Sheaf Saint

He does have a point though. I have had this debate many times with religious people, and in my experience whenever people challenge their beliefs as being irrational and offer reasons for this, the believers (metaphorically) stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la-la-la'

Just a quick question to the believers among us, one that has always bugged me..... "Jesus died for all our sins", what exactly does this mean? And if we are all God's children, what was so special about Jesus?

Humanism is the way forward.

An interesting debate, and one that has been ongoing for centuries and, no doubt, will continue to be debated for many more centuries to come. Just so everybody is clear on my stance before I continue, I am not a believer in god, and I would probably classify myself as an atheist if I absolutely must pigeon-hole my beliefs. I have had many a debate myself on this subject on other forums, and it always strikes me that the people who vehemently defend christianity, or religion of any kind, tend to be extremely irrational and blinkered when it comes to their own beliefs. There is a guy who I have debated with on another forum who talks in all kinds of riddles about the subject, and when you challenge him on any of the many contradictions in the bible, he always replies with 'God moves in mysterious ways' as if that is all OK and explains everything. His one argument that really got me though was his insistence that to be a christian, you must first accept that we are all sinners in the eyes of god. This statement, to me anyway, throws up all sorts of questions and complications. Firstly, if you believe that God created us all, why then did he create us as sinners? Secondly, why would anybody swear their allegiance to a religion that seeks to impose a sense of inferiority on every one of its members? It is my belief that religion, theistic religion at least, first came about as a way of explaining anything that mankind could not understand, before the advent of scientific method. It was then perpetuated as a way of exercising control over the populace by those with a vested interested in maintaining power over their people. I will never condemn anybody for following God, the bible, or anything associated with the church in that way (although I have met some religious people who talk absolute drivel in my lifetime) because if people find that religion helps them to make sense of the world and they can become happier and healthier from it then that can only be a good thing. But I do take exception to be told by religious types that I must accept Jesus in order to give my life meaning and morality. I am quite capable of following my own moral compass without the need to absorb texts from a 2000-year-old work of fiction. I am a very rational person, and as such I am incapable of allowing myself to be guided unquestionably by religion.

Sorry.

Wrong. They have to arrest you to speak to you. They only charge people once they are pretty sure they have enough evidence to secure a successful conviction.

Stupid comparison really, seeing as the planned invasion of Iraq was not part of their election manifesto. I'm sure if it had been in there then a lot of people would have chosen not to vote for them.

I take your point, but I must disagree. The BNP was founded by a group of people with a history of violence and therefore anybody who joins the BNP, through choice, understands that they will inevitably be seen as guilty by association. You say your wife is Chinese? Well then she is so by an accident of birth, and it is something over which she had no control, therefore it would be completely wrong to tar her with the same brush as Chairman Mao for instance. But people can choose whether or not to associate themselves with political parties like the BNP, and they should therefore understand the consequences if they do. In reality, your comparison cannot be drawn.

There are certain cultures whose interpretation of Islam leads to those human rights abuses, certainly, but the same can be said of any religion the world over. You only need to look at the situation in (christian) Nigeria where the government turn a blind eye to religious ministers branding children as witches and forcing their parents to give them money to have them 'exorcised'. You cannot single out Islam as the only oppressive religion in the world.

My brother was interviewed for a job at the circuit about 8 weeks ago, and he said he didn't think there was any possibility that the track would be ready on time for this race, there was so much left to do. He reckons they must have had construction workers pulling 24-hr shifts over the last month to finish it.

Oooooh, I've been looking forward to this for ages. BoB was quite posibly the greatest TV show ever made and I never tire of watching the DVDs. Any idea when this is going to be shown here in Blighty?

Just a couple of points.... 1. He stabbed the guy to death. Just because the lad had broken into his mother's house, does that mean he deserved to be sumarily executed? Sounds like 'excessive force' to me, which is precisley why he has been charged. 2. What the buggering hell has this got to do with the BNP being on Question Time????

How many of the current teams are based in the UK? Ponty????? It would be an absolute travesty if Ecclestone decided that Britain shouldn't have a race just to satisfy his own ego. On a slightly different note, what does everyone think about Jean Todt being appointed as president of the FIA?

Well if it's from the same director as Independence Day it should be worth watching first time round at least. I just don't get what it is about Independence Day... It's undoubtedly an utterly sh1te film, but I just can't help but sit and watch it every time it is on TV. WHY!?

