I don’t ignore the impact Christian culture has had on the values of this country, for good and ill, and there is plenty good there (how much of the good derives from even older systems I think is another argument altogether, since it was Christianity as it developed which through cultural dominance imparted many cultural values). However, while that impact has been undeniable, it is not necessary in order to hold good values to be an adherent of any faith. As an atheist while I don’t hold the same views as Farron I do think he was treated a mite unfairly at times, in that I always thought a liberal approach would be its doesn’t matter what he believes if what he plans to do is good. However he has moaned quite a lot about it since.
Also, like DavidL I am confused at this in concert with the BrexitisRight tracker. More evidence polls or just the people do not know a damn thing.
Isn’t it just that people react to what they’ve most recently heard/seen The coverage has, generally, been more positive in the last week. Think of the BBC running its annual NHS in crisis programming and voter interest in the NHS rising up the food chain.
I
Ah yes, the NHS - aren’t we due a fresh round of NHS in crisis stories?
Given the weather this week, it would almost be surprising if it wasn't put under extra strain.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
Yeah, there is a great void at the centre of my spiritual life which could only be filled by a big beardy man who lives in the clouds and hates gays. What an arse, even by LD standards.
If you substitute 'Jews' or 'intelligent people' for 'gays', that is in many ways an apt description of the cult of the Jezziah.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
Yeah, there is a great void at the centre of my spiritual life which could only be filled by a big beardy man who lives in the clouds and hates gays. What an arse, even by LD standards.
If you substitute 'Jews' or 'intelligent people' for 'gays', that is in many ways an apt description of the cult of the Jezziah.
Really? What a sweet person you are......
I clearly touched a nerve, especially as you were so impressed you quoted it twice
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
Ignoring the tedious provocation (of the sort my 11 year old wouldn’t bother with) you ought to try reading Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction. The German economy remained an effective basket case on the edge of insolvency. Plunder across Europe slowed that down but didn’t stop it.
I haven't read Tooze's work. Such work as I have read on the economy's or the Third Reich suggests (a) its recovery had next to nothing to do with Hitler and (b) his rearmament policy may have held it back in crucial ways - butter being rationed throughout his time in office to allow more currency to be diverted to munitions springs to mind. But I'd be interested to know more.
Also of course plunder across Europe - I take it you are including the theft of the property of Germany's Jews?
The latter - yes that provided stimulus at a helpful (that sounds unpleasant doesn’t it) as did expropriation across Europe. You’d have to read more and it’s some time since I had to work on it in detail but there are convincing arguments around this based on debt, industrial production and the autarkial model.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
That's a dangerous argument to make against Christianity. After all, it was the Quaker belief (subsequently adopted by the Evangelicals) that all people are children of God and equal under him that finally led to the abolition of first the slave trade and then slavery.
On your first point, Taoism might be of interest to you as a point of comparison. However, I don't think it's quite fair to say Aquinas adopted natural moral law wholesale from Aristotle although he was undoubtedly strongly influenced by him.
A former Fox News presenter has claimed that Donald Trump once attempted to kiss her on the lips around the time he married his second wife Melania.
Juliet Huddy said Mr Trump made the move in a lift after the pair had lunch in Trump Tower in either 2005 or 2006. Mr Trump married Melania in January 2005.
A former Fox News presenter has claimed that Donald Trump once attempted to kiss her on the lips around the time he married his second wife Melania.
Juliet Huddy said Mr Trump made the move in a lift after the pair had lunch in Trump Tower in either 2005 or 2006. Mr Trump married Melania in January 2005.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
Considering the A50 negotiations, I'm reminded of the wise words of a Mr K. Rogers:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away Know when to run"
Having a read of the Politico take on the treaty between HMG and the EU, it was a superb example of illustrating where we folded, the EU folded, we walked away and both sides did a runner kicking the can down the road.
The Devil may be less in the detail then the spinning and clearly those supportive of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular have been anxious to paint the treaty as a great personal victory.
The view from the other side is the mirror image - it was instructive looking at the front pages of the Daily Express and the Irish Independent in my local Sainsburys. When both sides claim victory in a negotiation, it's either propaganda or ignorance of what has been agreed or very often both.
May has bought herself time and seen off a challenge in the short term. The prospect of no agreement remains and the Phase 2 negotiations have any numbers of traps and issues to resolve. The shape of our future relationship with the EU is becoming slightly clearer and pretty much what might have been expected - a deal that looks like a Canada style deal but won't be called that.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
Indeed, plus the concept of dana, or charitable giving, in Hinduism, predates Christianity by at least a millennia. Of course, some have claimed Christianity was heavily influenced by Eastern religion - borrowing concepts and applying them to Jewish traditions.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
That's a dangerous argument to make against Christianity. After all, it was the Quaker belief (subsequently adopted by the Evangelicals) that all people are children of God and equal under him that finally led to the abolition of first the slave trade and then slavery.
On your first point, Taoism might be of interest to you as a point of comparison. However, I don't think it's quite fair to say Aquinas adopted natural moral law wholesale from Aristotle although he was undoubtedly strongly influenced by him.
It is a fair argument against Christianity that it does not condemn slavery. St. Paul accepted it as natural (he condemned slave trading, but so did some pagans).
However, the argument that social distinctions do not matter among believers, that a slave can be saved when his master is not, was certainly a subversion of the values of the Roman Empire.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
Indeed, plus the concept of dana, or charitable giving, in Hinduism, predates Christianity by at least a millennia. Of course, some have claimed Christianity was heavily influenced by Eastern religion - borrowing concepts and applying them to Jewish traditions.
Wasn't that Dorothy Milne Murdock aka Acharya Sanning?
She was also as I recall the one who suggested that Jesus as the Son of God was derived from Aten the Egyptian Sun God, because the names sound the same.
This megaton discovery that both the ancient Egyptians and ancient Israelites spoke English had somehow eluded professional scholars for millennia, and oddly doesn't seem to have impressed them now.
