Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"


Guest Kyelo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

The drawing back to you holding up Muslims over Christians ( I already know one of your comments is cast iron wrong about Muslims unless you think mosques build themselves ) just goes to show while you do clearly have issue with religions you have a particular hateful attitude in particular towards Christians... and you sit there wondering why the feel "attacked"...

Muslims and Christians do the same thing... They tied their money... The money is then given to the maintenance of the "churches", paying employees etc and good causes...

http://www.unitedsha...udi-arabia.aspx

The money given directly to the CoE each year does not pay for the basic running of the CoE, and hasn't done for nearly 50 years - that's before getting to any 'outside activities'. The CoE only survives financially via the huge amount of money it has from the past that is invested in the stock market and the like (and they don't [or at least didn't] much care if they make that money by selling weapons of war, either).

Muslims more than pay for the running of their churches. Nope, the mosques didn't build themselves, they've been built and paid for by direct contributions - which costs much more than the maintainence of existing Churches by the CoE which today's contributions don't (along with the whole running of the church) cover.

And beyond that, Muslims give massive amounts to other charitable causes - way beyond what practicing Christians in this country manage, despite the much lower number. Check with the Charity Commission!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You said it again ? I never said what you claim I said... Your a twisting moron!

Its not even worth tackling your misunderstanding about church finances...

If I'm "misunderstanding about church finances", perhaps you can explain why just about every year for 50 years the CoE has required to dip into its capital funds to enable it to financially survive - despite also having sold off a huge number of churches and land during that time? :lol:

If I've got it wrong, then you'll be able to tell me who within the Church has been stealing that billions of pounds of capital they've had to use?

Can't tell me? You can't tell me because you're wrong, as the CoE accounts and countless newspaper articles can prove to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said atheists don't...

And now we are back talking about the Catholic Church and condoms...

Religious debates on here are so fucking boring... I always find it staggering for example that people look at the Catholic Church "banning" condoms as the reason HIV has spread in Africa. Conveniently missing out the rest of the messages in the bible that talk about one man and one women forming an entity which should not be broke, and if the rest of the messages where followed then it self limits the spread of aids arguably as much as condoms. Whats the chances of someone getting aids if a guy has sex with the same girl there whole life ?

Someone say oh I am catholic so I can't used condoms... Butting fucking everyone women in a 100 mile radius as I feel is ok... Well any dickhead can surely see the logic breakdown there...

But you can't and the same old narrow debate is pushed. Catholic institution aren't spreading aids in Africa, people with little understanding of their own faith are...

I don't like the Catholic faith for many reasons. There stance on abortion, homesexuals, condoms, babies going to hell etc etc etc are all up their. But I have enough brain cells in me to look beyond the bullshit attacks out there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, as the head of the Church of England is telling her own moronic bishops and her own moronic ministers and the likes of Barry Fish to stop being discriminatory morons, what more is there to say about this subject?

Those morons have been holding her up as the justification for their words. She's told them they're 100% wrong.

Well done Liz. You clearly have a fully working brain behind that gormless smile. You've just gained some respect from me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you're aware, Dave Moron has been banging on about 'The Big Society', and of how these wonderful Christian types can patronisingly give the rest of the population everything they need. As an example of this, he holds up the libraries that have recently changed over to being run by people from the community.

But funnily enough, the only places where that's actually happening is in untypical rich areas, where there are a very large and disproportionate number of people (mainly 'housewives' and people who have been lucky enough to retire on huge pensions aged just 50) who don't have to work because of their wealth.

And when the people running those library services are asked whether Dave Moron is right, and the sdame idea can work in every part of the country, they're smart enough to realise that it can't, because most other people are far too busy just simply trying to get by.

So even the types of people who are providing thew things you're going on about are far smarter than you are Barry Fish. They realise that it's not "Christian values" which enable them to give to the community but their wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

What exactly did Liz say? I can't find an article.

The Queen has spoken of her belief that the Church of England has "a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths" in the UK.

In a speech at London's Lambeth Palace, she argued the Church's role was not to "defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17047885

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people pick and choose at a religion they're only lying to themselves. Cowardice I suppose: they want to believe there's something there but they don't want to give up everything.

It doesn't work really. Except for stuff like 'it's open to interpretation' bollocks. I suppose you either have to believe that the Bible is the unadulterated world of God or you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the important parts of the bible is not to judge... Its not up to us to make the judgement who goes to heaven... So I don't believe that is true...

Of course in this colourful world everyone reads the bible differently... It of course contradicts itself and we know it has an history showing its been interfered with...

The bible should be a Christians start in exploring faith, not its end (my personal feelings)... but hey, there are some who totally commit to it etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I am not a Christian just to be clear...

and yet you attend a Christian church and hang out with Christians as though you're a Christian.

Just out of interest have you told all those people that you're not a Christian?

If you have, what do they make of what you do with them?

And what do you do when they pray &/or start banging on about "Christ the saviour" and "Christ the son of God"? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of isolated situation where it could yes... Going outside of that I am not sure if it could effect on everybody...

What you looking for ? I don't know the answer to be honest...

Only having sex with your wife is a very good way of protecting yourself from aids. You don't really need to go into much detail than that really... Obviously its not a total protection... I can think of other ways you can get infected but one would assume the biggest transmission is due to sex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...