Genuine Hibs Fan Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 (edited) That's looking like the first torpedo into a stricken battleship as well. Fair play to Jenkins that's a terrific bit of blindsiding as well. Edited February 23, 2023 by Genuine Hibs Fan 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 25 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: That's looking like the first torpedo into a stricken battleship as well. Fair play to Jenkins that's a terrific bit of blindsiding as well. Regan doing a great job of dispelling the accusations that she's the Vichy Alba Da candidate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 37 minutes ago, Rugster said: That's a great clip. Pity I can only greenie it once. As I recall, Bartlett was a devout Roman Catholic in the series. I've said before that he's possibly the best President the USA never had. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Bodie said: Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf. Would speak more sense than John Swinney anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod1877 Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 3 hours ago, Anonapersona said: The problem with overly religious people is that they tend to fall back on their beliefs for guidance. She might say that she'll keep her faith out of politics, and it might actually be true at the time. At the end of the day it will interfere in her capability to make fair decisions. I see these people every day. Everyone falls back on their beliefs for guidance. Everyone has a worldview. Nobody is neutral. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richey Edwards Posted February 23, 2023 Author Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Bodie said: Jar Jar Binks would have a decent chance against this lot tbf. Jar Jar Binks is actually a Sith lord m8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 14 minutes ago, Rod1877 said: Everyone falls back on their beliefs for guidance. Everyone has a worldview. Nobody is neutral. I meant religious beliefs and how they may affect political decisions. I agree about worldviews and neutrality but those things weren't in my post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 minute ago, Anonapersona said: I meant religious beliefs and how they may affect political decisions. I agree about worldviews and neutrality but those things weren't in my post. Well I suppose they are, just not in the way I intended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggie_Murray7 Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 2 hours ago, alta-pete said: If she’s gone as far as declaring sex before marriage and having a child out of wedlock as being sinful I think it a reasonable conclusion to your concern that she follows ‘enough’, probably more than most and I’d wager more than ‘only selected snippets’. But I don’t see what you are you driving at? I just wondered if she only believed that gay marriage was wrong and a sin. Or does she also want women found to be adulterers to sup only dirty water. What are her views on Christians not eating fat or blood? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod1877 Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 14 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: That's a great clip. Pity I can only greenie it once. As I recall, Bartlett was a devout Roman Catholic in the series. I've said before that he's possibly the best President the USA never had. I miss the Bartlett presidency. However, this clip is simply trotting out the straw man stuff seen elsewhere on this thread. There are undoubtedly many things in Old Testament laws that are strange to the ears of modern readers but the laws around things like shellfish eating, mixed threads and so on present no issue for Christians. Very roughly, you have three categories: Judicial laws - these are the codification of an entire legal system for a brand new nation living among people groups that were involved in all sorts of practices that God wanted Israel to distance themselves from. Some of the laws that we think sound terrible are actually radical protections against some of the worst excesses of the time. God basically wanted his people to be well governed, orderly and different. Ceremonial laws/sacrifices - these were designed to highlight the holiness of God and the lengths that sinful people had to go to for their worship to be acceptable to him. They needed constant repetition (for repeated sinning!), were always intended to be symbolic and always pointed towards an ultimate once for all sacrifice for sins - the death of Jesus Christ. Once that final sacrifice was made, the others were no longer needed. Moral laws - these were about how people should live in relation to God and their fellow human beings and are summarised in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarised this as loving God and loving our neighbour. There remains some debate about overlaps between the moral law and some of the judicial laws. Eating shellfish is not one of those overlaps! The New Testament makes clear that the first two categories are not binding on Christians, whereas its teaching on all sorts of things from human sexuality to greed to treatment of the poor, lying and so on indicates that the moral law continues to apply. Even then, salvation doesn't come from adherence to the moral law but from trust in Jesus Christ. Apologies, maybe this should have gone on the Christian theology thread! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, Rod1877 said: I miss the Bartlett presidency. However, this clip is simply trotting out the straw man stuff seen elsewhere on this thread. There are undoubtedly many things in Old Testament laws that are strange to the ears of modern readers but the laws around things like shellfish eating, mixed threads and so on present no issue for Christians. Very roughly, you have three categories: Judicial laws - these are the codification of an entire legal system for a brand new nation living among people groups that were involved in all sorts of practices that God wanted Israel to distance themselves from. Some of the laws that we think sound terrible are actually radical protections against some of the worst excesses of the time. God basically wanted his people to be well governed, orderly and different. Ceremonial laws/sacrifices - these were designed to highlight the holiness of God and the lengths that sinful people had to go to for their worship to be acceptable to him. They needed constant repetition (for repeated sinning!), were always intended to be symbolic and always pointed towards an ultimate once for all sacrifice for sins - the death of Jesus Christ. Once that final sacrifice was made, the others were no longer needed. Moral laws - these were about how people should live in relation to God and their fellow human beings and are summarised in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarised this as loving God and loving our neighbour. There remains some debate about overlaps between the moral law and some of the judicial laws. Eating shellfish is not one of those overlaps! The New Testament makes clear that the first two categories are not binding on Christians, whereas its teaching on all sorts of things from human sexuality to greed to treatment of the poor, lying and so on indicates that the moral law continues to apply. Even then, salvation doesn't come from adherence to the moral law but from trust in Jesus Christ. Apologies, maybe this should have gone on the Christian theology thread! Fantastic post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 4 hours ago, Darren said: The one silver lining to this Forbes bigotry cloud has been a day or two without talking about fucking independence. Is it naive to think we could maybe have a day or two a month when the focus is on issues like education and health rather than debating different ways to fail to get a referendum? Maybe and hear me out here. But a political party whose whole reason for being is to deliver an independent Scotland might actually want a leader who has a strategy for achieving that goal. This is the primary reason Sturgeon resigned. She was out of ideas and how far she was willing to go. You can't remove independence from the health or education debate. Working within the current UK framework is one of the reasons why things are so bad. UK growth is horrendous, UK health outcomes are declining, UK education is shit too. The "Attainment Gap" on similar measures is worse in England (according to 2018 report, though not entirely reliable since Scotland has a limited set of PISA scores) Only a fundamental breaking from UK policy willl uncouple Scotland from the UK's decline (now maybe it becomes worse under independence but right now we are tied to the UK and will not control our own future until independence is achieved) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 3 hours ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said: Have we established if Forbes actually follows every part of the bible? Or only select snippets? Burning bush 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 43 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said: I just wondered if she only believed that gay marriage was wrong and a sin. Or does she also want women found to be adulterers to sup only dirty water. What are her views on Christians not eating fat or blood? Given that her constituency encompasses Stornaway and it’s magnificent black pudding I’d imagine she’s all for it. And if she’s not, she’s definitely OFTW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod1877 Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 23 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said: I just wondered if she only believed that gay marriage was wrong and a sin. Or does she also want women found to be adulterers to sup only dirty water. What are her views on Christians not eating fat or blood? A major problem in this whole debate is that you need a reference point or some sort of definition for 'sin'. When most people hear something being described (by a Christian) as a sin, they think that what is being said is that anyone who does that thing must be a terrible person doing a terrible thing (equivalent to something like murder). However, that's not what the Christian hears as they say it and it's not what they mean. Sin, as understood by a Christian, only makes sense with God as a reference point. It's anything at all that is opposed to God and his law (see previous long winded post) and that breaks relationship with him. So, greed is sin. Wishing harm on someone else is sin. Lying is sin. Therefore, a Christian with any sort of self awareness looks at themselves and recognises that they commit all sorts of sins every day. They have no basis for any feeling of moral superiority. They simply fall back on God for forgiveness. If someone doesn't believe in God, then that understanding of sin as something that comes between them and God makes absolutely no sense. They have to find the basis for their behaviour and moral judgements somewhere else. But to pick up on the point in bold above, she probably thinks this ... "Are you so dull?” [Jesus] asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Mark 7: 18-19 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Given that her constituency encompasses Stornaway and it’s magnificent black pudding I’d imagine she’s all for it. And if she’s not, she’s definitely OFTW. Need to brush up on your geography boyo. Stornoway is Alasdair Allan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 minute ago, Londonwell said: Need to brush up on your geography boyo. Stornoway is Alasdair Allan. Checked, accepted and thank you for correcting me; please accept my apology. But a trifling detail. They’re all choochters anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Richey Edwards said: Jar Jar Binks is actually a Sith lord m8. Well he could appoint himself Supreme Chancellor of Holyrood and carry out Order 1314. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: That's looking like the first torpedo into a stricken battleship as well. Fair play to Jenkins that's a terrific bit of blindsiding as well. Oof. There’s no doubt more where that came from. The loonball wing of the party is slowly eating itself. Looks like it’s down to one… as if there was any doubt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Checked, accepted and thank you for correcting me; please accept my apology. But a trifling detail. They’re all choochters anyway. Agreed. 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.