Cliff - Right or Wrong?

Did Gareth Cliff overstep the line in terms of how far one can go on-air?

  • No

    Votes: 85 76.6%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 5 4.5%

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 18.9%
  • Total voters
    111
Xarog said:
Source please.

In the middle ages it was common for people to sleep with each other before getting married - with the sanction of the church, even. If a baby didn't result, the pairing was deemed to be a bad match and other spouses were sought. For the peasants, marriage was only something that occured after the union proved fertile.

It was only later that sex before marriage was regarded as a sin.
Click to expand...

Here you go! http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/fornication.html

bolded - rubbish in my opinion - source please
 
antowan said:
I think he perhaps chose his words wrong. It is a purely philosophical debate. You would have to agree even as a religious person that should God be affected by such an action he could be called "petty" from a human perspective.

If however God tells you not to do it you shouldn't from a believer's perspective. Not because it may affect God emotionally (being God puts Him above such feeble things such as emotion when one thinks about it) but purely because God told you not to do it. Simple.

A non believer naming things after gods, knowing it can cause insult should somehow be held accountable even if it is by being despised by believers. It is their right to do so, but not beyond the law. I don't think it should be deemed a criminal offence though and the repurcussions should only be social.

In this case (as I understand) the woman who allowed the kids to name the teddy was a believer herself. I think it should have been considered an error in judgement without any repurcussions be they social/civil or criminal.

Gareth did not communicate the philosophical nature of his argument.

He is not in error in my opinion. I do however think if he is worth his salt in proper debate he would allow this listener on his show for a proper debate.

:D
Click to expand...

Antowan - the debating master!!!! was thinking along those lines (seriously i was!!! ;) :D) didn't quite have the elegance to put it that way
 
GavinMannion said:
I hate to be the one to point out that that site is hardly a non biased site and will only quote what suits it.
Click to expand...

i agree, but where else is he supposed to quote from? a non-religious site? they would have their biased too and they would quote what they want to promote.
 
Soulsnatcher said:
Much can be said about your link as well Gavin... Back and forth we go... Useless really isn't it.
Click to expand...

:confused: I posted a link from Harvard University.

Now go back a bit and see where I said I didn't want to post links, I found a thought out academic paper from a revered university, you found a religious website which just uses the bible to to prove it's point.
 
GavinMannion said:
:confused: I posted a link from Harvard University.

Now go back a bit and see where I said I didn't want to post links, I found a thought out academic paper from a revered university, you found a religious website which just uses the bible to to prove it's point.
Click to expand...

and how would we know that they're not biased?
 
[-]
mercurial said:
i agree, but where else is he supposed to quote from? a non-religious site? they would have their biased too and they would quote what they want to promote.
Click to expand...

Sites which don't have any motive?
Like Harvard university, religion and academia are not mutually exclusive[/-]

I honestly don't have the time or patience to argue against the recent posts.
 
And surely that paper/doctrine/thesis wasn't thought out by atheists or non-believers now wouldn't it??? I agree with mercurial here that mine would be biased and so would yours... It is a useless ride going back and forth and i agree with your point now that this level of debate can do without links... no... yes...???
 
GavinMannion said:
[-]

Sites which don't have any motive?
Like Harvard university, religion and academia are not mutually exclusive[/-]

I honestly don't have the time or patience to argue against the recent posts.
Click to expand...

then you shouldn't be on this forum cos debating takes time and patience and maturity. no offence. this is first decent debate we've had in a while.
 
Soulsnatcher said:
And surely that paper/doctrine/thesis wasn't thought out by atheists or non-believers now wouldn't it??? I agree with mercurial here that mine would be biased and so would yours... It is a useless ride going back and forth and i agree with your point now that this level of debate can do without links... no... yes...???
Click to expand...

i agree
 
This is not a mature debate, you and Soulsnatcher have thrown the entire history and ethical nature of Hardvard into doubt without any proof what so ever.

That is called a witch hunt, check in the dark ages this isn't a new tactic for religious followers. I am always happy to debate but not like this.
 
Sheesh ! This is a radio dj not a politician or cleric.

The country appears in many respects to be going to hell in a handbasket but we are in a froth about a radio personality's passing remark.

If this is all the happy clappers have to worry about then I look forward to a 50 page thread following the screening of The Golden Compass.....
 
GavinMannion said:
This is not a mature debate, you and Soulsnatcher have thrown the entire history and ethical nature of Hardvard into doubt without any proof what so ever.

That is called a witch hunt, check in the dark ages this isn't a new tactic for religious followers. I am always happy to debate but not like this.
Click to expand...

lol dude relax. i'm just saying how do we know who is not biased? obviously everyone has their own agendas and it is extremely hard for us to know who is actually sincere. lots of universities tend to an atheist attitude when it comes to religion. that's my opinion.
 
ok cool. i can accept that Gavin... I'm not trying to discredit Harvard here... Calling me immature? Not a good tactic but will let it slide... Now answer me this, how would you know that the author of that doctrine is not biased on atheism or toward christianity...

Your link, you provide proof.

On topic, Gareth was crude, yes you heard me, crude not because of religion or calling names whatever but because of his initial response to the listener...

You okes say freedom of speech, well him in fact telling his listener stop sprouting nonsense (iow stop talking k@K) is the same as me telling a customer stop fighting with me regarding pmt, i'm right without expecting any repurcussions...

It could've been handled better, but the resultant uproar by muslims/christians alike are a bit too far...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X