General election 2010 - who will (or would) you vote for?

[RedCelt69]

For the record I don't truly hate Gordon Brown.

Revisit some of the comments you've made.

There are much more dangerous and malignant people in the Labour party*.

I quite like Mandelson. When I see him on TV I can't help smile. Regardless of what you think about his political position, the guy has a brain. And he often expresses his thoughts with wit and humour.

Christ still criticised things he disagreed with, often in very strong terms. He was compassionate with those who were repentant and sought to ammend their ways.

You know the bible better than I do. What people did he criticise, out of interest? I would imagine that it would be a whole lot easier to find such people in the Conservative party than it would be in the Labour party... but happy to be corrected on that thought.

I'm sure if I actually met Gordon Brown, as Mrs Duffy did, that I'd be able to make a better judgement of his character.

The Duffy incident amused me. The press loved it, because it was a news item in a previously uninteresting election. The people, on the whole, didn't seem to be quite so bothered. All politicians do what Brown did - unless they're very strange. Brown's only mistake was to forget that he was wearing a microphone.

The Holy See or Catholicism? Have you read the Pope's letter to Irish Catholics?

No. Silly of me, I know, but I've read history books. And the news. Did the current Pope apologise for his actions concerning the covering-up of paedophile priests, back when he was in charge of such matters? Last I heard, he hadn't.

[macgamer]

Revisit some of the comments you've made.

I'm probably the best judge of my attitude to people.

I quite like Mandelson. When I see him on TV I can't help smile. Regardless of what you think about his political position, the guy has a brain. And he often expresses his thoughts with wit and humour.

Apart from liking Mandelson, I would agree with your comments. I would add that he is almost entirely self-serving. If he had the good of society or the nation at heart he would be a great asset. As it stands he is much more Machiavellian than is good.

You know the bible better than I do. What people did he criticise, out of interest? I would imagine that it would be a whole lot easier to find such people in the Conservative party than it would be in the Labour party... but happy to be corrected on that thought.

He criticised the scribes and Pharisees is strong terms, and then there is that whole incident about expelling the money changers from the temple. Probably best not to make wide generalisations, but rather judge each person according to their actions. In terms of voting records on Christian morality, the Conservatives tend to vote more on that line.

The Holy See or Catholicism? Have you read the Pope's letter to Irish Catholics?

No. Silly of me, I know, but I've read history books. And the news. Did the current Pope apologise for his actions concerning the covering-up of paedophile priests, back when he was in charge of such matters? Last I heard, he hadn't.[/quote]
Find me one case of Cardinal Ratzinger being directly involved in one incident of a cover up and then I might comment on whether he needs to personally apologise. Until that point he has nothing to personally apologise for regarding the scandal. Any suggestion that he did without evidence is calumny. Cardinal Ratzinger did more than anyone else to improve the Church's dealing with these cases. It was he in 2001 who changed the competency of the CDF, of which he was Prefect, so that it would be responsible for dealing with the cases.

[RedCelt69]

I'm probably the best judge of my attitude to people.

Well, yes... but people can also be judged by their actions.

Apart from liking Mandelson, I would agree with your comments. I would add that he is almost entirely self-serving. If he had the good of society or the nation at heart he would be a great asset. As it stands he is much more Machiavellian than is good.

Everyone on the planet is self-serving; but how considerate are they being at the time? Accusing a politician of self-servitude is, quite frankly, a misunderstanding of the political animal.

He criticised the scribes and Pharisees is strong terms, and then there is that whole incident about expelling the money changers from the temple.

The Pharisees/scribes were criticised for false-religiosity, as opposed to the "true" religiosity as evidenced by Jesus, himself. It was a pitch to sell himself. Similarly, the money changers were using holy ground for unholy actions. Other than that, who else did he criticise? He certainly wasn't keen on the rich...

In terms of voting records on Christian morality, the Conservatives tend to vote more on that line.

Well, now, that's where you're very wrong. Unless "Christian morality" is meant to mean St Paul and his successors. I was asking about Jesus and Christians, not St Paul and Paulians. The Conservatives are quite keen on the rich. Very non-Christian.

On the wider subject of who Christians should criticise, I point you to Matthew 7:-

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[macgamer]

The Pharisees/scribes were criticised for false-religiosity, as opposed to the "true" religiosity as evidenced by Jesus, himself. It was a pitch to sell himself. Similarly, the money changers were using holy ground for unholy actions. Other than that, who else did he criticise? He certainly wasn't keen on the rich...

On the incident of the rich young man, if you were to read a bit further after Jesus has said '[...] for it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven' Peter interjects with 'But Master then who is to be saved?' Jesus replies with 'For man these things are impossible, but not to God, for God nothing is impossible.' Not to get too bogged down in this, but the message is that salvation is available to all who are willing to accept it, by giving up things like the pursuit of riches which are a something which is ahead of serving God. I'm not one to believe that Jesus was some 1st Century Palestinian Che Guevara.

