BoJo’s Previous Children are B*stards

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BoJo’s Previous Children are B*stards

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

steeleye20 Croydon 31 May 21 7.13pm
The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'. And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 31 May 21 7.13pm

The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'.

And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 31 May 21 7.21pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'. And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly. Did you copy your first line from the bbc article written in 2014? [Link] Edited by Spiderman (31 May 2021 7.22pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 31 May 21 7.21pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'.

And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly.

Did you copy your first line from the bbc article written in 2014?

[Link]

Edited by Spiderman (31 May 2021 7.22pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 31 May 21 7.38pm
what other people do with their underpants is frankly the business of nobody else. but it is paying all the bills that are levied that matter. BLM Bills Levied Matter Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 31 May 21 7.38pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

what other people do with their underpants is frankly the business of nobody else.

but it is paying all the bills that are levied that matter.

BLM

Bills Levied Matter

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 May 21 7.50pm
Originally posted by Matov Any religious 'marriage' is not a throw-back. That is the norm. How humanity evolved. Again, kids who parents were married in Church before they were born are statistically less likely to end up in jail, to misuse drugs, and will grow up into people who make a contribution to society as opposed to being a drag on it. The reason why the West is in so, so much trouble can be traced back to the decline in this acceptance of this as the ideal, a concept to be embraced and celebrated. . If you consider yourself on the Right, I truly cannot understand how you can not be in favour of the traditional family unit as the centre stone of it all. That is the purpose of it. The entire point. And why the Left are hell-bent on destroying it. The more they convince people that it is fine to just have babies when you want and not worry about raising them with two parents, the more we sink into the mire. I guarantee that of those girls who were abused up North, less than 10% came from families where the parents had married in Church and done so before they had them. The family unit protects and nourishes, along with embracing much wider family connections that encourage all kinds of positive behaviour. Of course, we can all quote incidences where single parents are wonderful and families an utter nightmare but those are the exceptions, not the norms. You want to be a true rebel in this day and age then get married in a Church. And be bloody proud of that because you are part of the Resistance. As much as you're religious, I am an athiest. I tend to believe that human morality was generally mirrored by the church and standardised as a product in the main. Our religious views would not be compatible - although I respect that I shouldn't disrespect your beliefs. However, I still think our morals and ethics can be largely similar - whether I'm religious or not. I still think kids should be brought up in a certain way and agree with many of the morals of the church etc. But there's plenty I don't agree with too. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 May 21 7.50pm

Originally posted by Matov

Any religious 'marriage' is not a throw-back. That is the norm. How humanity evolved.

Again, kids who parents were married in Church before they were born are statistically less likely to end up in jail, to misuse drugs, and will grow up into people who make a contribution to society as opposed to being a drag on it.

The reason why the West is in so, so much trouble can be traced back to the decline in this acceptance of this as the ideal, a concept to be embraced and celebrated. .

If you consider yourself on the Right, I truly cannot understand how you can not be in favour of the traditional family unit as the centre stone of it all.

That is the purpose of it. The entire point. And why the Left are hell-bent on destroying it. The more they convince people that it is fine to just have babies when you want and not worry about raising them with two parents, the more we sink into the mire.

I guarantee that of those girls who were abused up North, less than 10% came from families where the parents had married in Church and done so before they had them. The family unit protects and nourishes, along with embracing much wider family connections that encourage all kinds of positive behaviour.

Of course, we can all quote incidences where single parents are wonderful and families an utter nightmare but those are the exceptions, not the norms.

You want to be a true rebel in this day and age then get married in a Church. And be bloody proud of that because you are part of the Resistance.

As much as you're religious, I am an athiest. I tend to believe that human morality was generally mirrored by the church and standardised as a product in the main. Our religious views would not be compatible - although I respect that I shouldn't disrespect your beliefs.
However, I still think our morals and ethics can be largely similar - whether I'm religious or not. I still think kids should be brought up in a certain way and agree with many of the morals of the church etc. But there's plenty I don't agree with too.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 May 21 7.51pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'. And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly. Best cake sales though. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 May 21 7.51pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

The Church of England is 'the tory party at prayer'.

And Rt.Hon Justin Welby, doesn't your silence show that all too clearly.