Mr. Z, that's a strange point to make. The Mormons haven't struggled to cope with the modern world.
My own Labour councillor was an admirer of Adolf Hitler.
If you ignore Hitler’s anti-Semitism, his crazy decisions to invade Russia, and declaring war on America there’s a lot to admire about Hitler militarily.
He took a basket case country to being the dominant country in Europe, occupying most of it within a few years of taking power, even Napoleon never managed that.
Hitler’s Germany was a lot like the British Empire, which easily segues into the British concentration camps during the Boer War.
History is truly written by the victors.
Ignoring the tedious provocation (of the sort my 11 year old wouldn’t bother with) you ought to try reading Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction. The German economy remained an effective basket case on the edge of insolvency. Plunder across Europe slowed that down but didn’t stop it.
I’d think of the difference between Concentration Camps, Camps of Concentration and neglect vs a deliberate death policy.
You flaunt your history knowledge but you don’t half come across as a first year undergraduate at times.
+1
If he had narrowly said 'technology., then in certain fields at least he might have had a point. The rest of it is just tosh, before we even get to the absurd comparisons.
Hmm - I try and avoid personal criticism but a lot of very superficial comment this evening on the relationship between secular values and religion and how Western society's values have evolved.
I would only say this - since I have stuff to do - that the debt which Western values owe to Christianity and Judaism is far deeper than those who are atheist, humanist, agnostic or some other faith often allow. The concept of human rights and, indeed, the form of human rights we in the West like to think of as universal did not just come from nowhere.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
Anyway, off to think about dinner.
Have a nice evening all.
Plato and Aristotle worked out a much more coherent and satisfactory moral theory than anything in the Bible, and Aquinas borrowed it into Christianity. And point two, I don't think Christianity is incoherent nonsense because that is one of a limited range of "received opinions" available to me. It's my own opinion, based on the primary evidence.
I greatly admire many ancient civilisations, but it's easy to overlook how pitiless they were, to the lower classes, slaves, conquered peoples etc.
I'd say the big moral advance made by the Christians was to put forward the view that pity, mercy, and charity were all good things in themselves.
Absolutely wrong. Virtues were recognised as virtues, and as desirable in themselves, in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. And probably elsewhere, it's just that Greece is what I know most about. And did you know that lots of Southern Presbyterians in the US advanced the theory that the slave trade was doing God's work, because it is so much better to be a Christian slave on a cotton farm than a free Heathen in the forests of Africa?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
It is a fair argument against Christianity that it does not condemn slavery. St. Paul accepted it as natural (he condemned slave trading, but so did some pagans).
However, the argument that social distinctions do not matter among believers, that a slave can be saved when his master is not, was certainly a subversion of the values of the Roman Empire.
I think that's a slight misunderstanding of Paul's position, although I agree it is ambiguous. Paul said slaves should not resist their masters, which was clearly linked more closely to his ideas of non-violence (slave revolts being common in the Roman Empire, of course).
In Galatians 3:28 he said, more pertinently, that there 'is neither slave nor free...for you are all one in Christ Jesus'. That certainly could be taken as an indication that Christians cannot own slaves.
Unhelpfully it is contradicted by various passages in the Old Testament (Exodus 21 springs to mind) which say slavery is acceptable, although the caveats as to when it applies, the ongoing rights of slaves and rules on manumission after set periods tended to get mysteriously left out of pro-slavery rhetoric.
The problem is that like any religious text that wasn't written in one go and even some that are (the Koran, the Conmunist Manifesto) the Bible is confused and contradictory reflecting changing views and social norms. That allows people to quote mine and claim divine authority for whatever they have already decided to do for other reasons.
Considering the A50 negotiations, I'm reminded of the wise words of a Mr K. Rogers:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away Know when to run"
Having a read of the Politico take on the treaty between HMG and the EU, it was a superb example of illustrating where we folded, the EU folded, we walked away and both sides did a runner kicking the can down the road.
The Devil may be less in the detail then the spinning and clearly those supportive of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular have been anxious to paint the treaty as a great personal victory.
The view from the other side is the mirror image - it was instructive looking at the front pages of the Daily Express and the Irish Independent in my local Sainsburys. When both sides claim victory in a negotiation, it's either propaganda or ignorance of what has been agreed or very often both.
May has bought herself time and seen off a challenge in the short term. The prospect of no agreement remains and the Phase 2 negotiations have any numbers of traps and issues to resolve. The shape of our future relationship with the EU is becoming slightly clearer and pretty much what might have been expected - a deal that looks like a Canada style deal but won't be called that.
I don't think most Brexiters have any concept at all at the moment that we may have to pay to trade in the Single Market. What, we pay ? To many Brexiters we would almost do them a favour by trading with them.
Of course, that was also their opinion about paying the divorce bill. Remember, we owe them nothing, then 20bn max....
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
Considering the A50 negotiations, I'm reminded of the wise words of a Mr K. Rogers:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away Know when to run"
Having a read of the Politico take on the treaty between HMG and the EU, it was a superb example of illustrating where we folded, the EU folded, we walked away and both sides did a runner kicking the can down the road.
The Devil may be less in the detail then the spinning and clearly those supportive of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular have been anxious to paint the treaty as a great personal victory.
The view from the other side is the mirror image - it was instructive looking at the front pages of the Daily Express and the Irish Independent in my local Sainsburys. When both sides claim victory in a negotiation, it's either propaganda or ignorance of what has been agreed or very often both.
May has bought herself time and seen off a challenge in the short term. The prospect of no agreement remains and the Phase 2 negotiations have any numbers of traps and issues to resolve. The shape of our future relationship with the EU is becoming slightly clearer and pretty much what might have been expected - a deal that looks like a Canada style deal but won't be called that.
I don't think most Brexiters have any concept at all at the moment that we may have to pay to trade in the Single Market. What, we pay ? To many Brexiters we would almost do them a favour by trading with them.
