Dr. Prasannan, was unaware of that. Lucky for the Chinese that the strong Tang dynasty was around (a high point for China) to see them off.
Erm, the Chinese lost that battle .
Mr M!
It would appear that Talas was an Arab victory, but they seemed to be content to stick to Central Asia, rather than take on the Tangs on their own turf.
So the geopolitical outcome was that the Tangs were spared an Islamic conquest.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The results are the same.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
"somewhat" - you win this month's award for English understatement.
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
The first time this was mentioned, I immediately thought "he's lying just to try and drum up business".
And every extra piece of information consolidates that view.
Yes he's bound to be (at the very least) exaggerating. I would imagine though that we will see a defection to the LDs sooner or later, probably to the Tories too, and maybe even UKIP. In none of these cases do I think it'll be more than a couple.
Of a similar likelihood is that we'll get a few Labour MPs setting up something on their own - possibly still remaining within Labour.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
It does not matter what you are "told". What matters is what was taught by the founders of the religion. Jesus taught you should submit to abuse and violence being done to you, even going so far as allowing himself to be painfully crucified for spreading his teaching, and telling his followers to put down their swords at his arrest. Christian warfare in the Middle Ages was supposed Christians not listening to the message of Jesus. On the other hand, Muslim warfare in the Middle Ages, including aggressive wars of expansion, was conducted by Mohammed himself.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Yes there is. You can cherrypick whatever you like in the Bible but there are plenty of passages in the New Testament (not just the Old Testament) that back up war and prosecuting your religious enemies.
In the New Testament?
I would be grateful if you could cite chapter and verse. Apart from Revelations I can recall none.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Hypothetically, if you were an ordinary, law abiding Muslim, living in the Middle East. How would you view the Christian Crusades? Or the American adventures in Iraq? Or, even, America and the UK's unquestioning support of Israel?
Would these be the actions of a benign Christianity, or a muscular aggressive one?
If I were sitting in those shoes, I might think the latter.
Of course, the West has troubles enough of its own. And the appetite for adventures in Muslim lands is - outside the Wingnut Portion of the Republican Party - zero. But I don't think I'd see it that way if I lived in Damascus.
The Christian crusades were a mixed bag in terms of justification. The first one, to defend the holy city of Constantinople against Turkish aggression, was of course defensive.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Yes there is. You can cherrypick whatever you like in the Bible but there are plenty of passages in the New Testament (not just the Old Testament) that back up war and prosecuting your religious enemies.
Oooh fun.
Examples that are not taken out of context, please?
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
So, what about the crusades?
To the best of my knowledge the crusades were a predominantly Political series of events and were not required to still call yourself a Christian.
A Christian of any denomination (obviously back then there were only really two) could still call themselves a Christian while not Crusading (hence the reward was "add ons" like absolution etc).
But again, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslims. Under that dogma they cannot see themselves Muslims without supporting Jihad.
To be a Muslim requires belief in Jihad (for many sects). To be a Xtian does not require a belief in Crusade (of any sect).
The problem w tipping 50/1 or 66/1 shots, then bragging endlessly about it when they shorten, is that often the same person will have tipped several other candidates which drift but are never mentioned. In reality the whole package moves from 8/1 to 6/1 but is reported as 50/1 into 10/1
It's similar to when the racing post have 6 or 7 journos tipping 1-2 horses in a big race... 12-14 tips, 1 winner and the headline 'were you on our 12/1 winner?!'
When in reality for your money you were on a 6/4 package (which is still great by the way)
Edward Gibbon, contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon famously observed:
"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet."[54]
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Yes there is. You can cherrypick whatever you like in the Bible but there are plenty of passages in the New Testament (not just the Old Testament) that back up war and prosecuting your religious enemies.
Would you mind linking them? The only one I know that is cited is Matthew 10:34, but that is clearly symbolic, as demonstrated by the wording in Luke 12:51.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
The first time this was mentioned, I immediately thought "he's lying just to try and drum up business".
And every extra piece of information consolidates that view.
Yes he's bound to be (at the very least) exaggerating. I would imagine though that we will see a defection to the LDs sooner or later, probably to the Tories too, and maybe even UKIP. In none of these cases do I think it'll be more than a couple.
Of a similar likelihood is that we'll get a few Labour MPs setting up something on their own - possibly still remaining within Labour.
One of the useful rules of thumbs about Defections is how much they are talked about.
Lots of talk = pretty unlikely, nothings happening. Lack of talk = could be happening.
The silence from Farage (unless I've missed it or he's just being ignored as irrelevant now) indicates to me, that he might have one or two Labour MPs ready to come aboard.
While the babble from Farron says to me he's being ignored.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Persian-influenced Islam was a great boon to the west - it preserved a lot of the classical world's knowledge and was intellectually forward thinking. The latter day Salafists are intent on taking Islam back to the 7th century.
Indeed. Many classical Greek works such as Ptolemy's Almagest are only known through the arab copies and they give us many advances in mathematics. Sadly all now past glories.
I just view both Islam and Christianity as homophobic, misogynistic, paternalistic desert religions. Not a lot to choose...
I wish humanity would grow up and start taking responsibility for its actions instead of blaming a bearded old man in the sky or a little red man with a trident running around underground or whatever.
I suppose Jesus was being misogynistic when he allowed the prostitute to anoint him, and criticised the male religious leaders when they said he should not associate with such a sinful woman.
And, for the record, the countryside around Jerusalem and Nazareth looks like this:
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Yes there is. You can cherrypick whatever you like in the Bible but there are plenty of passages in the New Testament (not just the Old Testament) that back up war and prosecuting your religious enemies.
Oooh fun.
Examples that are not taken out of context, please?
Context depends upon the spin the preacher involved wants to use it for.
How about Matthew 10:32-38
10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
This "I came not to send peace but a sword" passage has been used through the years to justify fighting religious enemies. The context depends upon what you want it to be.
The events surrounding labour have put Mr Farron under a bit of pressure.