Best cake sales though.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 31 May 21 9.55pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC As much as you're religious, I am an athiest. I tend to believe that human morality was generally mirrored by the church and standardised as a product in the main. Our religious views would not be compatible - although I respect that I shouldn't disrespect your beliefs. However, I still think our morals and ethics can be largely similar - whether I'm religious or not. I still think kids should be brought up in a certain way and agree with many of the morals of the church etc. But there's plenty I don't agree with too. How can an Athiest have 'morals'? The entire point of believing in a diety is an acceptance that there is a higher power than you who defines what is wrong and right i.e morality, which you aspire, and it is a struggle, to uphold/live by But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

31 May 21 9.55pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

How can an Athiest have 'morals'? The entire point of believing in a diety is an acceptance that there is a higher power than you who defines what is wrong and right i.e morality, which you aspire, and it is a struggle, to uphold/live by

But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 31 May 21 10.49pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Does anyone actually give a s*** what the Catholic Church thinks? When they openly condemn the abuse of children, who were supposedly in their care, then maybe they can try to take the moral high ground. What is the point of this thread? Ah yes just another dig at Boris, what fun some people have on a bank holiday Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd. Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 31 May 21 10.49pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Does anyone actually give a s*** what the Catholic Church thinks? When they openly condemn the abuse of children, who were supposedly in their care, then maybe they can try to take the moral high ground.
What is the point of this thread? Ah yes just another dig at Boris, what fun some people have on a bank holiday

Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd.

Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 01 Jun 21 6.11am
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd. Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them. Didn’t realise you were a referee Tom, that’s what you meant right?
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 01 Jun 21 6.11am

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd.

Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them.

Didn’t realise you were a referee Tom, that’s what you meant right?

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 01 Jun 21 8.36am
Originally posted by Matov How can an Athiest have 'morals'? The entire point of believing in a diety is an acceptance that there is a higher power than you who defines what is wrong and right i.e morality, which you aspire, and it is a struggle, to uphold/live by But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules. Interesting question I am an atheist and I think I have morals. Most societies have a group think view of what is and isn't acceptable. You don't have to be religious to agree that killing and stealing is wrong. Personally I believe that to enforce these rules religion was invented. It is a lot easier to explain to a peasant that "god say don't do this" than to explain about property rights being conducive to the socioeconomic well being of a society. Of course as an atheist I don't agree with some of the so called church morals e.g. you shall worship only one god, that smacks of protectionism and a cartel I'm more a free market guy you can worship who you want or not. Edited by Badger11 (01 Jun 2021 8.38am) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 01 Jun 21 8.36am

Originally posted by Matov

How can an Athiest have 'morals'? The entire point of believing in a diety is an acceptance that there is a higher power than you who defines what is wrong and right i.e morality, which you aspire, and it is a struggle, to uphold/live by

But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules.

Interesting question I am an atheist and I think I have morals.

Most societies have a group think view of what is and isn't acceptable. You don't have to be religious to agree that killing and stealing is wrong.

Personally I believe that to enforce these rules religion was invented. It is a lot easier to explain to a peasant that "god say don't do this" than to explain about property rights being conducive to the socioeconomic well being of a society.

Of course as an atheist I don't agree with some of the so called church morals e.g. you shall worship only one god, that smacks of protectionism and a cartel

I'm more a free market guy you can worship who you want or not.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Jun 2021 8.38am)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 01 Jun 21 8.56am
Agree, its basically a click bait thread started by crown centre post Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd. Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 01 Jun 21 8.56am

Agree, its basically a click bait thread started by crown centre post

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

Pointless thread. I say this as a fellow bast@rd.

Horrible word. His kids are not guilty of anything, why label them.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jun 21 10.24am
Originally posted by Matov How can an Athiest have 'morals'? The entire point of believing in a diety is an acceptance that there is a higher power than you who defines what is wrong and right i.e morality, which you aspire, and it is a struggle, to uphold/live by But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules. I'd agree that Atheism, at its core, isn't morally constrained. Then again, you can be an atheist and agree with most of what Christians think anyway. Indeed, wokism (if we call it that) is a kind of humanist secular replacement for religion because when you look at its adherents they act like they are following holy orders....but like everything else it's very pick and choose, for example, the elevation of equality and egalitarianism is highlighted to extents far beyond its context within Christianity because it fits their idealism....they want the 'sermon on the mount' stuff but not the rest. That said, most religious adherence is pick and choose anyway....I mean look at the Catholic church here, finding excuses to re-marry those two. Everywhere you look in Christianity they pick and choose from abortion to homosexuality to women in the priesthood....and anyone other than fundamentalists have ignored most of the old Testament. I know there is a movement within the dissentient right to move back towards traditionism and I broadly agree with that. That said, I think we need to accept that we can be a broad church as it were and define ourselves by what we reject more than an insistence that we each sign up to what we accept....otherwise it's permanent fragmentation. For example, I'm not religious but I'm pretty strongly against abortion, whereas I know that's not fully agreed with even within the dissentient right. The progressives hold all the reigns of power other than government....and many of their social ideas are accepted and implemented by Tories who capitulated. They censor and persecute those that fight against their progressive ideas (when in the past the right allowed theirs to develop). In my view, we have far bigger issues Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2021 10.30am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Jun 21 10.24am

Originally posted by Matov

But an Athiest can define their own set of rights and wrongs. Surely that is the point of it? An Athiest does not accept the existance of a higher-power and therefore defines their own set of rules.