Of course, that was also their opinion about paying the divorce bill. Remember, we owe them nothing, then 20bn max....
Will the EU require more money (eg £20bn) for the transition period?
I don't think most Brexiters have any concept at all at the moment that we may have to pay to trade in the Single Market. What, we pay ? To many Brexiters we would almost do them a favour by trading with them.
Of course, that was also their opinion about paying the divorce bill. Remember, we owe them nothing, then 20bn max....
The best analogy I have is a school choosing to become an Academy. Many local authorities will offer services such as maintenance, compliance inspections, payroll, catering and the like to schools but whereas schools remaining under local authority management will pay one price, Academies will pay more.
Why ? Because Academies are external customers and they can be charged the market rate. It's up to the Academy to choose whether they continue to take the service from the local authority or find another provider but if they have eschewed local authority control they can't expect a discounted rate for the services provided.
The Academy can sign up with a different set of providers and get a better service for what they pay than they get from the local authority. It's their money and their decision.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Not quite. He expressed sympathy for Priam, but handed over the body because he had been told to by Zeus. The orders of the gods, whom Achilles notes are capricious and vary their approach by whim, is what swayed him.
Although I think the huge amount of treasure Priam offered may have helped. Most Greeks would have been bewildered to find that somebody turned down a huge sum of cash.
Finally I would point out that to medieval Christians it was Hector not Achilles who was the noble character.
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
I'm always a little confused by this line of argument because I don't really understand where you're drawing the line between "disagreeing with a view" and "not tolerating a view". For example, I disagree with how Farron sees atheists. And, likewise he'd disagree with me. When does that become intolerance? Is it just when one of us becomes vociferous enough in defence of our beliefs?
To my mind, the difference is that diagreement is something you can have between friends, and still think highly of each other. Intolerance means that if someone holds that view, you can't bear to listen to them, and possibly think they should be banned form expressing it. For example, I'm fine with UKIP supporters - one of my closest friends has voted UKIP. If he was a neo-Nazi, however, I'd rethink the friendship.
I agree with Cyclefree that humanism in its various forms has borrowed concepts of good and bad from religion, without accepting the idea of afterlife, a chap with a white beard who you can pray to, and that sort of thing. It would be odd if a longstanding religion had no good ideas to adopt. That doesn't mean that one thinks religion overall to be necessarily a good thing - if it's delusional, as I think it is, then it seems a pity to take one's lead from it.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Not quite. He expressed sympathy for Priam, but handed over the body because he had been told to by Zeus. The orders of the gods, whom Achilles notes are capricious and vary their approach by whim, is what swayed him.
Although I think the huge amount of treasure Priam offered may have helped. Most Greeks would have been bewildered to find that somebody turned down a huge sum of cash.
Finally I would point out that to medieval Christians it was Hector not Achilles who was the noble character.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
And, second, there is a form of liberal intolerance to different views, a view that there is only a limited range of "received opinions" which are acceptable which is, in its own way, quite as illiberal and damaging to freedom of thought and inquiry as that which it so often criticises.
I'm always a little confused by this line of argument because I don't really understand where you're drawing the line between "disagreeing with a view" and "not tolerating a view". For example, I disagree with how Farron sees atheists. And, likewise he'd disagree with me. When does that become intolerance? Is it just when one of us becomes vociferous enough in defence of our beliefs?
To my mind, the difference is that diagreement is something you can have between friends, and still think highly of each other. Intolerance means that if someone holds that view, you can't bear to listen to them, and possibly think they should be banned form expressing it. For example, I'm fine with UKIP supporters - one of my closest friends has voted UKIP. If he was a neo-Nazi, however, I'd rethink the friendship.
I agree with Cyclefree that humanism in its various forms has borrowed concepts of good and bad from religion, without accepting the idea of afterlife, a chap with a white beard who you can pray to, and that sort of thing. It would be odd if a longstanding religion had no good ideas to adopt. That doesn't mean that one thinks religion overall to be necessarily a good thing - if it's delusional, as I think it is, then it seems a pity to take one's lead from it.
IMHO, "liberal" intolerance means such things as legislating against people who express illiberal beliefs, getting them fired from their jobs, organising boycotts of companies that employ them, and so on.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
Of course not. Just, that the Christian army is acting against the values it's supposed to be upholding.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Not quite. He expressed sympathy for Priam, but handed over the body because he had been told to by Zeus. The orders of the gods, whom Achilles notes are capricious and vary their approach by whim, is what swayed him.
Although I think the huge amount of treasure Priam offered may have helped. Most Greeks would have been bewildered to find that somebody turned down a huge sum of cash.
Finally I would point out that to medieval Christians it was Hector not Achilles who was the noble character.
The "he did it for the money" argument is deliberately preempted in book 22 where he kills Lycaon after telling him that since Patroclus died he has no further interest in ransom money, he just wants to kill Trojans. As to Zeus, divine commands and interventions are best regarded as metaphors for the mental state of the character receiving them; and besides the scene has little to no dramatic impact if we think Achilles is merely following orders.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
Of course not. Just, that the Christian army is acting against the values it's supposed to be upholding.
Even when the person giving the orders is second only to God's Representative on Earth?
Besides those 'values' have been so warped by the centuries of organised religion that it is impossible to tell what is original Christian values and what is not.
The "he did it for the money" argument is deliberately preempted in book 22 where he kills Lycaon after telling him that since Patroclus died he has no further interest in ransom money, he just wants to kill Trojans. As to Zeus, divine commands and interventions are best regarded as metaphors for the mental state of the character receiving them; and besides the scene has little to no dramatic impact if we think Achilles is merely following orders.
book 24, lines 593-597 'Patroclus, do not be offended if you learn, down in the halls of Hades, that I let his father have godlike Hector back. The ransom he paid me was a worthy one and I will see that you receive your proper share of it.'
