your framing of the motivations of people of my faith. The shellfish thing for example, is a classic atheist trope, that falls spectacularly when the bible is taken in context. Be honest, did you arrive at the conclusion after a good-faith search for the bible’s position, or did you engage in a bit of pick n’ mix yourself? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotiaNostra Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Some backers now pulling out Its amazing how little discussion must have gone on with Forbes and her backers before she stood, surely if you publicly back someone you check first what you are backing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 I never expected there to ever be a risk that the leader of Scotland would oppose gay marriage. For us to currently be looking at electing an SNP FM being opposed to it is absolutely staggering! Independence is clearly the glue holding the SNP together. What we are seeing is the result of indy being off the table for now. I always thought they'd secure it before imploding but looks like they may go pop first. If it does happen then Scottish Politics could see a bit of a correction through this process, however I'm not convinced that we will see any defection from SNP voters to unionist parties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Venom Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 By all means be superstitious but it has no place in framing public policy in the 21st century. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, ScotiaNostra said: Its amazing how little discussion must have gone on with Forbes and her backers before she stood, surely if you publicly back someone you check first what you are backing I think it more likely that they were all well aware of her personal views, but were backing her out of belief in her ability and intelligence and the hope that she would be able to give acceptable answers to the inevitable questions, only to be completely dumbfounded by the way she's self-immolated at the first hint of scrutiny. I mean, if you want to contend that's fundamentally dishonest of them then I'd agree, but politics doesn't do 100% transparent honesty in any regard, and nobody is suggesting she's failing on ability anyway so it's not that surprising that people who thought she would make the most capable FM backed her. It's a PR disaster and doesn't say much for the team advising her, but I'd imagine they were all watching through the gaps in their fingers themselves. Her wounds are entirely self-inflicted, and I can't imagine that didn't involve a huge degree of off-script freebooting. I respect her in one regard in that she clearly has bundles of conviction, but so did some of the most horrific people in human history. I couldn't support her now under any circumstances, because regardless of her actual political ability it would feel very much like 'well at least Mussolini got the trains running on time'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Stephen Malkmus said: I hope someone asks her if she's a creationist. Might as well burn this campaign to the ground properly at this point just to get it over with. I'd like to hear her views on infidels, Papists, or other idolaters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 10 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Mate, I wasn’t really wanting to get into a combative back and forth, but I’m a Christian and simply don’t agree with your framing of the motivations of people of my faith. The shellfish thing for example, is a classic atheist trope, that falls spectacularly when the bible is taken in context. Be honest, did you arrive at the conclusion after a good-faith search for the bible’s position, or did you engage in a bit of pick n’ mix yourself? I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince religious people of what I regard as the error of their ways.. . Given the billions of folk who believe quite distinct and often contradictory things, that would be quite a task. I don't really have to pick 'n mix between any religious views. If religious folk can live with the inconsistencies inherent in the various faiths, that' s fine but in my experience of discussions with friends they are very happy to tell you what they believe but flounder when asked why they believe it. It frequently seems to revolve around where and by whom they were raised. The same people born a thousand miles away would probably believe something entirely different for as strongly held reasons. If we can't look at prospective leaders stated attitudes and take a view, based on those attitudes, of how they might act in future, I don't know how you can decide who to vote for. So far, it seems to me that the social views held by Forbes don't square with mine so she couldn't be my choice. Fair enough? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: The ‘goalposts’ of the source document don’t change. Trends in interpretation do though. Put it this way; I’d be very surprised if the poster in question reached said conclusion following a genuine search for the actual biblical position. There's not any internal consistency in the bible though. New Testament "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc. Old testament "smite, kill, venegance mwah ha ha ha!", "and don't eat prawns or be gay". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, coprolite said: There's not any internal consistency in the bible though. New Testament "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc. Old testament "smite, kill, venegance mwah ha ha ha!", "and don't eat prawns or be gay". This testament below is a long read but it probably covers everything: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 James O'Brien going to look at same sex marriage now on LBC. Should be interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: James O'Brien going to look at same sex marriage now on LBC. Should be interesting. Congratulations to him and fair play for coming out on live radio. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 7 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: James O'Brien going to look at same sex marriage now on LBC. Should be interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 21 minutes ago, coprolite said: There's not any internal consistency in the bible though. New Testament "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc. Old testament "smite, kill, venegance mwah ha ha ha!", "and don't eat prawns or be gay". Like SnV, it’s clear you misunderstand Christian theology. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) Oops. Archbishop of Canterbury punted by almost a quarter of the 42 provinces of the Anglican Communion because of same sex marriage blessings. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64711815 Such tolerance! Edit to add.... I wonder which of the 42 provinces of the Anglican Communion are the ones that don't understand Christian theology? Presumably those in favour of the blessings and those opposed can't both be theologically correct. As an atheist there's no mystery for me. It's two sets of folk falling out over a proposal. Bit like two bald men arguing over a comb. But to the religious, it seems to be a real problem. Edited February 21, 2023 by Salt n Vinegar 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 minute ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Like SnV, it’s clear you misunderstand Christian theology. Lol. New thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 I'm just baffled by this. Not the views themselves, they were already pretty well understood, but the question of who, exactly, she is expecting to vote for her in the leadership election. She's completely at odds with the outlook of the overwhelming majority of the membership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 It’s little surprise that only one of the trifecta of boring technocrats that is Angus Robertson, John Swinney and Humza Yousaf is taking part in the contest. Heck, you could add Keith Brown in there and make it an awesome foursome. There was always going to be one continuity candidate and it seems like the parliamentary party will coalesce behind Yousaf. Then you’ve got the thinly veiled transphobia wing that Regan will appeal to. Before the last 24 hours my expectation is that Forbes would be a candidate that could unite both sides of the party and that Regan would drop out and endorse Forbes in return for a high profile cabinet post and on the understanding that the GRA would be binned. Forbes could probably have appealed to mainstream party members in a way that Regan or Cherry could not and was the best genuine chance for the gender critical wing to have their way. Now it’s going to be a straight fight between the transphobes and the technocrats and I can’t see past a technocrat win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.