The libs will be expecting to make some gains - and if they don't, will be asking questions about him.
Their big problem is getting heard at all. Labour are sucking up all the news cycles, albeit not necessarily in the way they'd like. This is an attempt by Farron to grab a bit of the action, but he'll struggle to be heard.
Poor old Alan Johnson, his name gets dragged out so often as a cathartic cure to all Labour’s ills, it’s beginning to resemble borderline ritual abuse.
Hard to believe that the Mr logic types are saying that young Muslim men shooting 'allahu Akbar' while throwing rocks at western policemen is comparable to a vicar saying 'God is great' when looking out of the church window on a beautiful spring morning
''To many Muslims, it is a Pillar of Islam, without which they cannot call themselves Muslims, it is fundamental to their sense of faith.''
Sounds like we have a problem, then.
I'd half agree with that.
There are reformed versions of Islam - eg Ahmadiyya (which most Sunni/Shia see as apostate) or others which de-emphasize the violence.
That is no different from versions of Socialism which justify violence and revolutions vs those that are peaceful/democratic. This is a tension in the Green Party - are they Liberals or Revolutionaries or Reforming Herbivores?
Islam's problem with modernity seems to me to be:
1 - The Holy Book does contain injunctions involving violence, and other stuff such as non-Muslims being of less value as human beings. 2 - Said Holy Book is defined as verbally inspired and fixed - almost an object of worship itself. 3 - That means that people diving back in search of purity (which happens in all philosophies/religions - witness all those poshies with coffee enemas) can see divinely inspired injunctions to violence. 4 - That makes it tough to reform the possibility of violence away.
By comparison the Bible is seen by Christians as a narrative history - the fixed bit is the person of Christ, and is open to evry flexible interpretation, which has a good and bad side. But if you want to be violent there's a lot of stuff to get past.
Also I think the Quran gets worse as it develops, which compares with the NT defining away much of the violent narrative in the OT.
'The lack of women in Labour’s top jobs is very disappointing ' I don't accept that at all - it is just political correctness gone mad again. Compared with Wilson-Callaghan -Foot- Kinnock - Smith - -Blair, there are now far more women in the Shadow Cabinet. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of 'gender vetting' and refuse to vote for candidates selected on that basis.
Wars and Christianity have been linked for centuries, but not necessarily directly.
For example, William I got permission from the Pope (I forget which) to carry the Pope's banner into battle at the Battle of Hastings, after the pope backed his claim to the English throne. William used this as a major recruiting point. (*) Therefore whilst it was not a Holy War per se, religion played a significant role.
Religion is often used as an excuse by people to do things they want to do, and they find a suitable religious authority figure to back them up. Or, in the case of Henry VIII, create a new church ...
(*) I daresay one of he PB historical bods (although it is probably much too modern history for Mr Dancer) will point out this is, in fact, incorrect ...
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
Well, no names were mentioned (or even rank, let alone serial number). But I love the 'I couldn't possibly comment' quote.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
The results are the same.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
'The lack of women in Labour’s top jobs is very disappointing ' I don't accept that at all - it is just political correctness gone mad again. Compared with Wilson-Callaghan -Foot- Kinnock - Smith - -Blair, there are now far more women in the Shadow Cabinet. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of 'gender vetting' and refuse to vote for candidates selected on that basis.
There are far more women by patronisingly creating jobs for the girls, eg two females in Labour's Shadow Cabinet shadowing one female in the Cabinet. Or more females who have no portfolio. 100% of the great offices of state are shadowed by men.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Not old enough to remember the 70s very strongly but I do have recollections of filth and huge areas of Glasgow
I am old enough to remember the 70s and it was a grim time. When I visited Glasgow I was appalled at the state of the place - it was the biggest slum I have ever seen.
I hope it has improved because I have never gone back.
Agree I grew up in inner London but Glasgow in the 70's made a huge impression on me.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Context depends upon the spin the preacher involved wants to use it for.
How about Matthew 10:32-38
10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
This "I came not to send peace but a sword" passage has been used through the years to justify fighting religious enemies. The context depends upon what you want it to be.
I have already debunked that. The text in Luke demonstrates "the sword" is symbolic, using the term "division" instead. Again, this is demonstrated by the overwhelming scholarly analysis:
"The sword in Matthew 10:34 is not meant literally; Matthew did not think that Jesus conducted his ministry by brandishing a real sword. As we shall see shortly, the motif has an obvious metaphorical meaning."
The symbolic language should be manifestly obvious due to the fact that Jesus did not spread the Gospel by the sword. It is completely dishonest to say this is equivalent to Mohammed actually raising an army and conquering cities across Arabia.
Poor old Alan Johnson, his name gets dragged out so often as a cathartic cure to all Labour’s ills, it’s beginning to resemble borderline ritual abuse.
He must wonder what part of "No" people are finding it so hard to understand.
''To many Muslims, it is a Pillar of Islam, without which they cannot call themselves Muslims, it is fundamental to their sense of faith.''
Sounds like we have a problem, then.
I'd half agree with that.
There are reformed versions of Islam - eg Ahmadiyya (which most Sunni/Shia see as apostate) or others which de-emphasize the violence.
That is no different from versions of Socialism which justify violence and revolutions vs those that are peaceful/democratic. This is a tension in the Green Party - are they Liberals or Revolutionaries or Reforming Herbivores?
Islam's problem with modernity seems to me to be:
1 - The Holy Book does contain injunctions involving violence, and other stuff such as non-Muslims being of less value as human beings. 2 - Said Holy Book is defined as verbally inspired and fixed - almost an object of worship itself. 3 - That means that people diving back in search of purity (which happens in all philosophies/religions - witness all those poshies with coffee enemas) can see divinely inspired injunctions to violence. 4 - That makes it tough to reform the possibility of violence away.
By comparison the Bible is seen by Christians as a narrative history - the fixed bit is the person of Christ, and is open to evry flexible interpretation, which has a good and bad side. But if you want to be violent there's a lot of stuff to get past.
