The NI/ROI Protocol

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
👍your entitled to believe that I’m entitled to believe in creation as is Edwin. That doesn’t make him a nutter
Quite right, we're all free to believe what we choose and I'm sure you share my hope that long may it be so.

But... being 'entitled' to believe something doesn't make it true, does it? I don't know or care what your religion / delusion of choice is, but I'm pretty certain that you'll claim to be a Christian - apologies if not. But, that being so, you'll regard the animist religions from some parts of the world as entirely wrong from start to finish, yet some people believe in them as deeply and wholly as you do yours - so we can probably agree that belief in something does not necessarily equate to its being true.

Therefore we must make the best use of our critical faculties and the information available to us to establish what is true - I'm fairly sure that we're still in agreement to this point, but I'd guess not for much longer... because you seem to place more weight on a much plagiarised and self-contradictory set of texts that stem from the Bronze Age and which all rational evidence contradicts, than on the entirety of what empirical science and objective, rational observation explain.

The problem religionists have when rejecting science and its method, is that if they accept that 1 + 1 = 2, all of the rest has to follow. And accepting science in every other way, while irrationally trying to make exceptions for the supernatural and superstitions - faiths, if you like - is what makes people nutters. (y)
 
Last edited:
Quite right, we're all free to believe what we choose and I'm sure you share my hope that long may it be so.

But... being 'entitled' to believe something doesn't make it true, does it? I don't know or care what your religion / delusion of choice is, but I'm pretty certain that you'll claim to be a Christian - apologies if not. But, that being so, you'll regard the animist religions from some parts of the world as entirely wrong from start to finish, yet some people believe in them as deeply and wholly as you do yours - so we can probably agree that belief in something does not necessarily equate to its being true.

Therefore we must make the best use of our critical faculties and the information available to us to establish what is true - I'm fairly sure that we're still in agreement to this point, but I'd guess not for much longer... because you seem to place more weight on a much plagiarised and self-contradictory set of texts that stem from the Bronze Age and which all rational evidence contradicts, than on the entirety of what empirical science and objective, rational observation explain.

The problem religionists have when rejecting science and its method, is that if they accept that 1 + 1 = 2, all of the rest has to follow. And accepting science in every other way, while irrationally trying to make exceptions for the supernatural and superstitions - faiths, if you like - is what makes people nutters. (y)
You are right I am a Christian, I believe Jesus died for my sins, I have asked for forgiveness and one day I will go to heaven. There is no point quoting scripture as you do not believe the bible which is up to you. I don’t call you a nutter for not believing what I believe so I think you should afford me the same. History will prove which one of us was right. Have a good day
 

BrianV

Member
Livestock Farmer
You are right I am a Christian, I believe Jesus died for my sins, I have asked for forgiveness and one day I will go to heaven. There is no point quoting scripture as you do not believe the bible which is up to you. I don’t call you a nutter for not believing what I believe so I think you should afford me the same. History will prove which one of us was right. Have a good day
I think most people can agree there likely was a Jesus & he most likely died on a cross, whether he was the son of God or an early Scientologist is debatable & we all have our own opinions on that.
Where the craziness comes in is trying to believe & convince others of this 6000 year old figure, that's on a par with the flat earth brigade & is a worrying sign of partial insanity!
 
I think most people can agree there likely was a Jesus & he most likely died on a cross, whether he was the son of God or an early Scientologist is debatable & we all have our own opinions on that.
Where the craziness comes in is trying to believe & convince others of this 6000 year old figure, that's on a par with the flat earth brigade & is a worrying sign of partial insanity!
Partial insanity I can work with😂
 

JimAndy

Member
Location
portadown
👍your entitled to believe that I’m entitled to believe in creation as is Edwin. That doesn’t make him a nutter
you are entitled to your views, what you are not entitled to is force those views on others, which the DuP is doing. It wouldn't be so bad if they were true Christians truly following the word of god. but they not, they pick out selected text from the bible enforcing their "views", while disregarding any thing that doesn't suit their needs
 

The Agrarian

Member
Location
Co Antrim
It's always important to remember that there are over seven billion potential versions of the Bible out there. Because a book (or collection of scripts and letters) does not read itself. It can only be seen through the lens of the reader.
 
you are entitled to your views, what you are not entitled to is force those views on others, which the DuP is doing. It wouldn't be so bad if they were true Christians truly following the word of god. but they not, they pick out selected text from the bible enforcing their "views", while disregarding any thing that doesn't suit their needs
I sometimes question whether Christians should be in politics as it is a dirty business. I’m not here to defend all the dup has done whether right or wrong. My main objection was calling someone a nutter because of their beliefs.
 