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
The choice 'controlling immigration better than free trade?' is of course no longer relevant as we are going to do both. The UK is now starting FTA talks and still ending free movement and replacing it with a work permits system. There is only an 8% gap between the two anyway.
The "he did it for the money" argument is deliberately preempted in book 22 where he kills Lycaon after telling him that since Patroclus died he has no further interest in ransom money, he just wants to kill Trojans. As to Zeus, divine commands and interventions are best regarded as metaphors for the mental state of the character receiving them; and besides the scene has little to no dramatic impact if we think Achilles is merely following orders.
book 24, lines 593-597 'Patroclus, do not be offended if you learn, down in the halls of Hades, that I let his father have godlike Hector back. The ransom he paid me was a worthy one and I will see that you receive your proper share of it.'
So that's what he says to the ghost of Patroclus. What actually happens is:
"Priam: Respect the gods, Achilles, and show mercy towards me, remembering your own father, for I am more to be pitied than he, since I have brought myself to do what no other man on earth would do, I have lifted to my lips the hand of the man who killed my sons.’
His words had moved Achilles to tears at the thought of his own father, and taking the old man’s hands he set him gently from him, while both were lost in memory. Priam remembered man-killing Hector, and wept aloud, at Achilles’ feet, while Achilles wept for his father Peleus and for Patroclus once more, and the sound of their lament filled the hut."
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
You hide it very well though. I'd never have guessed you disliked him just from the language you use if you hadn't said
Mr. Z, that's a strange point to make. The Mormons haven't struggled to cope with the modern world.
My own Labour councillor was an admirer of Adolf Hitler.
If you ignore Hitler’s anti-Semitism, his crazy decisions to invade Russia, and declaring war on America there’s a lot to admire about Hitler militarily.
He took a basket case country to being the dominant country in Europe, occupying most of it within a few years of taking power, even Napoleon never managed that.
Hitler’s Germany was a lot like the British Empire, which easily segues into the British concentration camps during the Boer War.
History is truly written by the victors.
The British never ran extermination camps, unlike the Nazis.
Though if you look at Hitler's record devoid of morality he did create the biggest European empire since the Romans (If you include client states like Spain and Italy) and revived the German economy through mass production of cars and armaments which Germany built on after the War to become the largest economy in Europe.
The "he did it for the money" argument is deliberately preempted in book 22 where he kills Lycaon after telling him that since Patroclus died he has no further interest in ransom money, he just wants to kill Trojans. As to Zeus, divine commands and interventions are best regarded as metaphors for the mental state of the character receiving them; and besides the scene has little to no dramatic impact if we think Achilles is merely following orders.
book 24, lines 593-597 'Patroclus, do not be offended if you learn, down in the halls of Hades, that I let his father have godlike Hector back. The ransom he paid me was a worthy one and I will see that you receive your proper share of it.'
So that's what he says to the ghost of Patroclus. What actually happens is:
"Priam: Respect the gods, Achilles, and show mercy towards me, remembering your own father, for I am more to be pitied than he, since I have brought myself to do what no other man on earth would do, I have lifted to my lips the hand of the man who killed my sons.’
His words had moved Achilles to tears at the thought of his own father, and taking the old man’s hands he set him gently from him, while both were lost in memory. Priam remembered man-killing Hector, and wept aloud, at Achilles’ feet, while Achilles wept for his father Peleus and for Patroclus once more, and the sound of their lament filled the hut."
which is about pity and sympathy and mercy.
Yes - but if you look further on, it doesn't make an iota of difference to Achilles' decision.
The point which we are both in danger of losing sight of, interesting though this discussion is in its own right, is that this isn't a great example to prove your point. If the Greeks had prized pity, he would have given in to Priam's tears, not the orders of Zeus or the ransom. This is in fact the way the makers of the film Troy played it. But that's not the slant Homer puts on it.
There are Greek ideas in the New Testament, particularly in John. The most obvious borrowings are ideas about the conflict of dark and light, although I've always found parallels between the Cyclops and Jesus as the Good Shepherd intriguing as well. I think however it's a bit of a stretch to see the links between the militarism of Greek culture and the pacifism of early (please note choice of words) Christianity.
I enjoyed that discussion - I hope you have as well. Please excuse me if I have to break it off now as this is the only chance I'll have for a decent night's sleep in about three weeks.
The "he did it for the money" argument is deliberately preempted in book 22 where he kills Lycaon after telling him that since Patroclus died he has no further interest in ransom money, he just wants to kill Trojans. As to Zeus, divine commands and interventions are best regarded as metaphors for the mental state of the character receiving them; and besides the scene has little to no dramatic impact if we think Achilles is merely following orders.
book 24, lines 593-597 'Patroclus, do not be offended if you learn, down in the halls of Hades, that I let his father have godlike Hector back. The ransom he paid me was a worthy one and I will see that you receive your proper share of it.'
So that's what he says to the ghost of Patroclus. What actually happens is:
"Priam: Respect the gods, Achilles, and show mercy towards me, remembering your own father, for I am more to be pitied than he, since I have brought myself to do what no other man on earth would do, I have lifted to my lips the hand of the man who killed my sons.’
His words had moved Achilles to tears at the thought of his own father, and taking the old man’s hands he set him gently from him, while both were lost in memory. Priam remembered man-killing Hector, and wept aloud, at Achilles’ feet, while Achilles wept for his father Peleus and for Patroclus once more, and the sound of their lament filled the hut."
which is about pity and sympathy and mercy.
Yes - but if you look further on, it doesn't make an iota of difference to Achilles' decision.
The point which we are both in danger of losing sight of, interesting though this discussion is in its own right, is that this isn't a great example to prove your point. If the Greeks had prized pity, he would have given in to Priam's tears, not the orders of Zeus or the ransom. This is in fact the way the makers of the film Troy played it. But that's not the slant Homer puts on it.