Also I think the Quran gets worse as it develops, which compares with the NT defining away much of the violent narrative in the OT.
My thoughts. Obviously my sympathies are C not I.
That is one of the reasons Islam will never be reformed. The Koran is seen as the word of Allah and is therefore unchangeable. The Bible was written by men at the Council of Nicea and based on the account of the Christian prophet, Jesus, by other men, his apostles. The basic difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former is based on the teachings of some guy claiming to be the son of God while the latter is based on the true word of God. One is open to interpretation and the other is not.
Poor old Alan Johnson, his name gets dragged out so often as a cathartic cure to all Labour’s ills, it’s beginning to resemble borderline ritual abuse.
He must wonder what part of "No" people are finding it so hard to understand.
Suggest he doesn't turn to Alex Salmond for advice...
Poor old Alan Johnson, his name gets dragged out so often as a cathartic cure to all Labour’s ills, it’s beginning to resemble borderline ritual abuse.
Indeed - and he always says he's not up to it and does no wish it.
The heart of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
War and conquest has often been done in Christianity's name, but that is certainly not the heart of the faith.
Indeed. And are we not frequently told that Islam is the religion of peace, mercy and justice?
Pot... kettle.... kettle.... pot
As far as I can see the only difference between them is that one started 500-ish years later and has some catching up to do. Way back in Christian times, women were regarded as lesser than men and even wore wimples (aka hijabs) and arguing with the Bible was even good for the odd stoning or two. Proper heretics were, of course, burned at the stake.
Same recipe, different label.
You're missing the point.
There is no fundamental teaching in Xtianity about going out and prosecuting your religious expansion through conquest.
It is fundamental to the teachings of Mohammed, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslim sects.
Hypothetically, if you were an ordinary, law abiding Muslim, living in the Middle East. How would you view the Christian Crusades? Or the American adventures in Iraq? Or, even, America and the UK's unquestioning support of Israel?
Would these be the actions of a benign Christianity, or a muscular aggressive one?
If I were sitting in those shoes, I might think the latter.
Of course, the West has troubles enough of its own. And the appetite for adventures in Muslim lands is - outside the Wingnut Portion of the Republican Party - zero. But I don't think I'd see it that way if I lived in Damascus.
The Christians were in the Holy Land before the Muslims got there. The Muslims were the aggressors and the Crusades were started to push the Muslims out. In the Middle East, the Muslims were the Johnny-Come-Latelys. Now all of this is history but if historical arguments are going to be made it would be as well to point out that Muslim armies were aggressors and not simply victims.
If the linkers are correct there will be an islamic enlightenment along sometime soon ?
Not sure Francis Bacon will be involved mind you.
We can always hope...
Of course, two or three generations descended from immigrants and then living in western societies will be altered by that experience. Society will get changed too, just not as much.
Whilst the cucumber gets pickled, the pickle gets cucumbered, so to speak
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
Context depends upon the spin the preacher involved wants to use it for.
How about Matthew 10:32-38
10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
This "I came not to send peace but a sword" passage has been used through the years to justify fighting religious enemies. The context depends upon what you want it to be.
I have already debunked that. The text in Luke demonstrates "the sword" is symbolic, using the term "division" instead. Again, this is demonstrated by the overwhelming scholarly analysis:
"The sword in Matthew 10:34 is not meant literally; Matthew did not think that Jesus conducted his ministry by brandishing a real sword. As we shall see shortly, the motif has an obvious metaphorical meaning."
The symbolic language should be manifestly obvious due to the fact that Jesus did not spread the Gospel by the sword. It is completely dishonest to say this is equivalent to Mohammed actually raising an army and conquering cities across Arabia.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
'The lack of women in Labour’s top jobs is very disappointing ' I don't accept that at all - it is just political correctness gone mad again. Compared with Wilson-Callaghan -Foot- Kinnock - Smith - -Blair, there are now far more women in the Shadow Cabinet. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of 'gender vetting' and refuse to vote for candidates selected on that basis.
I presume then you will also deplore Khan's plan for ethnic quotas in London if he becomes Mayor.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
The problem w tipping 50/1 or 66/1 shots, then bragging endlessly about it when they shorten, is that often the same person will have tipped several other candidates which drift but are never mentioned. In reality the whole package moves from 8/1 to 6/1 but is reported as 50/1 into 10/1
It's similar to when the racing post have 6 or 7 journos tipping 1-2 horses in a big race... 12-14 tips, 1 winner and the headline 'were you on our 12/1 winner?!'
When in reality for your money you were on a 6/4 package (which is still great by the way)
Good comment. I'm one of those who started dabbling at the GE and am slowly learning.
6/4 is not good for a long term multi-year bet, though.
And a 50-1 tip is expensive in terms of tying up bankroll if trading out at say 6-1 or 12-1 a few months early if it is not going to win.
Wars and Christianity have been linked for centuries, but not necessarily directly.
For example, William I got permission from the Pope (I forget which) to carry the Pope's banner into battle at the Battle of Hastings, after the pope backed his claim to the English throne. William used this as a major recruiting point. (*) Therefore whilst it was not a Holy War per se, religion played a significant role.
Religion is often used as an excuse by people to do things they want to do, and they find a suitable religious authority figure to back them up. Or, in the case of Henry VIII, create a new church ...
(*) I daresay one of he PB historical bods (although it is probably much too modern history for Mr Dancer) will point out this is, in fact, incorrect ...
It was Alexander II (lousy Italian git) who not only backed the claim, but issued an edict to the English clergy to kowtow to William.
The Frankish campaigns in Saxony etc have already been mentioned; Christianity certainly had its muscular side (The Teutonic Knights campaigned widely across Eastern Europe), but I do think there's a degree of difference between Christian and Islamic philosophy on the concept of Holy War.
When asked if they included Labour frontbenchers he replied: “I couldn’t possibly comment. The bottom line is, ... people in the Labour Party need to understand they can have conversations with me, which may or may not be conclusive, which will remain totally between me and them.”
