Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Realistbear

Brown Accused Of Being Morally Corrupt By Bishops

Recommended Posts

i think the church is one of the largest land owners in the country.

why doesnt the 'bishop' put his money where his mouth is and use some of the land and build social housing for families with affordable rents payable to the church. ?

Because he knows there is already an oversupply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bishops are just pantomime extras, there is little point in taking this stance now, because it doesn`t matter what broon says, the party is over, natural economic forces will have their way. The sheeple don`t want to borrow any more like they did, they are scared now. The banks want the crash soon so they can start lending at sensible levels again, repo`s will be swift in 2009. Broon and the bishops can pontificate all they want, it is as I said, pantomime. You just need a few seconds of the queens speech to know that the "pillars" are losing their sway over the sheeple. When the sheeple are eventually booted out of their X-Factor dreaming bed into GD2, God alone knows what will happen.I don`t think queenie, broon or the bishops will have much sway? the only thing that can avert total chaos is strong leadership that the sheeple will respect, so it`s a toss up between kerry, jade and the latest X-Factor winner :lol: Gareth Gates for chancellor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to get better results in would have been better to interupt cbbc's newsround with footage of gordon brown putting a fat dildo into the backside of the bishop while prince philip got a blow job off the bshops on the other end while the queen exposed her genitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see the Bishops beat Brown up after all these years for a change ....because ever since Brown came to power, he's been no different to someone that 'Beats the Bishop'.

Edited by shakenvac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with the sentiments expressed by the bishops I am confused as to why they took so long to say these things.
In Oscar Wilde's essay, 'The Soul of Man under Socialism', Wilde writes that something was said so often and so tediously by so many people 'that now the even church has begun to repeat it'. Edited by Fly by Night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer. When a big bank or car company goes bankrupt, it gets bailed out, but no one seems to be bailing out the ordinary people who are losing their jobs and seeing their savings diminished."
Sounds like sense to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that holds up, tbh.

Ghandi wasn't accusing anyone of anything he had done himself. Whereas the bishops are all making their living by lying to people and defrauding them via imagined debts, just like the banks do. just that bishops use peoples natural feeling of owing something just for being alive to con them, instead of using worthless paper tokens.

One of the major issues facing the CofE isa the fact that they are obliged to mainatin the buildings. Most are Grade I listed and ordinary repairs involves a committee of srchitects and archeological consultants so replacing an ancient roof isn't just the odd ten thousand pounds per square metre but more like 100K. IMO, the National Heritage Foundation ought to take over the buildings as national monuments and allow the CofE to utilise community buildings on Sundays such as schools and community centres.

The con is the idea that the universe is a free for all without any moral compass and belief in fairies that give us meaning and our ethical basis. Stalin was famous for his opiate of the masses when he said "The State" was the new religion and anything the state did was lawful--even killing off all the non-Russian ethnic monorities. IMO atheism is the worst of all the world religions as it is too subjective and relies on the dictator to define what is and what is not good.

The Bishops make their living (35k a year) by referring people to an objective set of ethical standards. Whereas local councillors (c 125k a year) make their money conning people that they are a useful member of society and deserve what they get paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets burn down all churches and mosques and synagoggues etc. then use them as open dumping grounds for household rubbish.

Trouble is most of the CofE churches, even a few "non-conformist" churches, are Grade 1 listed. Something to do with people who like to preserve our national heritage for future generations to appreciate. Just like the Castles--piles of bricks maintained at great expense so that people can visit them and see how people lived in times gone by. I think the destruction of all historical buildings etc. might be seen as a bit Talibannish but you never know.

You could, I suppose, impose a new "Thought Police" to track down anyone who was a member of certain religions and exclude others such as Athiesm, National Socialism and Nihilism. The trouble is getting people to agree which "isms" are permitted and which are not. You will get the most trouble from the Atheists as they are striclty relativists and will not go along with the other religions such as National Socialism or Anarchism as the Atheists and National Socialists like to have control over all "isms" as they are seen as invlaid whereas their own "isms" are not. "isms" are the problem I am afraid and you just have to decide which of the many "isms" are valid and them impose your views on everyone else so there is only one "ism."