There are Greek ideas in the New Testament, particularly in John. The most obvious borrowings are ideas about the conflict of dark and light, although I've always found parallels between the Cyclops and Jesus as the Good Shepherd intriguing as well. I think however it's a bit of a stretch to see the links between the militarism of Greek culture and the pacifism of early (please note choice of words) Christianity.
I enjoyed that discussion - I hope you have as well. Please excuse me if I have to break it off now as this is the only chance I'll have for a decent night's sleep in about three weeks.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
I thought at the time that the Lib Dems' promise had been offered in bad faith. Had there been a referendum, resulting in a majority to leave, Clegg would have come up with some argument why it didn't acppply.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
Catholics aren't the only God botherers - it's just belief in actual transubstantiation is silly
Mr. Z, that's a strange point to make. The Mormons haven't struggled to cope with the modern world.
On the other hand, the armish less so ;-)
Salt Lake City is of the strangest places I have visited. Super successful place, very high average earnings, quality of life, educational attainment, but incredibly high suicide rate. there is something very odd about the place
One of the nicest cities in America in my experience. Not least because you can walk down the main street at 3am and feel perfectly safe (unheard of in big city USA). Thanks to Mormonism. The food isn't amazing, the craft beers are brilliant, the wider landscapes of Utah are fabulous, and the people very welcoming.
The suicide rate is odd, but then suicide rates are weirdly high in many countries we regard with respect.
Did you not find them shall we say a bit too welcoming...that has been my experience on several trips.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
Clegg doesn't believe in democracy.
This is the person who immediately chose to break his big campaign promise in 2010.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
I thought at the time that the Lib Dems' promise had been offered in bad faith. Had there been a referendum, resulting in a majority to leave, Clegg would have come up with some argument why it didn't acppply.
Of course it was bad faith. It was a weaselly excuse to justify ratifying Lisbon without a referendum by pretending that he wanted a "real" one instead knowing full well that he was never going to be in a position to offer one.
Until he was in a position to offer one, once Cameron decided it should happen. Rather than saying "now the Tories have our policy" he was instead horrified as now it might really happen.
Utterly reprehensible cynicism. The irony is that it completely backfired, had Lisbon not been ratified then not only would Article 50 not exist but its entirely possible we may have voted another way on an in/out vote.
Mr. Z, that's a strange point to make. The Mormons haven't struggled to cope with the modern world.
On the other hand, the armish less so ;-)
Salt Lake City is of the strangest places I have visited. Super successful place, very high average earnings, quality of life, educational attainment, but incredibly high suicide rate. there is something very odd about the place
One of the nicest cities in America in my experience. Not least because you can walk down the main street at 3am and feel perfectly safe (unheard of in big city USA). Thanks to Mormonism. The food isn't amazing, the craft beers are brilliant, the wider landscapes of Utah are fabulous, and the people very welcoming.
The suicide rate is odd, but then suicide rates are weirdly high in many countries we regard with respect.
Did you not find them shall we say a bit too welcoming...that has been my experience on several trips.
Well I did get a bit bored of being immediately offered cake and tea (and even coffee in the more daring houses) wherever I went in Mormon-land.
But on the whole, a surfeit of friendliness and free Victoria Sponge will always win out, for me, over, say, almost certain muggings in Joburg or Lagos or Detroit.
Mormons are NICE. Boring, perhaps, but nice. And their boringness is balanced by the fact that they are surrounded by much of the most spectacular landscapes on the planet.
Moab!
Moab!
I am certainly happy to leave Detroit to the hipsters!
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
Funny how the vaunted flexibility and willingness to compromise conveniently disappears when they don't want it. And yet returns whenever its supporters want to praise it for that attitude.
All these 'sources close to x' leaks seem pretty pointless - the way things have gone so far people making random, ill informed predictions of what would occur, and what we would be told about problems, and last minute deals and all the rest, have a decent chance of being right at the start without listening to any of these no doubt incredibly important leaks which always say how bad things are. Maybe things will go very badly, but 'sources close to x' seem pretty useless as far as indicators go, except in creating newspaper headlines.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
I thought at the time that the Lib Dems' promise had been offered in bad faith. Had there been a referendum, resulting in a majority to leave, Clegg would have come up with some argument why it didn't acppply.
Clegg is a c*nt. That's all there is to it. All his paeans to democracy and the voter have turned out to be utter drivel and bullshit. In the end he solely worships the EU, and everything else can go hang. Such a man should be driven from politics. He is an idolator posing as an interlocutor.
Someone like Clegg simply isn’t cut out to be an elected political leader. He has no ability to empathise and connect with people.
I wonder how many people voted for Brexit simply to punish him for insulting their intelligence in those debates with Farage.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
Mere and expected maneuvering. On a par with the FT's firm claim we would pay 100bn euro at the end of Phase 1
Of COURSE the EU will now say OMG the UK is now fucked and all its banks have to move to Vilnius because the trade deal will be like Nigeria Minus
Ignore. It's twaddle. They want our money, we want theirs. A huge dollop of fudge will be poured over the result and in the end will get (I guess) something like Norway Minus i.e. a significant payment but Freedom of Movement of LABOUR (please do come here if you have a job offer)
Both sides will put their own gloss on it, both sides will claim victory, both will be right, in a way
Sensible points though it is a work permits system May is aiming for
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
Not absolutely wrong. The pagan Greeks prized courage, reverence towards the gods, love of one's Polis, public spirit, epitomised by serving in war, and sponsoring religious festivals (if one was rich), and love of one's family. Those are all good things. But, forgiving an enemy, sparing the conquered (beyond enslaving them) those were alien to them.
No they weren't. The simplest proof of that is that they had the full vocabulary for all that - mercy, spare, pity, forgive and so on - which would all be surplus to requirements if they didn't correspond to real world things. Which would have made writing the New Testament, in Greek, challenging.
That's hardly proof. I know the words for genocide and dictatorship, but I don't consider them virtues. A Nazi, by contrast, would consider both good things.
