Jump to content

Scottish Independence Referendum 2


Henry

Should Scotland be an independent country?  

271 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

    • Yes
      196
    • No
      75


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

I have a theory. Well, it's not really a theory at all and should be properly framed as a question.

That first sentence I didn't understand. Did you mean "something to BE entirely strict on"? If so, and it was forgetting one word then yes, I can understand.

Your second sentence - suspended judgements, no churches- was pure genius, one of the best I've read on here, ever, in 21+ years.

In your lucid moments, you post some tremendous words and thoughts, constructed in your own inimitable style. Other times, I've no idea what you're on about. That post was therefore a perfect example of what I'm talking about. My question is this; I consider that you have a heightened state of awareness that far exceeds 99.99% of men, including me. Have you achieved this enlightenment through sustained use of the opiates?

No opiates.

 

Probably easier to just have a pint at some point. I'm sure I didn't telepath some point that I thought I did. I'm pretty bad for not understanding why people don't understand.

 

You might want to have a glance over the start of the ellipsis manual. Chase Hughes is well Chase Hughes.

 

Link to comment

24 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

You find that funny?

It's the easiest thing in the world to take some words from a post and just focus on that, ignoring all context of an ongoing discussion. It's as puerile and vapid as quoting someone and changing the words.

Why he does it is the more interesting angle. Coming from someone who never gets involved in any conversations, a sniper sitting on the sidelines, I find more tragedy than comedy in how he "contributes" to the threads. 

Or he maybe doesn’t take the internet too seriously? 

Link to comment
On 1/14/2021 at 5:39 PM, maryhilldon said:

Nobody is born with an innate belief in God,

I would disagree with that actually.

A cursory review of human history indicates, very clearly, that faith is a natural condition - a desire to know God appears among all people, in all epochs, in all cultures.

Atheism is a modern phenomenon, produced within cossetted, materialistic cultures where most people are conditioned (via political correctness, celebrity culture etc), to have no capacity to think. 

Atheism is a cop-out, in both logical and philosophical terms and even on the most basic level of thought.  It denies the obvious, inescapable reality that the universe and its contents had some origin, and is satisfied with replacing faith with "nothing" (thanks to materialism again).

And speaking of mental illness, a society which denies the obvious, which is intellectually satisfied with the concept of "nothing" and which demands (for example) the "right" of people to kill themselves is a very sick and warped society.

I think it was Chesterton who said  that, if men don't believe in God, they will believe in anything.  And its true: look, in the post-Christian UK, the great enthusiasm for absolute bollocks like "trans issues" as well as the obvious substitute religiosity invested in questionable areas like climate panic etc.  FFS.

Link to comment
On 1/16/2021 at 4:09 AM, rocket_scientist said:

I thought I was an atheist when I was 14/15 so I read the Bible. Enjoyed it. It was a good read. Some great truths. I was an even more confirmed atheist thereafter but at least more qualified to reject Christianity than I was before.

What version?

On what grounds do you consider yourself qualified to reject Christianity?

Link to comment
On 1/14/2021 at 6:19 PM, Jocky Balboa said:

While we're on opposing sides of the constitutional question, I do enjoy engaging with you on many issues. You are correct that there is a moral dilemma which needs to be addressed now, in light of recent developments. I've been slated many a time from other independence supporters, including on here, for going against the "SNP until independence" mantra. It is my staunch view that it is this very thinking which has created a generation of hangers-on and careerists within the SNP. People who have little priority for such a battle as independence, or indeed any difficult issues of the day, instead being content to collect easy and lucrative paychecks, safe in the knowledge many happy clappers will forgive them pretty much anything.

Now that the truth many of us have openly suspected for some time - that the Sturrell mafia are both lukewarm on independence and corrupt to their core - has come to light, the question the wider independence movement must ask itself, is just how far they're willing to go to achieve their goal. Would they be content to be led by a pair of Poundshop Ceaucescus, who conspired to throw an innocent man in jail for the rest of his life (thus damaging things for genuine sexual assault victims) and if so, are they any better than the corrupt system they wish to escape from?

If independence means transgender nutters rewrite biology and erase women's rights, see people imprisoned for "hate speech" and political opponents silenced of worse, then that's not something I wish to pursue, for it would be a pyrrhic victory at best and rank hypocrisy at worst. The grassroots movement must purge these nutters or it's off the table for a generation, just when momentum is there and they face (in typical Scottish form) snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hi there - absolutely there is a moral dimension.  Did you read this article, another very good one from rival separatist factions:  (interesting how they can skewer sturgeon much more effectively than can the unionists).

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-a-matter-of-the-integrity-of-scotland-as-a-nation/

"seeking to jail someone for political expediency is something I did not believe I would see in Scotland in my lifetime. Pause must be taken here to take in the enormity of this."

There, succinctly, is the failure of Scottish devolution and an indicator of how utterly unfit for office the SNP are.

While Sturgeon and co are not crashing around in jackboots - and present a polished face to the electorate - their regime is utterly despicable; easily the most corrupt and malign in europe and no doubt one of the most poor globally. 

What is the next step up after politically motivated imprisonment? Murders?

Anyone who would vote for these characters now really does need to take stock of things.  As you say, Its not good enough for people to simply excuse themselves from any moral consideration - that defence didn't work in Nuremberg.