Well, now, that's where you're very wrong. Unless "Christian morality" is meant to mean St Paul and his successors. I was asking about Jesus and Christians, not St Paul and Paulians. The Conservatives are quite keen on the rich. Very non-Christian.

So you are saying that Pauline thought and theology is not Christian? Well Jesus explicitly condemned divorce, adultery, execution / murder. However he also said:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

I don't think that in the core Christian morality Paul added anything that was not covered either by Jesus, the Law of Moses or the Prophets.

Oh yes and Exhibit B: Bad Al Campbell - Did you hear him on Question Time still holding the line on the Iraq War?

[DACrowe]

My informal wager that Julian Huppert would be the first to rebel on tuition fees turns out to be lost, it is in fact Ming (aka Sir Menzies Campbell QC OBE, MP for North East Fife and Chancellor of the University of St Andrews). Shows what I know. I wish I could claim credit for it but while I mentioned the matter to his campaign manager I suspect credit is due to the SA and Ming himself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/t ... 708857.stm

Incidentally, macgamer, while it's cool you've found the [img] tag and everything do your images of Alasdair Campbell have to be so large? Risks putting me off my dinner.

[David Bean]

Another interesting point about Christianity and forgiveness is that many within the Holy catholic Church (sic) believe that forgiveness requires repentance, in which case it would not be strictly necessary for Christians like ourselves who believe Gordon Brown wrecked the UK economy and a good deal else besides ever to forgive him, at least until the unlikely event of him confessing his misdeeds and apologising for them.

[RedCelt69]

Not to get too bogged down in this, but the message is that salvation is available to all who are willing to accept it, by giving up things like the pursuit of riches which are a something which is ahead of serving God. I'm not one to believe that Jesus was some 1st Century Palestinian Che Guevara.

Are you willing to believe that he was some 1st Century Capitalist? How many rich people do you know who put their god before their wealth? Jesus wasn't a Conservative.

So you are saying that Pauline thought and theology is not Christian?

Absolutely and, for the emphasis, categorically.

Well Jesus explicitly condemned divorce, adultery, execution / murder.

Do a poll of Conservative politicians to see how many of them would like to bring back the death penalty. It would require anonymity as, mostly, they won't admit to it in public, as it is politically damaging... it is, however, a recurring theme among die-hard Tory voters.

However he also said:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

Well, actually, he didn't say that. You know that the author of Matthew wasn't an eye-witness to the events of the life of Jesus, don't you? Theologians know this perfectly well.

But let's assume that he did say those words. There's an awful lot in modern "Christianity" (Paulianity) which the son of God failed to mention. I mean... it seems strange that the son of the creator of the universe was so spectacularly poor at communication. Why was St Paul (and a legion of Chinese Whisper successors) required to explain things afterwards?

Do we have to go through Leviticus to explore all of the laws that Jesus didn't revoke? Laws which are not carried out today?

I don't think that in the core Christian morality Paul added anything that was not covered either by Jesus, the Law of Moses or the Prophets.

Why predate Jesus? When a "Law of Moses or the Prophets" contradicts the message of Jesus, it is (surely) safe to assume that they are one of the laws/tenets that Jesus sought to strip away. Isn't it?

Another interesting point about Christianity and forgiveness is that many within the Holy catholic Church (sic) believe that forgiveness requires repentance, in which case it would not be strictly necessary for Christians like ourselves who believe Gordon Brown wrecked the UK economy and a good deal else besides ever to forgive him, at least until the unlikely event of him confessing his misdeeds and apologising for them.

Repentance is to God, not to you. See Matthew 7 for further explanation about judging people.

[Frank]

Well, now, that's where you're very wrong. Unless "Christian morality" is meant to mean St Paul and his successors. I was asking about Jesus and Christians, not St Paul and Paulians. The Conservatives are quite keen on the rich. Very non-Christian.

Careful with this sort of topic and that name.
[/flashbacks]

[Senethro]

Well, now, that's where you're very wrong. Unless "Christian morality" is meant to mean St Paul and his successors. I was asking about Jesus and Christians, not St Paul and Paulians. The Conservatives are quite keen on the rich. Very non-Christian.

Careful with this sort of topic and that name.
[/flashbacks]

We must be safe by now, surely!

[macgamer]

Careful with this sort of topic and that name.
[/flashbacks]

The horror!

Didn't he have his account revoked? Perhaps one of the Admins can shed some light on this.

[RedCelt69]

Do we have to go through Leviticus to explore all of the laws that Jesus didn't revoke? Laws which are not carried out today?

I'm working my way through my West Wing DVD boxset, and the following clip appealed - and is relevant.

[jollytiddlywink]

Revisit some of the comments you've made.

I'm probably the best judge of my attitude to people.

You might be the best judge of what you think your attitude to people is, but the evidence suggests that your perception of your attitude to people clashes rather violently with how (almost) everyone else perceives your attitude.