advertisement


Priti Patel: Undisclosed Meetings in Israel

Could we not just post the GPS coordinates on Facebook and invite them all to an event called "Apocalypse"? Somewhere on the Sinai perhaps?
 
Marxism is definitely a religion, and since Arkless believes nobody should own a second home or own a flat that is rented out, he is a pretty extreme member of the faithful. But I would never lock him up!
I also think that if extreme Jews, Christians, Moslems, and whatever else were put together in a "containment camp" they would get on with each other like a house on fire. What they all really hate most is the more-secular-than-them in their own camp.
 
PaulMB said:
Marxism is definitely a religion,
Click to expand...
Er, no. It's a posulated political system, not something you can say about religions.
Those convinced by it may, or may not be evangelical about it's positives, but that's a figure of speech only and doesn't make it a religion either.
 
Marxism is primarily a framework for thinking about society, politics and economics. It's no more a religion than neoliberalism. No, wait....!
 
I think religion would make a better contribution to society if it played down the god bit and went large on the 'framework for thinking about society, politics and economics' bit. The CofE have been moving in that direction for decades, more should follow.
 
The trouble is that if you move in the CofE's direction you lose the "magic," the superstitious attraction, the passionate faith, that many people seem to need. (I speak as an atheist). I remember a wonderful interview with Anthony Burgess, probably at least 30 years ago, in which he talked about the mystical character of the god of the Jews and of the god of the Catholics, and then dismissed the god of the Anglicans as "A bit like the secretary of the cricket club."
 
And also, the churches (like mine, which is in the CofE) which do the most to actually help people do take the whole God thing seriously. You can't divide it up, it is part of the whole mission of the church.
 
The Haredim are an interesting and complicated bunch. Paul's talk of parasitism is straight up hate speech IMO, and worthy of sanction. The visceral reaction of some Israel fans on here has less to do with fundamentalism/secularism than with the alliances forged between some Haredi Jews and Palestinians. Merlin, Jez, if you’re interested in the Palestinian cause it’s worth reviewing your militant atheism. All sorts of political-religious alliances in play here.
 
Sean, my talk of "parasitism" is worthy of sanction? By whom, pray tell? What does "hate speech" have to do with it? Ask any of the non-religious majority of Israelis and they will describe them as parasites.

Completely agree they are a complicated bunch. To begin with one would have to agree where to draw the lines between what these days are described as "modern orthodox", "orthodox," and "ultra-orthodox." All very vague terms, and subject to different interpretations. From what I understand, those usually described as "Haredim" (which means "fearful," as in "God-fearing") are members of groups or movements that have a charismatic leader or hierarchy, rather than following the teaching and customs of the local orthodox community. But I have the feeling it is even more complicated than that.

But please correct me if I'm wrong, always eager to learn.
 
gingermrkettle said:
And also, the churches (like mine, which is in the CofE) which do the most to actually help people do take the whole God thing seriously. You can't divide it up, it is part of the whole mission of the church.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that there are also lots of atheists and agnostics who dedicate time and energy to helping people. Or who do so independently of their religious inclinations.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
At what point can we expect alt-orthodox, or neoorthodox to emerge?
Click to expand...

AuQukFk.gif
 
Paul, you have called for all the members of a social group to be imprisoned and put to forced labour, and referred to them as a kind of disease, or as insects. I think this breaches the AUP, and when I finish this I’ll report the post in question.
 
maxflinn said:
Israeli terrorists carry out terror attack near Damascus, Syria:

Israel warplanes launch airstrike near Damascus, Syria – reports https://www.rt.com/news/411688-israel-syria-damascus-airstrike/
Click to expand...

Can you please show me where the words "Israeli terrorists" appear in the article that you brought?
You are telling lies by putting your evil ideas in a way that can be seen as a quote of an article.

I think that you have to be clear in posts like these so people will be able to separate your ideas from the article that you want us to read.

Arye
 
maxflinn said:
Israeli terrorists carry out terror attack near Damascus, Syria:

Israel warplanes launch airstrike near Damascus, Syria – reports https://www.rt.com/news/411688-israel-syria-damascus-airstrike/
Click to expand...
RT (your non-MSM medium of choice) says, in that report:

Syrian state TV said “military positions” were targeted by surface-to-surface missiles.

Several missiles were reportedly fired toward a target in the countryside south of Damascus, with some intercepted by the Syrian Air Defense and others hitting their intended target.

Arab outlet Al-Masdar News, citing its sources, reported that the target was an ammunition depot of the Syrian Army,
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the oddity that 'surface to surface' missiles are, by definition, not used in an airstrike, this looks like a military strike on a military target. So who are the 'terrorists' and what is the 'terror attack' of which you speak? Or are Israelis all, by association, 'terrorists' and therefore any attack is, by definition, a 'terror attack'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top