[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I think my posts are clear. Bye.

You're using the fact I'm a Labour supporter as a stick to beat me with, a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You're using the fact I'm a Labour supporter as a stick to beat me with, a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple.

NO - YOU were using the fact that the Church spent money on this advertising when it could have used it to help the poor and needy as a 'stick' to beat those of us who are Christians with.

You constantly use a number of unfair methods to 'beat' people who you do not agree with, then ALWAYS use the same tactics of trying to be the 'victim' when you are out debated or out argued as a result.

But, anyway:

NO - I was using the fact that you are a Labour supporter to try to illustrate how utterly ridiculous and hypocritical your loaded rhetorical question was. Here is your post again:

"I wonder how much the production and ad time that message cost...
It begs the question with all the social inequality,suffering and need both in the UK and worldwide how is this spend justified?"


Now, to anyone with a brain, you are criticising the Church for spending money on advertising when that money could be better spent on alleviating the plight of some of the suffering and needy - in the UK and abroad.

Now, all I was doing is pointing out to you:

1) That the political party which you so fervently support - Labour - spends hundreds of times more money on advertising than does the Church.

2) And because Labour is supposedly THE party which represents the causes of 'the poor, the suffering and the needy' - isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to pose your question, when all those tens of millions which your party spends on advertising could ALSO then be better spent on helping those causes instead.

In addition, the Church DOES spend huge sums of money feeding the poor and on charitable causes both here and abroad, but I have yet to see a 'Labour Party' Soup Kitchen or witness specific Labour charity aid missions - here or abroad.

As for your contention that: "a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple" -- well, this is a frankly ridiculous statement and not 'that simple' at all.

a) Both are organisations which have distinct ideologies.
b) Both have supporters who BELIEVE in those ideologies.
c) Both rely on donations from supporters to function.
d) Both need to allocate a portion of those collected funds to promote themselves.
e) Both need to be seen to put the interests of those whom they purport to serve, first.
f) Both often fail in their intentions.
g) The Labour Party - now, more than any other time in its recent history, is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
h) The Christian Church - now, more than at any time in its recent history is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
i) Both have faithful supporters who would be devastated by the demise of either.

Anyway, my point IS, that you cannot afford to be sniping at the Church for using allocated money from their funds to promote itsef and its message, when it DOES also use huge amounts of its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden, when you find no problem with the Labour Party using MUCH huger sums of money from its funds to promote itself and its message, when it does not use ZILCH from its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden -- the VERY class of society which it purports to champion and represent.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

NO - YOU were using the fact that the Church spent money on this advertising when it could have used it to help the poor and needy as a 'stick' to beat those of us who are Christians with.

You constantly use a number of unfair methods to 'beat' people who you do not agree with, then ALWAYS use the same tactics of trying to be the 'victim' when you are out debated or out argued as a result.

But, anyway:

NO - I was using the fact that you are a Labour supporter to try to illustrate how utterly ridiculous and hypocritical your loaded rhetorical question was. Here is your post again:

"I wonder how much the production and ad time that message cost...
It begs the question with all the social inequality,suffering and need both in the UK and worldwide how is this spend justified?"


Now, to anyone with a brain, you are criticising the Church for spending money on advertising when that money could be better spent on alleviating the plight of some of the suffering and needy - in the UK and abroad.

Now, all I was doing is pointing out to you:

1) That the political party which you so fervently support - Labour - spends hundreds of times more money on advertising than does the Church.

2) And because Labour is supposedly THE party which represents the causes of 'the poor, the suffering and the needy' - isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to pose your question, when all those tens of millions which your party spends on advertising could ALSO then be better spent on helping those causes instead.

In addition, the Church DOES spend huge sums of money feeding the poor and on charitable causes both here and abroad, but I have yet to see a 'Labour Party' Soup Kitchen or witness specific Labour charity aid missions - here or abroad.

As for your contention that: "a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple" -- well, this is a frankly ridiculous statement and not 'that simple' at all.

a) Both are organisations which have distinct ideologies.
b) Both have supporters who BELIEVE in those ideologies.
c) Both rely on donations from supporters to function.
d) Both need to allocate a portion of those collected funds to promote themselves.
e) Both need to be seen to put the interests of those whom they purport to serve, first.
f) Both often fail in their intentions.
g) The Labour Party - now, more than any other time in its recent history, is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
h) The Christian Church - now, more than at any time in its recent history is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
i) Both have faithful supporters who would be devastated by the demise of either.

Anyway, my point IS, that you cannot afford to be sniping at the Church for using allocated money from their funds to promote itsef and its message, when it DOES also use huge amounts of its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden, when you find no problem with the Labour Party using MUCH huger sums of money from its funds to promote itself and its message, when it does not use ZILCH from its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden -- the VERY class of society which it purports to champion and represent.

My post was directed at the two religious bodies responsible for the ad only, it was not personal, you have chosen to take offence as per. Again religious and political organisations are not comparable, therefore I feel my questioning the church and their methods here are a valid and a fair point. I'm not responding to the rest of your monologue.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

My post was directed at the two religious bodies responsible for the ad only, it was not personal, you have chosen to take offence as per. Again religious and political organisations are not comparable, therefore I feel my questioning the church and their methods here are a valid and a fair point. I'm not responding to the rest of your monologue.

My 'MONOLOGUES' are written with far more clarity, and with a far greater command of the English Language, and with a far greater knowledge of the subject matter, and with far greater fairness and objectivity than any skewed far left confused propaganda written by you.

YOU posed a question - ridiculous as it was - now you are being personally insulting and ignorant because the responses expose the flaws in your views.

Again, you stick to your - glaringly wrong - contentions no matter how many times they are SHOWN to be wrong, but that is par for the course with you.

Now I will put you on permanent ignore because you do not seek debate, you seek a platform where all other views are none forthcoming because by guile and stealth and deviousness, you have frightened away all other posters who do not agree with your ridiculous views lest they be infracted and banned.

YOU get personal AND offensive and falsely accuse, but then how are us lesser Tibb members to answer your continual rubbish accusations and defend ourselves and our viewpoint if we are to be continually blamed and infracted for doing so?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

My 'MONOLOGUES' are written with far more clarity, and with a far greater command of the English Language, and with a far greater knowledge of the subject matter, and with far greater fairness and objectivity than any skewed far left confused propaganda written by you.

YOU posed a question - ridiculous as it was - now you are being personally insulting and ignorant because the responses expose the flaws in your views.

Again, you stick to your - glaringly wrong - contentions no matter how many times they are SHOWN to be wrong, but that is par for the course with you.

Now I will put you on permanent ignore because you do not seek debate, you seek a platform where all other views are none forthcoming because by guile and stealth and deviousness, you have frightened away all other posters who do not agree with your ridiculous views lest they be infracted and banned.

YOU get personal AND offensive and falsely accuse, but then how are us lesser Tibb members to answer your continual rubbish accusations and defend ourselves and our viewpoint if we are to be continually blamed and infracted for doing so?

'With all the social inequality,suffering and need both in the UK and worldwide how is this spend justified?'


You respond here with a query relating to a political party, I suggested I don't feel the two are comparable, therefore we disagree and have reached an impasse.

[Cherie]

I think the premise of the advert was to focus on some spirituality in the run up to Christmas and to counteract the mass commercialism whilst also attracting some younger people back to the Church, some might say money well spent if it were to boost interest or some might say money wasted.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I think the premise of the advert was to focus on some spirituality in the run up to Christmas and to counteract the mass commercialism whilst also attracting some younger people back to the Church, some might say money well spent if it were to boost interest or some might say money wasted.

I think you sum it up perfectly and fairly Cherie, really.