"Well, between me, them and the Evening Standard, obv."
The first time this was mentioned, I immediately thought "he's lying just to try and drum up business".
And every extra piece of information consolidates that view.
Yes he's bound to be (at the very least) exaggerating. I would imagine though that we will see a defection to the LDs sooner or later, probably to the Tories too, and maybe even UKIP. In none of these cases do I think it'll be more than a couple.
Of a similar likelihood is that we'll get a few Labour MPs setting up something on their own - possibly still remaining within Labour.
One of the useful rules of thumbs about Defections is how much they are talked about.
Lots of talk = pretty unlikely, nothings happening. Lack of talk = could be happening.
The silence from Farage (unless I've missed it or he's just being ignored as irrelevant now) indicates to me, that he might have one or two Labour MPs ready to come aboard.
While the babble from Farron says to me he's being ignored.
The problem with all this talk of defections is that only a small handful of Lab MPs could hope to defect to LD or UKIP and hold their seats in 2020. Also neither party has any safe seats that defectors could be parachuted into so it would be a career ending move. The only option for any Lab MPs wishing to defect would be to go to the Tories and get parachuted into the Home Counties somewhere (like Shaun Woodward in reverse)
Context depends upon the spin the preacher involved wants to use it for.
How about Matthew 10:32-38
This "I came not to send peace but a sword" passage has been used through the years to justify fighting religious enemies. The context depends upon what you want it to be.
I have already debunked that. The text in Luke demonstrates "the sword" is symbolic, using the term "division" instead. Again, this is demonstrated by the overwhelming scholarly analysis:
"The sword in Matthew 10:34 is not meant literally; Matthew did not think that Jesus conducted his ministry by brandishing a real sword. As we shall see shortly, the motif has an obvious metaphorical meaning."
The symbolic language should be manifestly obvious due to the fact that Jesus did not spread the Gospel by the sword. It is completely dishonest to say this is equivalent to Mohammed actually raising an army and conquering cities across Arabia.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
Those Popes and Kings were using Christianity as a cover for their own political ends, the same way they invented concepts like "Papal infallibility" and "divine right of Kings" which have no Biblical basis. Anyone that reads the Gospel and thinks it encourages violence is being deliberately dishonest for political reasons. The very central narrative is Jesus being led away to the slaughter with no resistance, including chastising his followers who attempt to use force to stop it.
It is a fundamentally peaceful religion, and spread via word of mouth and charity in the years after the Crucifixion. But then a Roman Emperor used it for political reasons and distorted it for a long, long time. That does not diminish the original teachings.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
Russia is a christian country. Try being gay there. Or in Uganda. Or the US bible belt. Or large swathes of Central or South America.
'The lack of women in Labour’s top jobs is very disappointing ' I don't accept that at all - it is just political correctness gone mad again. Compared with Wilson-Callaghan -Foot- Kinnock - Smith - -Blair, there are now far more women in the Shadow Cabinet. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of 'gender vetting' and refuse to vote for candidates selected on that basis.
I presume then you will also deplore Khan's plan for ethnic quotas in London if he becomes Mayor.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
The problem, as others have said, is that Islam may be incapable of being Reformed.
Reformation is a shift in interpretation. To Reform requires the faith's dogma to be based on interpretation.
Islam is not, certainly in term of Jihad, open to interpretation. If you are a Muslim you believe in Jihad, this is universal and not an interpretation, it is in the Q'ran. For many, it is a fundamental belief - a Pillar of Islam. But for ALL it is a belief which is part of their faith and one to be followed.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
Islam never will.
This I think, sadly, is true. They have a different view of their divine texts (Quran vs Bible). One cannot reform something which is literally divinely inspired, one can only interpret (via hadiths and so on).
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
True, but the economic motivations of the elites were not aligned with the motivations of the people, so they needed the cover of religion. They are surely related but the main motivation was not to spread the word of Christianity, it was economic gain and early colonialism.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
Russia is a christian country. Try being gay there. Or in Uganda. Or the US bible belt. Or large swathes of Central or South America.
India lifted a gay ban recently, only to re-introduce it.
As a gay man i think I find life in a broadly christian country somewhat more comfortable than in many Muslim countries and much more than in ~Isisland. You really need to pause before hitting the keyboard.
Russia is a christian country. Try being gay there. Or in Uganda. Or the US bible belt. Or large swathes of Central or South America.
Russia is a forested country. Therefore forests are homophobic.
Jesus never uttered a word against gay people. Indeed, the Centurion's servant that he helped was likely a gay man.
I think I've logged on to the wrong site, people are discussing which set of mediaeval fairy tales holds most legitimacy.
Its highly doubtful that Jesus or Mohammed ever existed, arguing over who was the better person doesn't really seem pertinent on a betting blog.
When a religiously inspired group are causing the displacement of over 4m people and even moving people into the "leave" camp and possibly changing the nature of our country, the discussion needs to be had. The motivations of these people is to understand the conflict and potentially find solutions so that the displaced people can return home and rebuild their lives.
Islam has regressed. From Turkey to Indonesia, and across much of the Arab world, Moslem countries have become more intolerant and less secular than they were previously. If Saudi Arabia did not have oil, the world would be a very different place.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
The Christians were in the Holy Land before the Muslims got there. The Muslims were the aggressors and the Crusades were started to push the Muslims out. In the Middle East, the Muslims were the Johnny-Come-Latelys. Now all of this is history but if historical arguments are going to be made it would be as well to point out that Muslim armies were aggressors and not simply victims.
This sort of debate always makes me think of a Steve Bell cartoon on Northern Ireland, with a wall covered in graffiti saying things like "Remember 1844!" "No, remember 1746!" "Bollocks, what about 1435?" I know you're not doing that, and responding to others who do. But it's probably fair to say that a typical Middle East Muslim experience in living memory is primarily of having been on the receiving end of violence, often from us. I supported some of it, so this isn't pointed at anyone, but "Why don't you chaps embrace peace, like us?" must sound a bit hollow to some in the region.
