Do they think we're morons?

Examination, discussion, debate. And referring to as many reference
works as possible.

Phil

 

Ah.


But if one doesn't believe in God (or, *that* God), then one doesn't
have to accord any importance to that "promise".

 

Bear said...

It looks perfectly in order from here. It is a statement of how I view
the situation. I don't expect you to agree, but it is not out of order
for me to give my opinion.

I don't see any point in going into the matter either here or elsewhere,
you have your view and I have mine.

 

Sorry for cutting down your reply to this one quote, but (a) ISTR that we've
done the literal vs figurative devil before now[1] and (b) the quote from you
hits the nail on the head rather well.

If one choses to take the view that the Bible is entirely consistent then it
obviously follows that any inconsistencies are the result of imperfect or
misunderstood readings. If, OTOH, you take the view that the Bible is a work
cobbled together over a ~1,500 year period based on oral tradition, earlier
religious beliefs, 3rd hand accounts of events that happened decades previously
and so on then any inconsistencies could still be the result of imperfect
reading or they could be human errors or they could be geniune inconsistencies.

If you take the former view and I the latter then it matters not a jot how many
quotes and interpretations we bandy back and forwards we will always hit the
fundamental stumbling block that you chose to see the unadulterated word of God
where I chose to see the remarkable growth of a simple, almost tribal,
polytheistic system into a world-dominating religious belief system.

Of course, looking at it that way, we're scuppered because both of our views
are based upon certain beliefs and can not be proven. As I think I said
before, it would be like trying to prove that Elves exist using only "The Lord
of the Rings" as a reference text

[1] Although have you read "Fallen Angels and the origins of evil" by
Elizabeth Prophet? She makes a good argument for the Book of Enoch, which
includes the tale of the fallen angels, being canonical at the time of Jesus;
although her further belief that fallen angels are now running the world might
be a _little_ off the deep end.

 

Bear said...

No, it looks to me like you're telling me that it's out of order to make
the comment I made. I stand by that comment, and say that it is not out
of order to make it.

No it isn't. You were the one that brought LN into this, not me, not
her. You want to start making comments, fine, but you can't cry foul
because someone disagrees.

She hasn't gone into one, she made comment on the fact that you chose to
involve her. You haven't got the first fucking clue about her, certainly
not what her views on religion are. You chose to assume, you got it
wrong.

This is fucking laughable. You really have no idea what her views on
religion are. Anyway, I'm not going to argue on her behalf. She is more
than capable of doing that for herself, however, I don't think she
considers it worth the effort. I certainly don't.

My head is perfectly cool. My issue here is the nasty little snipes and
patronising comments directed at LN whilst allegedly having her in a
killfile.

 

I come from a military family. My Father (RAF) is hard line Tory.

Except the military bit probably has no bearing as my Grandfather (ex
Royal Engineers) was a raving Liberal [1] and my other Grandfather
(non-military) was very much Bevan Labour.

I'm still a member of the Labour Party. How does that help your survey?


[1] I like that phrase

 

Do they still welcome scruffy, unionist, oiks like you? Do you get invites to
nostalgia evenings and stuff?

 

The exception proves the rule?

Actually I'm suprised at you being a Labour Party member at the moment.
I thought you were a socialist.

 

Old habits and all that. Although being a member still gives me a vote
and 'fight from within' etc. If I keep saying it I'll believe it.

Having said that I've been invited to join CP, again.

 

which one?

 

"Tankies"

 

Are you not that close with your parents then? Or are they ashamed of
their views?

 

the old ways are the best, comrade.

Which lot is it that are still going but there's like 3 of them -
Communist Party of Great Britain?

 

Three? There's a **** load more than three and they're all pretty much
bonkers: http://www.broadleft.org/gb.htm

CPGB split into the old Euro camp (Nina Temple and the New Democratic
Left) and the Tankies (CPB). The courts recognise NDL as the inheritors
of the CPGB estate. They seem to have further split though.

CPB retains control of the Morning Star.

In reality and politically [1] CPGB is now CPB although CPGB still exists.

I get confused.


[1] This sort of says that reality and politics are different, heh.

 

I meant three members left in the "Communist Party of Great Britain",
not three schismatic groups.

the CPB is the one that's "officially" allowed to just refer to itself
as "The Communist Party", isn't it?

 

I don't think there's any restriction as such but it certainly does:
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

 

Good lord.

Favourite name has to be "Finsbury Communist Association", tho an
honourable mention should go to "Workers International to Refound the
Fourth International (British Section)"

 

Well, to be fair, the christians had 1500 years of burning, torturing and
generally killing everyone who didn't agree with them, so really they should
be grateful that all they get in return is a bit of stick about believing in
an imaginary pixie who loves everybody.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.