revtothelimit - motorbike forum

gremlin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 3:17 pm

Yorick wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:54 pm I reckon there has always been idiots in all professions.

But the Big Guy is infallible, right?

So if he was dishing out the orders, he's can't be wrong now. Unless he was wrong back then.

In which case, he ain't infallible. So why should we believe anything else he's (allegedly) said?

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 7:51 pm But the holy books are the word of God. Surely he/she is clever enough to write unambiguously?

You'd certainly think so, but the main one gets every single fact about the universe wrong (except one).

gremlin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:52 pm Just reading this:
Church of England to apologise for role in historical forced adoption
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e4eqqq7lo

So, the CoE is to apologies for what it now recognises as the abhorrent practices of forced adoptions.

The vicar at the time would no doubt have said he was doing God's work.

Does that mean that God was wrong? Where does this leave the theory of divine infallibility? Or did that go out of the window with the slavery reparations?

I may be uniquely qualified to comment in this forum having endured that precise scenario. CofE enforced adoptee. It was more of a political decision than a religious one.

Oh and for what it's worth, it was a complete nightmare having passed through multiple foster homes before ending up with a disastrously inappropriate adoption.

So I could not give a flying fuck what the CofE have to say for themselves. Show me the money...

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:00 pm

gremlin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:52 pm Just reading this:
Church of England to apologise for role in historical forced adoption
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e4eqqq7lo

So, the CoE is to apologies for what it now recognises as the abhorrent practices of forced adoptions.

The vicar at the time would no doubt have said he was doing God's work.

Does that mean that God was wrong? Where does this leave the theory of divine infallibility? Or did that go out of the window with the slavery reparations?

I may be uniquely qualified to comment on this topic having endured that precise scenario. CofE enforced adoptee. It was more of a political decision than a religious one.

Oh and for what it's worth, it was a complete nightmare having passed through multiple foster homes before ending up with a disastrously inappropriate adoption.

So I could not give a flying fuck what the CofE have to say for themselves. Show me the money...

Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:01 pm Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

I have seen some of the disparaging remarks but I have actually been on holiday.

But hey ho, I guess you're telling me I am uniquely unqualified to comment in such a "controversial" topic.

All this power of censorship has gone to your head. Missed your brains by a mile.

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:05 pm

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:01 pm Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

I have seen some of the disparaging remarks but I have actually been on holiday.

But hey ho, I guess you're telling me I am uniquely unqualified to comment in such a "controversial" topic.

All this power of censorship has gone to your head. Missed your brains by a mile.

Nope, what im actually saying is "there's other threads of interest here than just ones that are controversial, you can join in with them too"

Its got fuck all to do with censorship, all to do with quality of posts and the forum health.

I couldn't care what yours or anyones qualifications are for any thread, we're all equally qualified on here to talk shot.

I very very rarely censor any posts, im just a bloke who likes forums and try to contribute accordingly.
Not everything (or indeed much at all) of what I post is anything to do with my position within the hierarchy here

I just got back and the topic of forced adoption is something that is quite relevant to me.

Obviously.

But I get it, you don't want my input on this topic. Fine. I'll wait until something interesting turns up.

Don't wait up.

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:19 pm
But I get it, you don't want my input on this topic.

Nope, that's not what I said at all.

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:21 pm

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:19 pm
But I get it, you don't want my input on this topic.

Nope, that's not what I said at all.

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:01 pm Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

Noggin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 5:34 pm

But all work/hobbies/religions have idiots

Alas this is true,but the last time I checked I don't recall the Petts Wood Players am-dram society taking babies from their mothers. And yet the CoE did.

So then why would Big Fella tell his servants to do it? Presumably he knew (if he can see the future and apparently knowing right from wrong, as we'd hope in his line of work) how odious a thing it is.

Funny, innit?

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:27 pm

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:21 pm

Mike1976 wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:19 pm
But I get it, you don't want my input on this topic.

Nope, that's not what I said at all.

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:01 pm Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

I used to work with an Aussie fella. He had a wonderful turn of phrase when people were being cussed, which I feel is relevant here:

'Wind yer fuckin' neck in, mate!'

gremlin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:28 pm

Noggin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 5:34 pm

But all work/hobbies/religions have idiots

Alas this is true,but the last time I checked I don't recall the Petts Wood Players am-dram society taking babies from their mothers. And yet the CoE did.

So then why would Big Fella tell his servants to do it? Presumably he knew (if he can see the future and apparently knowing right from wrong, as we'd hope in his line of work) how odious a thing it is.

Funny, innit?

I don't believe 'God' actually spoke to anyone. Just because someone may have used the church as a reason doesn't actually mean they spoke to an all powerful being.

But you know that already yourself.

You're making a point here, let's cut to the chase and get to it

I'm a solipsist and so is my wife.

gremlin wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:30 pm Wind yer fuckin' neck in, mate!'

Such a welcoming forum this, open minded, inclusive, thoughtful...

Gonna take a flying guess that despite asking if this can be blamed on God, you're not interested in any opinion which does not align with your own.

Mike1976 wrote: you're not interested in any opinion which does not align with your own.

Welcome to the Internet.

But in seriousness you've not really offered anything for anyone to discuss yet?

As John Lennon wrote / sang. "Whatever gets you through the night is alright, it's alright '... Not a bad maxim as long as it excludes the naughty stuff: killing, molesting ad nauseam. Be nice peeps. You know it makes sense.

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:53 pm

Mike1976 wrote: you're not interested in any opinion which does not align with your own.

Welcome to the Internet.

But in seriousness you've not really offered anything for anyone to discuss yet?

Oh and why is that I wonder?

weeksy wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2026 9:01 pm Oh, you came back for the controversial thread, that's nice

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
― Christopher Hitchens,

Official church strategy: When looking like a right wrong 'un, blame Beelzebub.

Church officer called a 'satanist' for raising safeguarding concerns

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624v7w34ydo

gremlin wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2026 8:56 am Official church strategy: When looking like a right wrong 'un, blame Beelzebub.

Church officer called a 'satanist' for raising safeguarding concerns

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624v7w34ydo

"What are you, some kind of commie?"


(as another example of "anyone who doesn't agree with me must belong to my arch-enemy's party by default")