Look at Sturgeons face in the picture in this article, when asked about the Salmond stuff on live tv.  is that the face of an honest woman, who has nothing to hide and is comfortable talking about the subject?  Or the face of a rat in a trap?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19002158.nicola-sturgeons-says-not-consider-misled-parliament-salmond-affair/

This scandal, on top of their dismal record and the  fact they have made monkeys out of their supporters for years now. 

Another task force being set up.  They must have more than the US Navy, by now.  Still no coherent plan for separation anyway.  Leave the Union, but still let the Bank of England control our interest rates. The EU will rush to accept this crazed situation within their own, different currency zone - because obviously we will walk right in, with no delay, even though we don't meet their stringent economic joining requirements.  And, of course, they will only be too glad to grant us a maastrict treaty era (1992) exemption from joining the euro too ? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Simply Red said:

I thinks its commonly accepted that the christian bible as we know it is largely a rewrite of a far more ancient collection of pagan/religious books. 

eg.The Egyptians had their own Holy Trinity a thousand years before the one we recognise as Christian, or Catholic specifically.

 

Ive never encountered anyone (of any stance) giving that angle any credence. 

There's a lot of nonsense out there.  For example, the Christian "IHS" (a monogram meaning "Jesus") is linked to the Egyptian "IHS" seemingly meaning Horus: yet the monogram is demonstrably of Christian Greek, not pagan egyptian origin.

I dont know much about an egyptian trinity, but I wouldnt rush to conclude they were copies simply because 2 peoples each have a group of 3 things. 

If a religion already existed, why would it need to be "re done"?  Surely the people of the time would object and have said "wait, you just copied that off the egyptians".

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, frankie_mac's_4 said:

Crock of shite

A historical fact.  Look at:

- the aztecs with their panoply of Gods (even openly copying other peoples Gods) which they would try to please with human sacrifices

- various native American religions

- pagan beliefs: norse mythology, roman and greek gods

- hinduism / eastern mantras

- arbrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Thats a good few 1000 years worth anyway.  Just with those few examples, it shows religion - an effort to know God - occurs among all people, across the globe, in all times.

If it is not innate then that is remarkable set of coincidences.

 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I would disagree with that actually.

A cursory review of human history indicates, very clearly, that faith is a natural condition - a desire to know God appears among all people, in all epochs, in all cultures.

That doesn't mean you're born with an innate belief in god.  That just means as far back as we can evidence it people have been born into a world where religion already existed. If you weren't indoctrinated as a child,  you wouldn't even consider the concept I don't think. 

Link to comment

  

4 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Bottom line, we don't agree. Please allow me to hold a different view from you. It's really fucking annoying how religious people try to force their versions of reality on the rest of us. It's ok to debate points arising out of an exchange. It's a pain in the arse when no effective communication is possible by reason of one or more of the parties being blindly faithful to a particular doctrine or dogma thereby making listening impossible.

FFS - that was, like, my first dive into the subject, a discussion you had engaged with in my absence.  I certainly didn't deny you a right to hold a different view - see how I tolerate your rubbish on most other topics.

But this quoted part was enlightening and I think I get where you are coming from.

Your agnostic self likes to explore concepts and things and so dislikes encountering a very certain view, which naturally discounts alternatives.  This comes across as boorish and "like talking to a brick wall". 

That's interesting and I think that disconnect comes from two points of view engaging from a very different position. 

Of course I am very certain, if I was not I could hardly call it faith.  And this is a state of being, rather than an ongoing decision or continuous effort.

I like a debate but I cant not be certain.  Who would die on the hill of uncertainty?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

This is only your interpretation. There are many other possibilities, some of which would offend you.

Its not even an interpretation, its only acknowledging reality: history shows that in every place, era and culture there have been religions, juts like there is always music, literature, art etc.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

That doesn't mean you're born with an innate belief in god.  That just means as far back as we can evidence it people have been born into a world where religion already existed. If you weren't indoctrinated as a child,  you wouldn't even consider the concept I don't think. 

I think the evidence shows clearly that its natural for human beings to wonder about and seek God.  Sometimes in history we have seen this manifest in ways that reflect the ignorance of the time, but it would be a mistake to write them all off on that basis.  If one bottle of wine tasted like pish, you wouldn't condemn all wine on that basis.

I strongly disagree that people would not consider the concept without some outside influence.  On the contrary.  Man has been so successful over 1000s of years precisely because he *does* think about things - and his own origins are surely among the most fundamental things to wonder about.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Ive never encountered anyone (of any stance) giving that angle any credence. 

There's a lot of nonsense out there.  For example, the Christian "IHS" (a monogram meaning "Jesus") is linked to the Egyptian "IHS" seemingly meaning Horus: yet the monogram is demonstrably of Christian Greek, not pagan egyptian origin.

I dont know much about an egyptian trinity, but I wouldnt rush to conclude they were copies simply because 2 peoples each have a group of 3 things. 

If a religion already existed, why would it need to be "re done"?  Surely the people of the time would object and have said "wait, you just copied that off the egyptians".

A catholic said:

Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old Truths in a New Light, states: "It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine.[The early Catholic theologian] St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity'" (p. 382).

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

True that there was religion. Not true that this proves man's "innate" search for God.

Well, that's what religion is, man's effort to know God.

Even if all the evidence showed was that people were vulnerable to scams in all times and places - they would only be getting scammed because they have a innate need to sate.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...