Islam has regressed. From Turkey to Indonesia, and across much of the Arab world, Moslem countries have become more intolerant and less secular than they were previously. If Saudi Arabia did not have oil, the world would be a very different place.
Obama's has been a bigger foreign policy failure than Dubya. He has singularly failed to restrict Saudi Arabia's influence in the Islamic world.
25/1 is excellent value for Johnson, for the reasons Keiran notes. However, I'd suggest Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn, both at 33/1, as perhaps even better.
Although Harman has also stepped back from the front line, she's not retired quite so obviously as Johnson has. She is also - in case it's escaped anyone's attention - a woman.
Benn, another in the 60+ age-group, enabling young cardinals to pick old popes, is still on the front bench and so could potentially straddle the party loyalists and Corbynistas with the pragmatists who want something approximating to competence. Handling Corbyn's foreign policy may be less of a problem than some think. Corbyn's general policy is not that unpopular; it's the associations he's made in pursuing it that leave him weak.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
The problem w tipping 50/1 or 66/1 shots, then bragging endlessly about it when they shorten, is that often the same person will have tipped several other candidates which drift but are never mentioned. In reality the whole package moves from 8/1 to 6/1 but is reported as 50/1 into 10/1
It's similar to when the racing post have 6 or 7 journos tipping 1-2 horses in a big race... 12-14 tips, 1 winner and the headline 'were you on our 12/1 winner?!'
When in reality for your money you were on a 6/4 package (which is still great by the way)
Good comment. I'm one of those who started dabbling at the GE and am slowly learning.
6/4 is not good for a long term multi-year bet, though.
And a 50-1 tip is expensive in terms of tying up bankroll if trading out at say 6-1 or 12-1 a few months early if it is not going to win.
For instance, from memory in the last 24 hours we have had
Alan Johnson 25/1 Harriet Harman 33/1 Hilary Benn 33/1 Jess Phillips 66/1
All tipped here for next labour leader... That's a combined 15/2 shot
Firstly any headline tip on here will shorten through weight of money and the fact that mike is an acknowledged shrewdie.. Even so people will still gasp 'ooh it's 20/1 from 25/1!!!'
Secondly if Johnson went 10/1 and the others all stay still (likely given the huge over round) you're now on a 5/1 shot at 15/2.. As I say nice but you're not on a 25/1 shot at 10-1 unless you are a self deceiver
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
True, but the economic motivations of the elites were not aligned with the motivations of the people, so they needed the cover of religion. They are surely related but the main motivation was not to spread the word of Christianity, it was economic gain and early colonialism.
Elites were elites because God ordained it. And God ordained the elites to conquer and spread His word. Enrichment in this life and paradise in the next were the reward. For the rest, doing God's will and serving the elite in this life led to paradise in the next.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
True, but the economic motivations of the elites were not aligned with the motivations of the people, so they needed the cover of religion. They are surely related but the main motivation was not to spread the word of Christianity, it was economic gain and early colonialism.
Elites were elites because God ordained it. And God ordained the elites to conquer and spread His word. Enrichment in this life and paradise in the next were the reward. For the rest, doing God's will and serving the elite in this life led to paradise in the next.
Well it was to pay tribute to the church they needed the economic gains, that is true. However, that was down to greed and corruption within the church than being inspired by God's will.
It does not matter what you are "told". What matters is what was taught by the founders of the religion.
No.
What matters is the effect that the religions have had on millions of lives. What the founders of the religions wanted is largely irrelevant because they are long dead and gone and those who came after them used the religion for their own purposes.
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
Religion was at the centre of political, and, indeed day-to-day life, until at least the 17th Century.
I'm very pleased I didn't have to live in Europe from c.1520-1670 when it was at the peak of religious turmoil.
However, none of that should be used by apologists for shrugging away the very real (and different) problems of modern day Islamism.
If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent a quarter of a century beating the crap out of each other, I doubt the Arab conquest would have been anything like as successful.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
Going back through the chain, he has Eric Joyce to thank. As one ex-PB'er pointed out:
25/1 is excellent value for Johnson, for the reasons Keiran notes. However, I'd suggest Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn, both at 33/1, as perhaps even better.
Although Harman has also stepped back from the front line, she's not retired quite so obviously as Johnson has. She is also - in case it's escaped anyone's attention - a woman.
Benn, another in the 60+ age-group, enabling young cardinals to pick old popes, is still on the front bench and so could potentially straddle the party loyalists and Corbynistas with the pragmatists who want something approximating to competence. Handling Corbyn's foreign policy may be less of a problem than some think. Corbyn's general policy is not that unpopular; it's the associations he's made in pursuing it that leave him weak.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
If there is a change of leader before 2020 it will be to Hilary Benn who can unite the left and the modernisers much as Michael Howard united Tory modernisers and the right in 2003. Both also ex Cabinet Ministers with big roles in the IDS and Corbyn Shadow Cabinets who stayed loyal
Not old enough to remember the 70s very strongly but I do have recollections of filth and huge areas of Glasgow
I am old enough to remember the 70s and it was a grim time. When I visited Glasgow I was appalled at the state of the place - it was the biggest slum I have ever seen.
I hope it has improved because I have never gone back.
Agree I grew up in inner London but Glasgow in the 70's made a huge impression on me.
It does not matter what you are "told". What matters is what was taught by the founders of the religion.
No.
What matters is the effect that the religions have had on millions of lives. What the founders of the religions wanted is largely irrelevant because they are long dead and gone and those who came after them used the religion for their own purposes.
Yes, look at all those Christian, Buddhist and Hindu fundamentalists across the world involved in wars in the name of their God or other deities.
You are the kind of atheist that gives us all a bad name. "A pox on all your houses" doesn't work, it just emboldens extremists who can point to militant atheist voices and papers who draw these false equivalences between Islam and other religions.