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trouble is most of the CofE churches, even a few "non-conformist" churches, are Grade 1 listed.

forget that. burning shit down is illegal too. besides. all that wood and lead in the windows would make excellent fire watching. we can use the heavy stone to drop onto fire engines and the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
forget that. burning shit down is illegal too. besides. all that wood and lead in the windows would make excellent fire watching. we can use the heavy stone to drop onto fire engines and the police.

The Taliban put the ancient statues of Budha to good use by using the rubble as hardcore for road contruction. Stupid thing was that they then began blowing up the same roads after Karzi took over. They might just as well left the statues in place as at least the tourists would pay good money to visit them. Come to think aboujt it, if we banned all buildings of historical significance we might lose out on tourism also. Who will want to visit Britain if all there is to see are Asdas and Council Blocks etc?

IMO its not the building that do the harm as they are neutral. It is the thoughts that are associated with certain buildings. The key is controlling the thoughts and then you control the people who have them. At least if you get rid of the buildings it will be easier to revise history to show that conformity with the "new thought" is best but again, which "ism" do you impose on people? And once you have imposed the new thought order you can bet that they will start building buildings again to celebrate the new "ism". Bottom line: freedom of thought is going to manifest itself in diversity of ideas and architecture so we will have to live with our national heritage and the buildings it produced.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the major issues facing the CofE isa the fact that they are obliged to mainatin the buildings. Most are Grade I listed and ordinary repairs involves a committee of srchitects and archeological consultants so replacing an ancient roof isn't just the odd ten thousand pounds per square metre but more like 100K. IMO, the National Heritage Foundation ought to take over the buildings as national monuments and allow the CofE to utilise community buildings on Sundays such as schools and community centres.

They shouldn't have any buildings, everything they have they have stolen.

The con is the idea that the universe is a free for all without any moral compass and belief in fairies that give us meaning and our ethical basis. Stalin was famous for his opiate of the masses when he said "The State" was the new religion and anything the state did was lawful--even killing off all the non-Russian ethnic monorities. IMO atheism is the worst of all the world religions as it is too subjective and relies on the dictator to define what is and what is not good.

lawful doesn't equal ethical, if you think it does then you agree with Stalin. Atheism is also NOT a relgion, it is the absence of something. Baldness is also not a hair colour.

The Bishops make their living (35k a year) by referring people to an objective set of ethical standards. Whereas local councillors (c 125k a year) make their money conning people that they are a useful member of society and deserve what they get paid.

No, bishops make a living lying to peopel who are scared of death about what happens afterwards. They are evil scumbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They shouldn't have any buildings, everything they have they have stolen.

lawful doesn't equal ethical, if you think it does then you agree with Stalin. Atheism is also NOT a relgion, it is the absence of something. Baldness is also not a hair colour.

No, bishops make a living lying to peopel who are scared of death about what happens afterwards. They are evil scumbags.

I think Atheism is a perfectly valid religion. It believes that matter exists in and of its own ultimately purposeless accord. It holds to a suggested truth that the universe created itself, ordered itself and that the ultimate purpose is no purpose. It is a fine "ism" and every bit as valid as a religion that says the universe was created by a greater intelligence than itself. Atheism is perhaps the highest form of religion because it holds to a certainty, rare in most other religions, that there is nothing else. Even an agnostic does not hold to this level of certainty as they will claim that you cannot be 100% certain that there is or is not a God.

Stalin's "ism" (communism) was also valid as one of the world religions because it involved a belief system that the State, and not an objective "God", is the ultimate good. Whatever was good for the State was, by definition, "good." THus the "opiate of the masses" of the Soviet Russians was that "god" (or the ultimate purpose) was the State and as Stalin was the State he was also "god." Stalin was no atheist but was a highly religious man with many rituals of state that involved ethnic cleansing or a belief that certain groups had a right to exist over against other groups which did not.

Man is trapped by having to define his own "ism" and cannot define for others what their "isms" are or ought to be. Belief that something does or does not exist is a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Atheism is a perfectly valid religion. It believes that matter exists in and of its own ultimately purposeless accord. It holds to a suggested truth that the universe created itself, ordered itself and that the ultimate purpose is no purpose. It is a fine "ism" and every bit as valid as a religion that says the universe was created by a greater intelligence than itself. Atheism is perhaps the highest form of religion because it holds to a certainty, rare in most other religions, that there is nothing else. Even an agnostic does not hold to this level of certainty as they will claim that you cannot be 100% certain that there is or is not a God.