Shame Richard Pryor isn't still around to front that campaign

It would certainly be interesting to see Button and Hamilton with identical equipment. A lot of people criticise Jenson and say he isn't as good a driver as Lewis, and that he only won the title this year because he had the fastest car on the grid for the first 6 races. That may be true, but the same people tend to forget that he had to beat Barichello in the same car who is no slouch and a very experienced professional driver. Personally I don't think you can compare Jenson and Lewis as they are two different types of driver. Lewis is a bit kamikaze at at times; quick and always willing to overtake but makes a lot of mistakes. Jenson may not have the same raw speed and cavalier attitiude but he rarely, if ever, makes a mistake. I would love to see which of the two of them would get the best out of a competitive McLaren, but I'll be surprised if it happens.

Try telling that to the people of Iceland.

Pardon the analogy, but why does everything have to be so black and white? why do you consider anybody who is disgusted by what the BNP stand for to be a 'tree-hugging lefty'? You complain about left-leaning posters throwing insults, but is that not just as much of an insult in itself? My political views may well be left-leaning (if they must be pigeon-holed), but I personally take offence at being labelled a 'tree-hugging lefty', just as much as anybody who is right-leaning may take offence at being called a nazi. A bit of double standards on your part there, if I may point that out to you without you getting insulted by it. If you read through my posts you will realise that I am not claiming that anybody who has a problem with immigration is a racist. Nowhere have I said that, and in fact I made the point that the large majority of the population of this country, me included I might add, do believe that there has been very poor control over immigration over the last decade. I believe this is something that you and I agree on, yes? The point I am making is that Nick Griffin is a vile, narrow-minded, bigoted little man who has a conviction for inciting racial hatred, and that anybody with the slightest amount of intellect and researching skills can see through his veneer of respectability and see him and his party for what they really are. There are plenty of alternative, effective solutions to the immigration problem, but voting for the BNP based purely on their perceived stance on this one single issue shows that the voter is either a) a strong follower of the BNP's views on race (ie racist) or b) completely unable to see the truth of what they really stand for.

See, this is precisely the point I was making in my earlier post. Why is this incorrect assumption continually regurgitated over and over again? Labour HAVE changed their immigration policy, even if it is too little too late; The Tories have laid out in their manifesto how they will introduce a yearly cap on the amount of economic migrants allowed to enter the country if they are elected, and the Lib Dems' stance is similar. This information is clearly available in the public domain, yet still people refuse to believe it and continue to perpetuate the myth that none of the main parties are doing, or plan to do anything at all about the previous immigration policies in place in this country.

Because Griffin showed himself up for what he truly is lastnight: a hypocritical, bigoted liar. If anybody is actually taken in by his constant bleating of "we're not a racist party - honest guv" and genuinely believes that he has changed from man that was convicted of inciting racial hatred, then they must be either a simpleton, or just as racist as Griffin himself.

Nice idea in principle, but the tories aren't in any position to do anything about seeing as they are not the ones in power. I don't think anybody would disagree with the fact that there has been too much immigration over the last decade, but it never ceases to amaze me how poorly educated the general public are about it. The fact is that the current Labour government HAVE changed the policy onimmigration. They HAVE introduced the australian-style points-based system for economic migrants. They HAVE been working with the French authorities to reduce the number of illegals and asylum seekers crossing the channel. Jack Straw was trying hard to make these points lastnight but, alas, he isn't really the right person to get the message across. It seems that no matter how much the government try and publicise this, nobody seems to take it on board. The problem, I think, is that there have been so many scare-stories, myths and downright untruths printed regarding immigration over the last few years by the right-wing political parties and media, that the government could completely close the border tomorrow and still the majority of the tabloid-reading sheeple in this country would not believe it and would continue to perpetuate the scare-mongering drivel peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail. I don't think anybody with half a brain disagrees with Nick Griffin when he says that Labour's free-for-all immigration policy drastically needed to be amended, and many would argue that the measures they have taken are perhaps 'too little too late', but only a simpleton could possibly believe that a vote for the BNP is the solution.

Well he was given enough rope, and he duly hanged himself with it. Not surprising, and very pleasing to see him make a total idiot of himself in front of what was probably QT's biggest ever TV audience. I hope a few people who had previously been suckered by Griffin's veneer of respectability now realise exactly what a small-minded, nasty little bigot he really is.

And you know this how exactly? :smt102 That still doesn't answer the questions though.

Just a couple of questions,if you will indulge me.... 1. Please could you tell us exactly what your british identity is, and how it has been stripped from you? 2. What problems exactly (aside from prejudice and intolerance on behalf of the indigenous population) have been brought about by what you describe as 'uncotrollable immigration?' Genuine questions. I have heard these reasons trotted out time and time again by BNP supporters and I have yet to meet one that has actually been able to answer them.

Leeds and Middlesborough aren't exactly close.