The problem w tipping 50/1 or 66/1 shots, then bragging endlessly about it when they shorten, is that often the same person will have tipped several other candidates which drift but are never mentioned. In reality the whole package moves from 8/1 to 6/1 but is reported as 50/1 into 10/1
It's similar to when the racing post have 6 or 7 journos tipping 1-2 horses in a big race... 12-14 tips, 1 winner and the headline 'were you on our 12/1 winner?!'
When in reality for your money you were on a 6/4 package (which is still great by the way)
Good comment. I'm one of those who started dabbling at the GE and am slowly learning.
6/4 is not good for a long term multi-year bet, though.
And a 50-1 tip is expensive in terms of tying up bankroll if trading out at say 6-1 or 12-1 a few months early if it is not going to win.
For instance, from memory in the last 24 hours we have had
Alan Johnson 25/1 Harriet Harman 33/1 Hilary Benn 33/1 Jess Phillips 66/1
All tipped here for next labour leader... That's a combined 15/2 shot
Firstly any headline tip on here will shorten through weight of money and the fact that mike is an acknowledged shrewdie.. Even so people will still gasp 'ooh it's 20/1 from 25/1!!!'
Secondly if Johnson went 10/1 and the others all stay still (likely given the huge over round) you're now on a 5/1 shot at 15/2.. As I say nice but you're not on a 25/1 shot at 10-1 unless you are a self deceiver
Indeed.
Needs continued luck and judgement all the way in to trade out at even (say) a 100% profit on the non-winners, and a bank balance pretty much equivalent to the maximum winnings on each all added together.
I've taken the Harman 80-1 but none of the others. And I have the trading balance available if needed for what I've taken.
Jess Philips was not a tip iirc.
I'd take a combined shot covering the market offering 3-1 or 5-2 over the course of the Parliament. But that moves to the investment bracket.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
Going back through the chain, he has Eric Joyce to thank. As one ex-PB'er pointed out:
You put it under "BETTING POST"; you may not have intended it as a tip, but that's how it will get taken on here. (She's more like 666/1 if you ask me).
Apart from maybe winning, the chief value of long-term bets is to drop into political conversation. My £200 @ 50/1 on Scotland being independent by 2017 was money well spent for that alone
Well, they do have a USS Winston S. Churchill. Though he was half American so I suppose that doesn't count.
It's interesting that in all the fuss over putting a woman on the back of our own banknotes a few months ago I don't recall anybody mentioning the name of the only female Prime Minister.
Oooh, we are at the stage where atheists are drawing false equivalences between Islam and Christianity? Fun!
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
I'd be very careful about separating economics and religion in medieval Europe.
Religion was at the centre of political, and, indeed day-to-day life, until at least the 17th Century.
I'm very pleased I didn't have to live in Europe from c.1520-1670 when it was at the peak of religious turmoil.
However, none of that should be used by apologists for shrugging away the very real (and different) problems of modern day Islamism.
As much as I'd love to time travel and see the past, I am very glad I live where I do when I do.
Judging religions in isolation seems a bit silly to me. They are not abstract; they were created and are practised by human beings, all of who are profoundly influenced by the environments in which they grow up and live. The violence of so much modern Islam is man-made; as was the violence of Christianity in the past. It's not pre-ordained, it's not intrinsic. it's all about consciously-taken decisions.
@isam re Baker St, it's the only station you can change pink to brown without coming up for air. Edgware Rd & Paddington require one to leave the station and enter it elsewhere to make the change
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
Going back through the chain, he has Eric Joyce to thank. As one ex-PB'er pointed out:
Joyce got drunk, punched Tory, was chucked out of Labour Party, hence new selection needed in Falkirk, that process was infiltrated by Unite, which forced Ed to change the relationship with the unions, and in so doing reform the electoral college...
Well, they do have a USS Winston S. Churchill. Though he was half American so I suppose that doesn't count.
It's interesting that in all the fuss over putting a woman on the back of our own banknotes a few months ago I don't recall anybody mentioning the name of the only female Prime Minister.
I would love to see it for the spontaneous combustion of all leftists alone!
25/1 is excellent value for Johnson, for the reasons Keiran notes. However, I'd suggest Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn, both at 33/1, as perhaps even better.
Although Harman has also stepped back from the front line, she's not retired quite so obviously as Johnson has. She is also - in case it's escaped anyone's attention - a woman.
Benn, another in the 60+ age-group, enabling young cardinals to pick old popes, is still on the front bench and so could potentially straddle the party loyalists and Corbynistas with the pragmatists who want something approximating to competence. Handling Corbyn's foreign policy may be less of a problem than some think. Corbyn's general policy is not that unpopular; it's the associations he's made in pursuing it that leave him weak.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
Fair point, although in time that may seem less of a gaffe than it did. It was at least an attempt to play for the centre ground.
Paddypower have 33-1 on Team Sky for the World Championship Team Time Trial.
Only four teams have ever medalled - BMC, Ettix, Orica (all at short odds) and Sky. While Sky are without Thomas and Froome, they still have a good squad, which is always well drilled and they won't be the only ones with potential fatigue and certainly have strength in their squad.
This is a tremendous each way bet. Quarter odds on first three places and while there are 30 teams in the event, there's only ten teams with any conceivable chance.
@isam re Baker St, it's the only station you can change pink to brown without coming up for air. Edgware Rd & Paddington require one to leave the station and enter it elsewhere to make the change
At Paddington, you can walk through the main-line train-shed from the Hammersmith & City line platforms 15 and 16 to the entrance to the Bakerloo platforms.
I think Corbyn has Harriet Harman to thank for where he is today. Had it not been for her poor handling of the Labour response to Osborne's Budget it is highly unlikely that his campaign would have taken off at all! That alone should rule her out of contention.
Going back through the chain, he has Eric Joyce to thank. As one ex-PB'er pointed out:
Why?
A drunken Eric Joyce was expelled from the party which lead to a Falkirk by election where Unite were embroiled in a rigging scandal which lead to the changes to the way Labour elect their new leader?
Well, they do have a USS Winston S. Churchill. Though he was half American so I suppose that doesn't count.