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
It is built into the concepts, that they are virtues.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
But, the old bloke was done in, when Troy fell.
Of course he was. But your claim is not - I assume - that such a thing has never happened when a city has fallen to a Christian army?
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Papal Legate Amalric
Classy stuff.
One of my favourite quotes when people start going on about the innate goodness of Christianity compared to other religions.
Bold headline - I cannot make out the text, how senior Labour is the Labour named in this scandal?
According to the paper (what I can make out) the person who demanded the bribe was introduced to the developer by Sadiq Khan but the 4 politicians who were each due to receive "half a mill" are not named that I can see.
Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
I would have thought there was no need for any outsider to tell these to the EU. It clearly is not in the EU members own interest to allow a non-member similar rights and privileges. What is the point of being a member then ?
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
It's not the same rights as a member.
All the article says is "there are most favoured nation clauses in some if the EU's FTAs"
Bold headline - I cannot make out the text, how senior Labour is the Labour named in this scandal?
According to the paper (what I can make out) the person who demanded the bribe was introduced to the developer by Sadiq Khan but the 4 politicians who were each due to receive "half a mill" are not named that I can see.
Seems to be pointing fingers at figures in Tower Hamlets, no names on that front page.
Bold headline - I cannot make out the text, how senior Labour is the Labour named in this scandal?
According to the paper (what I can make out) the person who demanded the bribe was introduced to the developer by Sadiq Khan but the 4 politicians who were each due to receive "half a mill" are not named that I can see.
Not Sadiq Khan but Shiria Khatun, deputy mayor of Tower Hamlets.
Businessman involved is Abdul Shukur 'Shuks' Khalisadar.
Considering the A50 negotiations, I'm reminded of the wise words of a Mr K. Rogers:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away Know when to run"
Having a read of the Politico take on the treaty between HMG and the EU, it was a superb example of illustrating where we folded, the EU folded, we walked away and both sides did a runner kicking the can down the road.
The Devil may be less in the detail then the spinning and clearly those supportive of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular have been anxious to paint the treaty as a great personal victory.
The view from the other side is the mirror image - it was instructive looking at the front pages of the Daily Express and the Irish Independent in my local Sainsburys. When both sides claim victory in a negotiation, it's either propaganda or ignorance of what has been agreed or very often both.
May has bought herself time and seen off a challenge in the short term. The prospect of no agreement remains and the Phase 2 negotiations have any numbers of traps and issues to resolve. The shape of our future relationship with the EU is becoming slightly clearer and pretty much what might have been expected - a deal that looks like a Canada style deal but won't be called that.
I don't think most Brexiters have any concept at all at the moment that we may have to pay to trade in the Single Market. What, we pay ? To many Brexiters we would almost do them a favour by trading with them.
Of course, that was also their opinion about paying the divorce bill. Remember, we owe them nothing, then 20bn max....
Will the EU require more money (eg £20bn) for the transition period?
Of course not. Transition is about going from one state to another.
The most practical analogy could be house rent. A tenant has given notice to the landlord that they will be leaving at the end of January. Come January, there new house is not ready.
Usually, a landlord will allow the tenant to stay a few months more at the same rent. [ It doesn't have to be - after all the contract has terminated ]
Of course, if this "extension" goes on for years and years, I bet the Landlord will not be so nice.
Bold headline - I cannot make out the text, how senior Labour is the Labour named in this scandal?
According to the paper (what I can make out) the person who demanded the bribe was introduced to the developer by Sadiq Khan but the 4 politicians who were each due to receive "half a mill" are not named that I can see.
Not Sadiq Khan but Shiria Khatun, deputy mayor of Tower Hamlets.
Businessman involved is Abdul Shukur 'Shuks' Khalisadar.
So.. more rattling of cages by leavers and remainers. D HERDSON'S comment at the end of his thread about it being easier to rejoin in the future was very perceptive.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Cabinet Brexit truce threatens to unravel as Leavers 'told concession to EU meaningless'
A row has broken out between Downing Street and senior Eurosceptics over claims Theresa May’s aides told Boris Johnson and Michael Gove that the key concession used to seal Friday’s deal with Europe was “meaningless” and “not binding”.
A senior Eurosceptic with knowledge of the discussions involving Cabinet ministers, including Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, told The Telegraph that No 10 had said a commitment to “full alignment” between the UK and the EU “doesn’t mean anything in EU law”.
A separate source confirmed that a specific Cabinet minister had been told by No 10 aides that the provision was “meaningless” and was simply included to secure Ireland’s approval for the document.
The claims are likely to infuriate the Irish government and threaten to unravel the apparent Cabinet consensus over the deal ahead of the key meeting of the European Council this week,
IMHO, "liberal" intolerance means such things as legislating against people who express illiberal beliefs, getting them fired from their jobs, organising boycotts of companies that employ them, and so on.
It's certainly intolerance, and objectionable regardless of their politics - I'm as much against someone being fired for having priuvate far-right views as I was against the Berufsverbot that saw left-winger banned from being postal workers and engine-drivers. The only exception is if the politics affect the work - you wouldn't keep a Dawkins fan on as a priest, or a BNP supporter as a community relations officer.
That's news? We've hearing about that one for weeks haven't we? Frankly, with the number of amendments, some defeats are inevitable.
The 'meaningful vote' amendment is nonsense on stilts. Britain leaving the EU is a function of the triggering of Article 50 under the Lisbon Treaty. Parliament can vote how it likes, but it cannot unilaterally affect how Article 50 operates. This amendment is an act of vanity on behalf of MPs who in most cases had no desire to reclaim the powers they shall soon inherit.
I think Clegg and Miliband have come out of the last GE looking a lot better than Farron has tbh.
EdM has learnt a little humility (and I always preferred him to his brother) but I see no evidence that Clegg has.
Farron's problem is that his deeply held beliefs in Christian Liberalism are rather niche.
Clegg is increasingly fucking obnoxious. These demands of his to reverse Brexit, despite the fact that he himself promised an in/out referendum in 2008. Where's the fucking democracy in that you quivering little weasel's prick?
I used to quite like him, with a large dash of amiable contempt for his effete europhilia. Now I despise him.
I thought at the time that the Lib Dems' promise had been offered in bad faith. Had there been a referendum, resulting in a majority to leave, Clegg would have come up with some argument why it didn't acppply.
Of course it was bad faith. It was a weaselly excuse to justify ratifying Lisbon without a referendum by pretending that he wanted a "real" one instead knowing full well that he was never going to be in a position to offer one.
Until he was in a position to offer one, once Cameron decided it should happen. Rather than saying "now the have our policy" he was instead horrified as now it might really happen.
Utterly reprehensible cynicism. The irony is that it completely backfired, had Lisbon not been ratified then not only would Article 50 not exist but its entirely possible we may have voted another way on an in/out vote.
Abso-fucking-lutely. The europhiles had 3 or 4 chances to call a vote, to take the NO, and learn from it: learn that voters wanted no more integration. But instead they plowed on, chortlingly, using lies, deception and evasions, and in the end they met the ultimate nemesis of all their dreams, the wipe-out of their entire lives and sense of purpose: Brexit.
One day it will make a fantastic history in sociopolitical psychology, maybe even a top-notch novel or movie.
Brexit is what happens when the elite, in a democracy, utterly ignores the demos for decades: knowingly, smugly, and sneeringly. In a true democracy (like the UK) you will reap your bitter rewards.
In terms of leaders’ satisfaction ratings, Ms May hit minus 30 (35 per cent satisfied, and 65 per cent dissatisfied) while Mr Corbyn had a rating of minus 12 (44 per cent satisfied and 56 per cent dissatisfied).
Asked who people would prefer to see as the next prime minister, the pair were effectively tied. Once “don’t knows” were redistributed, Ms May had the backing of 32 per cent and Mr Corbyn the support of 33 per cent of people.
On topic. Is there a single comment on this thread about the header, or is everybody agreed that the people who believe we will be better off are as silly (Thanks Charles) as the God botherers?
To be blunt, this thread has been a whole lot more interesting than the usual reheated trash on Brexit even if the level of theological discussion is unfortunately not high, for which I wonder if we should thank the egregious Professor Emeritus Dawkins.
Agreed
People who are on low paid, unskilled jobs should technically be better off, because the supply of labour is cut. But that relies on the economy continuing to grow, which is not certain in any way.
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
No-one seems to quite have the angle on attacking this deal. Is it Eurosceptics who've been shafted, or the Irish, the critique of it is in dissaray - that's a relatively happy position for May to deal with. If this storm in a teacup was confected, it's very clever.
"Well look, atheism is not the absence of belief, it is a belief in absence and therefore the absence of common values. It's a belief in there being no unifying truth. But if there is no unifying truth then, by its own standard, the belief that there is no unifying truth must also be bogus. If you declare that there is no unifying truth then it stands to reason that this declaration isn't true either. Ergo, atheism doesn't exist. And I refuse to believe in something that doesn't exist."
I've been thinking today. People took one look at the Brexiteers vision of a free trade future, saw chloronated tinned chicken and Donald Trump, and thought no thanks mate. There is no mandate for free trade at all. Suck it up losers. You lost.
Mr. Richard, it's curious how sometimes theists like to band together in disliking atheism, and are more willing to overlook inter-religious differences.
Can't speak for others, but personally I don't need a Bible to tell me murdering people is wrong. Or that shellfish are an abomination.
Also, don't wear green with grey.
What’s wrong with wearing green with grey?
Why does "wrong" come into it? It's a commandment!
If it's in the commandments, there will be a reason. The Israelites were a roving nomadic people living in poverty and on the edge of crisis. It is quite obvious that things like not eating pig (I adore pork myself, but it is scientific fact that the meat contains many more viruses and other nasties that survive cooking than other meats), to the prohibition of men having sex with men, harsh or not, were all things that contributed in some way to survival, to health and social cohesion in the face of destruction. You can argue that God handed down these commandments to the Israelites to help ensure their survival, or that the Israelites invented God to ensure their survival, depending on your persuasion.
Maybe all this is getting too much for me but did we not have a thread just 24 hours ago showing remain in the lead for the third month in a row or something? Confused from Dundee.
In the recent report by Prof Curtice he ascribes any decline in the LEAVE vote as lower likelihood to vote among LEAVE voters than anyone changing their minds.....
I've been thinking today. People took one look at the Brexiteers vision of a free trade future, saw chloronated tinned chicken and Donald Trump, and thought no thanks mate. There is no mandate for free trade at all. Suck it up losers. You lost.
What about the third world farmers that could be lifted out of poverty if circumstances were fairer.
That's news? We've hearing about that one for weeks haven't we? Frankly, with the number of amendments, some defeats are inevitable.
A defeat on this will feel totemic.
I’m sure it will, but it’s been expected for weeks, perhaps longer. Heck, I thought they’d already conceded the point without a vote, so it’s a bit of a yawn.
"Well look, atheism is not the absence of belief, it is a belief in absence and therefore the absence of common values. It's a belief in there being no unifying truth. But if there is no unifying truth then, by its own standard, the belief that there is no unifying truth must also be bogus. If you declare that there is no unifying truth then it stands to reason that this declaration isn't true either. Ergo, atheism doesn't exist. And I refuse to believe in something that doesn't exist."
To think, I actually voted for this guy.
Sometimes I think some theists just get far too creative when they try to ‘understand’ atheism. I know theists May take issue with simplistic dismissals by some atheists, but in turn some theists just seem so baffled by non belief that they tie themselves in logical knots, complicating what can be a pretty simple issue for many atheists.