It's always important to remember that there are over seven billion potential versions of the Bible out there. Because a book (or collection of scripts and letters) does not read itself. It can only be seen through the lens of the reader.
Yes there are things which are open to interpretation, however other things Gods word is crystal clear on
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
I sometimes question whether Christians should be in politics as it is a dirty business. I’m not here to defend all the dup has done whether right or wrong. My main objection was calling someone a nutter because of their beliefs.
If someone's beliefs are crazy, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to call him a nutter.

Yes there are things which are open to interpretation, however other things Gods word is crystal clear on
Evidence for that? Loads of evidence exists for humans having written what they claim to be the words of a 'God', but you'll have to supply us with hard evidence of a 'divine' being having written something - or recorded it on video, audio etc. - for your assertion to stand.
 
What you think is crazy I don’t think is crazy. It still isn’t acceptable to call someone a nutter who believes something different from you. You know as well as I do that I can’t provide hard and fast evidence of that. I am a simple farmer not a theological scholar. I can’t see the wind, but I know it is there and I can see it’s affects: What I find intriguing is that you spend a lot of time arguing against God and religion? Maybe deep down God is speaking to you?
 
you are entitled to your views, what you are not entitled to is force those views on others, which the DuP is doing. It wouldn't be so bad if they were true Christians truly following the word of god. but they not, they pick out selected text from the bible enforcing their "views", while disregarding any thing that doesn't suit their needs
Surely if you disagree with their views don’t vote for them ?
 

alex04w

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Co Antrim
you are entitled to your views, what you are not entitled to is force those views on others, which the DuP is doing. It wouldn't be so bad if they were true Christians truly following the word of god. but they not, they pick out selected text from the bible enforcing their "views", while disregarding any thing that doesn't suit their needs
What nonsense. All politicians are in the business of forcing their views on others once elected. They only get elected if people support their views.

Why shouldn't the DUP oppose abortion as that is what they and their voters believe in. However you would have us accept that Sinn Fien can force their pro abortion views on the rest of us?

Total inconsistency in your views.

The DUP have lost ground because they have left their core voters behind by compromising. I have heard a lot of DUP voters saying they are switching to TUV because of this. The ditching of Arlene Foster is a direct result of this potential loss of votes.

Her abstention on the protection of religious views in the gay conversion debate was the final straw and the apex of the issue of compromise and desertion of core party views.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
What you think is crazy I don’t think is crazy. It still isn’t acceptable to call someone a nutter who believes something different from you. You know as well as I do that I can’t provide hard and fast evidence of that. I am a simple farmer not a theological scholar. I can’t see the wind, but I know it is there and I can see it’s affects: What I find intriguing is that you spend a lot of time arguing against God and religion? Maybe deep down God is speaking to you?
I don't think that everyone who believes different things to me is a nutter, there is plenty of scope for differing opinion in the real world; I do think that people with imaginary friends are barking.

'Theological scholars' can't provide evidence, so don't do yourself down. The wind can be demonstrated to exist by any number of repeatable experiments and can be explained, rationally, by such experiments and careful observation of natural phenomena.

What I find intriguing is that whenever religionists don't like the way an argument goes, they tend to write something such ad your last, or say they'll 'pray' for their interlocutor. :unsure:

What nonsense. All politicians are in the business of forcing their views on others once elected. They only get elected if people support their views...
What ho! Thought you'd join in, agree with that first bit...

Sheep time, again... :(
 

Could a ‘Meat Tax’ be on the cards in the UK?

  • 193
  • 0
Written by Richard Halleron from Agriland

The latest machination coming from the so-called ‘opinion formers’, who seem to have the ear of government advisors in London, is the introduction of a ‘Meat Tax’ at consumer level.

This approach, it is argued, would have the combined impact of reducing meat consumption levels (I can really see the health benefits coming through now), while also helping to reduce the overall carbon footprint of production agriculture.

What absolute drivel! In my opinion, none of this makes sense at any level. This is a scurrilous and unfounded attack on livestock farming in this part of the world.

Yet, it has to be taken seriously. I make this point because economists at Rothamsted Research have already crunched the numbers where the introduction of a ‘UK...
Top