It's interesting that in all the fuss over putting a woman on the back of our own banknotes a few months ago I don't recall anybody mentioning the name of the only female Prime Minister.
If it ever happens it won't be in our lifetimes. I'm speaking as a fan, but it'd just be too divisive.
I think you'd get plenty of Lefties cermoniously burning the notes.
Traveling through the Berlin corridor on the military train in the mid 80's to west Berlin showed exactly what a toilet east Germany was. It had to be seen to be believed
I was never there so have no personal experience. But a good many people who actually lived there seem to look back on it with a degree of nostalgia, as shown by the persistent 20% or so that the Left Party scores in the eastern states - I think it's partly identity politics (i.e. people just seeing themselves as Easterners) and partly a sense that relative poverty in apparent security is preferable to wealth amid uncertainty. See e.g.
for a (critical) discussion of why. I don't think it's a viable view (eventually you end up with such an income gap that people revolt) but German views are more nuanced than we sometimes think.
Comments
It would appear that Talas was an Arab victory, but they seemed to be content to stick to Central Asia, rather than take on the Tangs on their own turf.
So the geopolitical outcome was that the Tangs were spared an Islamic conquest.
I'm an atheist and I know that this is counter productive. There is no equivalence between the two religions. Islam is a bloody, violent and belligerent culture, a culture it has carried through since its inception. Christianity was born out of peace, Jesus, whether he existed as a person or not at least inspired people to prioritise peaceful existence. Even the Crusades were economically motivated and they used the cover of religious conquest to expand empires.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Caliphs.png
Of a similar likelihood is that we'll get a few Labour MPs setting up something on their own - possibly still remaining within Labour.
Jess Philips.
Ladbrokes @ 66-1. The same as Harriet @ Sky.
And Paddy have Lib Dems to get more the 8.5 seats at teh next GE @ 5/6. Looks nailed on to me but it is only a 12% a year return.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1195292
I would be grateful if you could cite chapter and verse. Apart from Revelations I can recall none.
Examples that are not taken out of context, please?
A Christian of any denomination (obviously back then there were only really two) could still call themselves a Christian while not Crusading (hence the reward was "add ons" like absolution etc).
But again, Jihad is a Pillar of Islam to many Muslims. Under that dogma they cannot see themselves Muslims without supporting Jihad.
To be a Muslim requires belief in Jihad (for many sects).
To be a Xtian does not require a belief in Crusade (of any sect).
It's similar to when the racing post have 6 or 7 journos tipping 1-2 horses in a big race... 12-14 tips, 1 winner and the headline 'were you on our 12/1 winner?!'
When in reality for your money you were on a 6/4 package (which is still great by the way)
Edward Gibbon, contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon famously observed:
"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet."[54]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338
Incompetent on economy since 2008. Report may need looking at in full.
The events surrounding labour have put Mr Farron under a bit of pressure.
The libs will be expecting to make some gains - and if they don't, will be asking questions about him.
Lots of talk = pretty unlikely, nothings happening.
Lack of talk = could be happening.
The silence from Farage (unless I've missed it or he's just being ignored as irrelevant now) indicates to me, that he might have one or two Labour MPs ready to come aboard.
While the babble from Farron says to me he's being ignored.
May I remind you that Tours (wot they reached in 732 AD) is less than 200 miles from Paris.
And, for the record, the countryside around Jerusalem and Nazareth looks like this:
http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/05/israel-countryside-nazareth.jpg
How about Matthew 10:32-38 This "I came not to send peace but a sword" passage has been used through the years to justify fighting religious enemies. The context depends upon what you want it to be.
Poor old Alan Johnson, his name gets dragged out so often as a cathartic cure to all Labour’s ills, it’s beginning to resemble borderline ritual abuse.
There are reformed versions of Islam - eg Ahmadiyya (which most Sunni/Shia see as apostate) or others which de-emphasize the violence.
That is no different from versions of Socialism which justify violence and revolutions vs those that are peaceful/democratic. This is a tension in the Green Party - are they Liberals or Revolutionaries or Reforming Herbivores?
Islam's problem with modernity seems to me to be:
1 - The Holy Book does contain injunctions involving violence, and other stuff such as non-Muslims being of less value as human beings.
2 - Said Holy Book is defined as verbally inspired and fixed - almost an object of worship itself.
3 - That means that people diving back in search of purity (which happens in all philosophies/religions - witness all those poshies with coffee enemas) can see divinely inspired injunctions to violence.
4 - That makes it tough to reform the possibility of violence away.
By comparison the Bible is seen by Christians as a narrative history - the fixed bit is the person of Christ, and is open to evry flexible interpretation, which has a good and bad side. But if you want to be violent there's a lot of stuff to get past.
Also I think the Quran gets worse as it develops, which compares with the NT defining away much of the violent narrative in the OT.
My thoughts. Obviously my sympathies are C not I.
I don't accept that at all - it is just political correctness gone mad again. Compared with Wilson-Callaghan -Foot- Kinnock - Smith - -Blair, there are now far more women in the Shadow Cabinet. I have nothing but contempt for the idea of 'gender vetting' and refuse to vote for candidates selected on that basis.
For example, William I got permission from the Pope (I forget which) to carry the Pope's banner into battle at the Battle of Hastings, after the pope backed his claim to the English throne. William used this as a major recruiting point. (*) Therefore whilst it was not a Holy War per se, religion played a significant role.
Religion is often used as an excuse by people to do things they want to do, and they find a suitable religious authority figure to back them up. Or, in the case of Henry VIII, create a new church ...
(*) I daresay one of he PB historical bods (although it is probably much too modern history for Mr Dancer) will point out this is, in fact, incorrect ...
This is around the same time as Charlemagne was conquering Germanic lands and converting them by conquest to the Church.
I have already debunked that. The text in Luke demonstrates "the sword" is symbolic, using the term "division" instead. Again, this is demonstrated by the overwhelming scholarly analysis:
"The sword in Matthew 10:34 is not meant literally; Matthew did not think that Jesus conducted his ministry by brandishing a real sword. As we shall see shortly, the motif has an obvious metaphorical meaning."