I'd agree that Atheism, at its core, isn't morally constrained. Then again, you can be an atheist and agree with most of what Christians think anyway.

Indeed, wokism (if we call it that) is a kind of humanist secular replacement for religion because when you look at its adherents they act like they are following holy orders....but like everything else it's very pick and choose, for example, the elevation of equality and egalitarianism is highlighted to extents far beyond its context within Christianity because it fits their idealism....they want the 'sermon on the mount' stuff but not the rest.

That said, most religious adherence is pick and choose anyway....I mean look at the Catholic church here, finding excuses to re-marry those two. Everywhere you look in Christianity they pick and choose from abortion to homosexuality to women in the priesthood....and anyone other than fundamentalists have ignored most of the old Testament.

I know there is a movement within the dissentient right to move back towards traditionism and I broadly agree with that.

That said, I think we need to accept that we can be a broad church as it were and define ourselves by what we reject more than an insistence that we each sign up to what we accept....otherwise it's permanent fragmentation.

For example, I'm not religious but I'm pretty strongly against abortion, whereas I know that's not fully agreed with even within the dissentient right.

The progressives hold all the reigns of power other than government....and many of their social ideas are accepted and implemented by Tories who capitulated. They censor and persecute those that fight against their progressive ideas (when in the past the right allowed theirs to develop).

In my view, we have far bigger issues

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jun 2021 10.30am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Jun 21 11.07am
Originally posted by Badger11 Interesting question I am an atheist and I think I have morals. Most societies have a group think view of what is and isn't acceptable. You don't have to be religious to agree that killing and stealing is wrong. Personally I believe that to enforce these rules religion was invented. It is a lot easier to explain to a peasant that "god say don't do this" than to explain about property rights being conducive to the socioeconomic well being of a society. Of course as an atheist I don't agree with some of the so called church morals e.g. you shall worship only one god, that smacks of protectionism and a cartel I'm more a free market guy you can worship who you want or not. Edited by Badger11 (01 Jun 2021 8.38am) Morals are the norms of a society, pretty much to make it work best for everyone and usually laid down on some kind of codification of law. People who don't follow morals are sometimes ostracised. When you consider today, they would be quite hard to fully explain. I'm totally not an expert on it but I believe they were first written about hundreds of years before the mainstream religions of today. I'm pretty sure the Greek Philosophers Plato, Aristotle and Socrates all wtote about the philosophy of morals. The amount Christianity borrowed from previous beliefs has been written about extensively. Of course people have morals without a particular god. There are also pretty horrible people who are religious, just as there are good and bad people in every society. I guess the overall idea of morals is how good and bad are actually defined and measured. Seeing how all the Philosophers haven't worked it out and religions and states, and even societies, change their minds about what is right or wrong on a pretty much historical basis, we're not going to work it all out today. Maybe give it a week or two and we'll try. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Jun 21 11.07am

Originally posted by Badger11

Interesting question I am an atheist and I think I have morals.

Most societies have a group think view of what is and isn't acceptable. You don't have to be religious to agree that killing and stealing is wrong.

Of course as an atheist I don't agree with some of the so called church morals e.g. you shall worship only one god, that smacks of protectionism and a cartel

I'm more a free market guy you can worship who you want or not.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Jun 2021 8.38am)

Morals are the norms of a society, pretty much to make it work best for everyone and usually laid down on some kind of codification of law. People who don't follow morals are sometimes ostracised. When you consider today, they would be quite hard to fully explain.
I'm totally not an expert on it but I believe they were first written about hundreds of years before the mainstream religions of today. I'm pretty sure the Greek Philosophers Plato, Aristotle and Socrates all wtote about the philosophy of morals. The amount Christianity borrowed from previous beliefs has been written about extensively. Of course people have morals without a particular god.
There are also pretty horrible people who are religious, just as there are good and bad people in every society. I guess the overall idea of morals is how good and bad are actually defined and measured.
Seeing how all the Philosophers haven't worked it out and religions and states, and even societies, change their minds about what is right or wrong on a pretty much historical basis, we're not going to work it all out today. Maybe give it a week or two and we'll try.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BoJo’s Previous Children are B*stards

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors