Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin. So my local Baptist minister believes that if gay Christians go to one of her services she is sinning if she doesn’t tell them that the Lord’s word is that he does not allow them to have sexual relations with other people of the same gender. A Christian politician who believes that gay sex is a sin is allowing others to sin if they vote for pro gay rights legislation.

Of course not all Christians do believe that same sex relations are sinful. Some believe that they can’t judge. Others believe that Scripture is open to interpretation just as it has been for issues like slavery and divorce. I belonged on the liberal wing of the church and I and most of my fellow churchgoers were pro gay rights, but only because our theological position was that gay relationships aren’t sinful. Peoole can fudge it in their personal lives (a dad accepting a gay son and his partner for example) but it doesn’t work for someone in a position of authority who is allowing people to fall into sin. That is the problem with Farron voting on gay rights and I would have thought that in his position the only option would be to abstain from such voting.

You clearly do have bias and misconceptions because you are generalising. Also if the evidence is to be believed Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ interests. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t counteract the evidence of Farron’s political record.

[Rhiannon]

You clearly do have bias and misconceptions because you are generalising. Also if the evidence is to be believed Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ interests. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t counteract the evidence of Farron’s political record.

No, what I have is knowledge. I lived and breathed this stuff for years.

As for Farron’s standing as an MP, that is for his constituents to decide. He may be a very fine constituency MP. I don’t know as I don’t live there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This isn’t misconception or bias on my part. I nearly became a priest so I did my time on Farron’s side of the fence, and I kind of know how it works from a Christian perspective. One thing that is very clearly taught (especially on the Evangelical wing if the church) is that it is a sin to allow others to sin.

I have never come across that and I dipped my toe into monastic life, funnily enough also periodically attending a Baptist church, so I question that this is clearly taught.

Also it does not make much sense in a world where we are capable of sinning.

Your statement lays the ground for a caricature of evangelicals and reinforces your mistaken view that only two possible responses are possible here. Not allow people to sin (how is that possible?) or get rid of the idea of sin altogether

[jakswan]

Farron has met my standards in relation to this.

Failed mine and many others which is why he will never now attain high office.

Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, what I have is knowledge. I lived and breathed this stuff for years.

As for Farron’s standing as an MP, that is for his constituents to decide. He may be a very fine constituency MP. I don’t know as I don’t live there.

I don’t dispute that you have knowledge. I am saying that if I used my knowledge of some interpretations of Islam and my knowledge of some Muslims to generalise about other Muslims or generalise about Islam, I think I would be displaying bias and my opinion on a particular issue could therefore be based on misconceptions.

If the evidence is to be believed, the acting chair of Lib-Dem LBGT+ thinks Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ rights.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Failed mine and many others which is why he will never now attain high office.

Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.

I’m afraid I don’t trust your crystal ball on Farron’s future political career.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Found this debate quite enlightening, felt Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of Greens, gave a good account of himself, who also happens to be a Christian.

Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?

[floo]

Jonathan Bartley calls himself a Christian. He is at liberty to call himself what he likes, presumably you think that he gave a good account of himself because he thinks that gay sex is not a sin, rather than any reasons that he may have given?

You call yourself a Christian, yet you think gay sex is wrong. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, possibly because he was in a gay relationship with the disciple whom he loved.

[Rhiannon]

I don’t dispute that you have knowledge. I am saying that if I used my knowledge of some interpretations of Islam and my knowledge of some Muslims to generalise about other Muslims or generalise about Islam, I think I would be displaying bias and my opinion on a particular issue could therefore be based on misconceptions.

If the evidence is to be believed, the acting chair of Lib-Dem LBGT+ thinks Farron has done a good job in his political role for LGBT+ rights.

For Evangelicals the bible has to be adhered to. Luke 17:1-4 for example.

Brian Paddick sees a need to repair the damage Farron has done.

https://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddick-writesliberal-democrats-remain-the-most-accepting-of-all-the-political-parties-whoever-you-are-and-whatever-you-believe-56348.html

[Humph Warden Bennett]

You call yourself a Christian, yet you think gay sex is wrong. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, possibly because he was in a gay relationship with the disciple whom he loved.

LR, this is something of a "King Charles' Head" for you !

[ProfessorDavey]

I sometimes worry that some people appear almost 'hard wired' to see homophobic comments as somehow less shocking and unacceptable when compared to sexist of racist comments.

So let's look at another example - this time of grossly racist comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42679187

Would anyone here be prepared to defend these comments and not consider that this person is not fit for public office on the basis of her expressed racist comments? Yet when it comes to homophobic comments many people take a different view thinking that it is OK for someone in a public role to express homophobic views in the context of that role and their opinion should be 'respected'. Should this woman's opinion be 'respected' - is it therefore wrong for UKIP to suspend her because she was only expressing her views?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

For Evangelicals the bible has to be adhered to. Luke 17:1-4 for example.

Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record. Do you have any actual evidence about Farron’s political record that you want to share?  By the way, you’re still generalising so you’re still displaying bias.

Brian Paddick sees a need to repair the damage Farron has done.

https://www.libdemvoice.org/brian-paddick-writesliberal-democrats-remain-the-most-accepting-of-all-the-political-parties-whoever-you-are-and-whatever-you-believe-56348.html

Farron also saw a need to repair the damage that lying about his theological position caused. Which is why he told the truth about his theological position. Paddick has not said that Farron’s theological position prevented Farron  from acting on his Liberal political beliefs to protect LGBT+ rights, if the evidence is to be believed.

[Rhiannon]

Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record. Do you have any actual evidence that you want to share?  By the way, you’re still generalising so you’re still displaying bias.
Farron also saw a need to repair the damage that lying about his theological position caused. Which is why he told the truth about his theological position. Paddick has not said that Farron’s theological position prevented Farron  from acting on his Liberal political beliefs to protect LGBT+ rights, if the evidence is to be believed.

It’s not my bias, it’s the Gospel. Hope (formerly of this parish) was adamant that his homophobia was ‘loving’ because it ‘prevented sin.’

If Farron believes gay sex is sinful yet supports it through his voting he’s breaking what the Bible teaches. If he does so because of his liberalism then he is putting that ahead of his religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I sometimes worry that some people appear almost 'hard wired' to see homophobic comments as somehow less shocking and unacceptable when compared to sexist of racist comments.

So let's look at another example - this time of grossly racist comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42679187

Would anyone here be prepared to defend these comments and not consider that this person is not fit for public office on the basis of her expressed racist comments? Yet when it comes to homophobic comments many people take a different view thinking that it is OK for someone in a public role to express homophobic views in the context of that role and their opinion should be 'respected'. Should this woman's opinion be 'respected' - is it therefore wrong for UKIP to suspend her because she was only expressing her views?

You haven’t demonstrated how these comments about physical beauty or the Royal Family’s bloodline relate to Farron’s statement on his theological position so i’m not seeing the equivalence. I could see the equivalence if you can find a comment from a politician that speaking with a Pakistani accent is a sin and then tell me what that politician’s voting record is on protecting immigrant’s rights

[ProfessorDavey]

Your opinion doesn’t counter evidence such as Farron’s political record.

Actually Farron failed to vote in favour of equality legislation for gay people in pretty well all votes that count - he was absent for the key vote on gay marriage, voted no on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations etc.

Where he voted in favour, was typically secondary - e.g. he voted for divorce for gay couples, but that hardly a great step forward, the advance was allowing gay people to marry, which he failed to support in its crucial third reading.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and then tell me what that politician’s voting record is on protecting immigrant’s rights

Which, if we are equating to Farron, would be very poor - see my last post.

[floo]

LR, this is something of a "King Charles' Head" for you !

Meaning?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually Farron failed to vote in favour of equality legislation for gay people in pretty well all votes that count - he was absent for the key vote on gay marriage, voted no on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations etc.

Where he voted in favour, was typically secondary - e.g. he voted for divorce for gay couples, but that hardly a great step forward, the advance was allowing gay people to marry, which he failed to support in its crucial third reading.

Your argument about Farron’s voting record is countered in the article I linked to by Jenny Rigg - acting chair for Lib-Dem LGBT+ though your bias may mean that you decide you prefer your narrative to the one provided by the acting chair, who by the way is an atheist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which, if we are equating to Farron, would be very poor - see my last post.

Have the argument with Jennie Rigg - the acting chair for Lib-Dem LGBT+ because she seems to have evidence that proves you wrong. As a liberal, I think you are still entitled to your beliefs.

[Nearly Sane]

Meaning?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head

[Humph Warden Bennett]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head

Thank You. 

[floo]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/King_Charles%27_head

I still don't get it?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I still don't get it?

Oh Dear.

[floo]

Oh Dear.

So maybe you would care to explain to this senile old woman exactly what you are talking about?

[Aruntraveller]

I think they are referring to the fact that you quite often bring up the concept of Jesus being in a relationship with one of his disciples. An argument which may have had some relevance once (although I don't think it has), but one which has now lost its power due to overuse.