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988
The symbolic language should be manifestly obvious due to the fact that Jesus did not spread the Gospel by the sword. It is completely dishonest to say this is equivalent to Mohammed actually raising an army and conquering cities across Arabia.
Not sure Francis Bacon will be involved mind you.
next.
Of course, two or three generations descended from immigrants and then living in western societies will be altered by that experience. Society will get changed too, just not as much.
Whilst the cucumber gets pickled, the pickle gets cucumbered, so to speak
"The sword in Matthew 10:34 is not meant literally; Matthew did not think that Jesus conducted his ministry by brandishing a real sword. As we shall see shortly, the motif has an obvious metaphorical meaning."
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988
The symbolic language should be manifestly obvious due to the fact that Jesus did not spread the Gospel by the sword. It is completely dishonest to say this is equivalent to Mohammed actually raising an army and conquering cities across Arabia.
Well plenty of Pope's and Kings thought it was appropriate to raise armies and conquer across Arabia too. You say potato I say potato.
Thankfully we live in enlightened times where we are far more secular than religious. Though to get through the reformation and become more enlightened and secular plenty of enlightened people died first. Sadly Islam hasn't gone through a Reformation and enlightenment yet.
6/4 is not good for a long term multi-year bet, though.
And a 50-1 tip is expensive in terms of tying up bankroll if trading out at say 6-1 or 12-1 a few months early if it is not going to win.
The Frankish campaigns in Saxony etc have already been mentioned; Christianity certainly had its muscular side (The Teutonic Knights campaigned widely across Eastern Europe), but I do think there's a degree of difference between Christian and Islamic philosophy on the concept of Holy War.
It is a fundamentally peaceful religion, and spread via word of mouth and charity in the years after the Crucifixion. But then a Roman Emperor used it for political reasons and distorted it for a long, long time. That does not diminish the original teachings.
Reformation is a shift in interpretation. To Reform requires the faith's dogma to be based on interpretation.
Islam is not, certainly in term of Jihad, open to interpretation. If you are a Muslim you believe in Jihad, this is universal and not an interpretation, it is in the Q'ran. For many, it is a fundamental belief - a Pillar of Islam. But for ALL it is a belief which is part of their faith and one to be followed.
Its highly doubtful that Jesus or Mohammed ever existed, arguing over who was the better person doesn't really seem pertinent on a betting blog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25925990
Jezzah's SNP approach to neo-classic economics.
Jesus never uttered a word against gay people. Indeed, the Centurion's servant that he helped was likely a gay man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34275105
Alan Johnson 25/1
Harriet Harman 33/1
Hilary Benn 33/1
Jess Phillips 66/1
All tipped here for next labour leader... That's a combined 15/2 shot
Firstly any headline tip on here will shorten through weight of money and the fact that mike is an acknowledged shrewdie.. Even so people will still gasp 'ooh it's 20/1 from 25/1!!!'
Secondly if Johnson went 10/1 and the others all stay still (likely given the huge over round) you're now on a 5/1 shot at 15/2.. As I say nice but you're not on a 25/1 shot at 10-1 unless you are a self deceiver
The constellation of Scutum was named in honour of John Sobieski.
(original name = Scutum Sobieski - Sobieski's Shield)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum
What matters is the effect that the religions have had on millions of lives. What the founders of the religions wanted is largely irrelevant because they are long dead and gone and those who came after them used the religion for their own purposes.
I'm very pleased I didn't have to live in Europe from c.1520-1670 when it was at the peak of religious turmoil.
However, none of that should be used by apologists for shrugging away the very real (and different) problems of modern day Islamism.
It would drive the lefties onto the Apoplectic Rage Bus.
https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/643014515047723008
https://twitter.com/ericjoyce/status/643174464793001984
You are the kind of atheist that gives us all a bad name. "A pox on all your houses" doesn't work, it just emboldens extremists who can point to militant atheist voices and papers who draw these false equivalences between Islam and other religions.
Needs continued luck and judgement all the way in to trade out at even (say) a 100% profit on the non-winners, and a bank balance pretty much equivalent to the maximum winnings on each all added together.
I've taken the Harman 80-1 but none of the others. And I have the trading balance available if needed for what I've taken.
Jess Philips was not a tip iirc.
I'd take a combined shot covering the market offering 3-1 or 5-2 over the course of the Parliament. But that moves to the investment bracket.
Look at Lewisham now!
Edited:
And Heidi Alexander is not going to have an easy 3-mile jog in Mountsfield Park: There are some steep gradients (so good luck sweetheart)!
Edited-II:
My manor
Apart from maybe winning, the chief value of long-term bets is to drop into political conversation. My £200 @ 50/1 on Scotland being independent by 2017 was money well spent for that alone
It's interesting that in all the fuss over putting a woman on the back of our own banknotes a few months ago I don't recall anybody mentioning the name of the only female Prime Minister.
Judging religions in isolation seems a bit silly to me. They are not abstract; they were created and are practised by human beings, all of who are profoundly influenced by the environments in which they grow up and live. The violence of so much modern Islam is man-made; as was the violence of Christianity in the past. It's not pre-ordained, it's not intrinsic. it's all about consciously-taken decisions.
In the nick of time, by the look of it.
Paddypower have 33-1 on Team Sky for the World Championship Team Time Trial.
Only four teams have ever medalled - BMC, Ettix, Orica (all at short odds) and Sky. While Sky are without Thomas and Froome, they still have a good squad, which is always well drilled and they won't be the only ones with potential fatigue and certainly have strength in their squad.
This is a tremendous each way bet. Quarter odds on first three places and while there are 30 teams in the event, there's only ten teams with any conceivable chance.
I think you'd get plenty of Lefties cermoniously burning the notes.
You might get some Righties framing them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
for a (critical) discussion of why. I don't think it's a viable view (eventually you end up with such an income gap that people revolt) but German views are more nuanced than we sometimes think.