Stalin's "ism" (communism) was also valid as one of the world religions because it involved a belief system that the State, and not an objective "God", is the ultimate good. Whatever was good for the State was, by definition, "good." THus the "opiate of the masses" of the Soviet Russians was that "god" (or the ultimate purpose) was the State and as Stalin was the State he was also "god." Stalin was no atheist but was a highly religious man with many rituals of state that involved ethnic cleansing or a belief that certain groups had a right to exist over against other groups which did not.

Man is trapped by having to define his own "ism" and cannot define for others what their "isms" are or ought to be. Belief that something does or does not exist is a good starting point.

RB,

Atheism, IMHO, is not a religion.

Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism is the antithesis of faith - there are no core beliefs in the supernatural, no ritual, no form of worship - it is a belief without merit or valid argument.

The Church of England has a lot to answer for, heck, they don't even accept the Bible as God's Word, and as for Rowan Williams he makes a mockery of the church he claims to represent.

However, I am glad the bishops have spoken out against Gordon Clown's policies.

The NuLabour government is not just financially bankrupt they are morally bankrupt. They are so liberal they put the devil to shame.

Churches are supposed to remain independent of the state as Jesus said, "My Kingdom is no part of this world", however, I think the time has come for them to be more vocal about the society they claim to represent.

Edited by drhewitt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
I think Atheism is a perfectly valid religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Its a rejection of religion. Its like a petrol head describing your feet as a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Atheism is a perfectly valid religion. It believes that matter exists in and of its own ultimately purposeless accord. It holds to a suggested truth that the universe created itself, ordered itself and that the ultimate purpose is no purpose. It is a fine "ism" and every bit as valid as a religion that says the universe was created by a greater intelligence than itself. Atheism is perhaps the highest form of religion because it holds to a certainty, rare in most other religions, that there is nothing else. Even an agnostic does not hold to this level of certainty as they will claim that you cannot be 100% certain that there is or is not a God.

It doesn't do any of that.

It says that there isn't a god. It holds no other position than that.

if I say there is no car outside my house, I am not sayin what is outside my house, just removing one possibility.

Stalin's "ism" (communism) was also valid as one of the world religions because it involved a belief system that the State, and not an objective "God", is the ultimate good. Whatever was good for the State was, by definition, "good." THus the "opiate of the masses" of the Soviet Russians was that "god" (or the ultimate purpose) was the State and as Stalin was the State he was also "god." Stalin was no atheist but was a highly religious man with many rituals of state that involved ethnic cleansing or a belief that certain groups had a right to exist over against other groups which did not.

Man is trapped by having to define his own "ism" and cannot define for others what their "isms" are or ought to be. Belief that something does or does not exist is a good starting point.

You don't have to believe it. You just have to obey your senses.

Try believing that walls don't exist or that bridges do, see where you wind up.

(Hint - with a sore nose and drowning.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism is not a religion. Its a rejection of religion. Its like a petrol head describing your feet as a car.

Atheism is definitely a religion... it is a fundamental belief in the non-existence of god.

(I find the paradox that such a fundamental belief is - essentially - a belief in god... i.e. a single notion of truth... to be quite amusing. Many theists are quite happy to discuss the semantics of existence as a non-controversial topic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism is definitely a religion... it is a fundamental belief in the non-existence of god.

(I find the paradox that such a fundamental belief is - essentially - a belief in god... i.e. a single notion of truth... to be quite amusing. Many theists are quite happy to discuss the semantics of existence as a non-controversial topic.)

It's not a belief.

It's an absence of belief. Negatives are hard to process, I realise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even an agnostic does not hold to this level of certainty as they will claim that you cannot be 100% certain that there is or is not a God.

A real agnostic is equally certain in their fundamentalist belief. They claim that no-one can know if the is or is not a god... which is why, if someone tells me that they are agnostic, I ask them "Are you sure?"

While paradoxes are amazing, even they do not reveal anything true - they merely show the flaws in mankind's mental models and representation of information.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.

  • 317 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.