If it's in the commandments, there will be a reason. The Israelites were a roving nomadic people living in poverty and on the edge of crisis. It is quite obvious that things like not eating pig (I adore pork myself, but it is scientific fact that the meat contains many more viruses and other nasties that survive cooking than other meats), to the prohibition of men having sex with men, harsh or not, were all things that contributed in some way to survival, to health and social cohesion in the face of destruction. You can argue that God handed down these commandments to the Israelites to help ensure their survival, or that the Israelites invented God to ensure their survival, depending on your persuasion.
Moses was raised as an Egyptian. Here are the 42 "Negative Confessions" or Laws of the Goddess Maat:
I have not committed sin. I have not committed robbery with violence. I have not stolen. I have not slain men or women. I have not stolen food. I have not swindled offerings. I have not stolen from God/Goddess. I have not told lies. I have not carried away food. I have not cursed. I have not closed my ears to truth. I have not committed adultery. I have not made anyone cry. I have not felt sorrow without reason. I have not assaulted anyone. I am not deceitful. I have not stolen anyone’s land. I have not been an eavesdropper. I have not falsely accused anyone. I have not been angry without reason. I have not seduced anyone’s wife. I have not polluted myself. I have not terrorized anyone. I have not disobeyed the Law. I have not been exclusively angry. I have not cursed God/Goddess. I have not behaved with violence. I have not caused disruption of peace. I have not acted hastily or without thought. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking. I have not worked evil. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds. I have not polluted the water. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds. I have not placed myself on a pedestal. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased. I have not taken food from a child. I have not acted with insolence. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess
Comments
On your first point, Taoism might be of interest to you as a point of comparison. However, I don't think it's quite fair to say Aquinas adopted natural moral law wholesale from Aristotle although he was undoubtedly strongly influenced by him.
Considering the A50 negotiations, I'm reminded of the wise words of a Mr K. Rogers:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run"
Having a read of the Politico take on the treaty between HMG and the EU, it was a superb example of illustrating where we folded, the EU folded, we walked away and both sides did a runner kicking the can down the road.
The Devil may be less in the detail then the spinning and clearly those supportive of the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular have been anxious to paint the treaty as a great personal victory.
The view from the other side is the mirror image - it was instructive looking at the front pages of the Daily Express and the Irish Independent in my local Sainsburys. When both sides claim victory in a negotiation, it's either propaganda or ignorance of what has been agreed or very often both.
May has bought herself time and seen off a challenge in the short term. The prospect of no agreement remains and the Phase 2 negotiations have any numbers of traps and issues to resolve. The shape of our future relationship with the EU is becoming slightly clearer and pretty much what might have been expected - a deal that looks like a Canada style deal but won't be called that.
However, the argument that social distinctions do not matter among believers, that a slave can be saved when his master is not, was certainly a subversion of the values of the Roman Empire.
She was also as I recall the one who suggested that Jesus as the Son of God was derived from Aten the Egyptian Sun God, because the names sound the same.
This megaton discovery that both the ancient Egyptians and ancient Israelites spoke English had somehow eluded professional scholars for millennia, and oddly doesn't seem to have impressed them now.
If he had narrowly said 'technology., then in certain fields at least he might have had a point. The rest of it is just tosh, before we even get to the absurd comparisons.
In Galatians 3:28 he said, more pertinently, that there 'is neither slave nor free...for you are all one in Christ Jesus'. That certainly could be taken as an indication that Christians cannot own slaves.
Unhelpfully it is contradicted by various passages in the Old Testament (Exodus 21 springs to mind) which say slavery is acceptable, although the caveats as to when it applies, the ongoing rights of slaves and rules on manumission after set periods tended to get mysteriously left out of pro-slavery rhetoric.
The problem is that like any religious text that wasn't written in one go and even some that are (the Koran, the Conmunist Manifesto) the Bible is confused and contradictory reflecting changing views and social norms. That allows people to quote mine and claim divine authority for whatever they have already decided to do for other reasons.
Of course, that was also their opinion about paying the divorce bill. Remember, we owe them nothing, then 20bn max....
Unless you can show they considered these actual virtues, rather than concepts, they don't necessarily support your case.
Why ? Because Academies are external customers and they can be charged the market rate. It's up to the Academy to choose whether they continue to take the service from the local authority or find another provider but if they have eschewed local authority control they can't expect a discounted rate for the services provided.
The Academy can sign up with a different set of providers and get a better service for what they pay than they get from the local authority. It's their money and their decision.
But here's a specific illustration: the Greeks (rightly) thought the Iliad was their greatest work of literature. The climactic scene of the poem is the one where Achilles (Greek, and the hero of the poem) takes pity on Priam, his enemy and the father of Hector who killed Achilles' lover Patroclus, and gives him Hector's body to take back to Troy for burial. The whole thing is about pity and forgiveness (by Achilles of the killing of Patroclus, by Priam of the killing of and desecration of Hector) and makes no sense whatever unless the audience finds those things admirable. If they didn't they would presumably be asking in bewilderment, WTAF? Why doesn't he do the old bloke in?
Although I think the huge amount of treasure Priam offered may have helped. Most Greeks would have been bewildered to find that somebody turned down a huge sum of cash.
Finally I would point out that to medieval Christians it was Hector not Achilles who was the noble character.
For example, I'm fine with UKIP supporters - one of my closest friends has voted UKIP. If he was a neo-Nazi, however, I'd rethink the friendship.
I agree with Cyclefree that humanism in its various forms has borrowed concepts of good and bad from religion, without accepting the idea of afterlife, a chap with a white beard who you can pray to, and that sort of thing. It would be odd if a longstanding religion had no good ideas to adopt. That doesn't mean that one thinks religion overall to be necessarily a good thing - if it's delusional, as I think it is, then it seems a pity to take one's lead from it.
Papal Legate Amalric
Besides those 'values' have been so warped by the centuries of organised religion that it is impossible to tell what is original Christian values and what is not.
'Patroclus, do not be offended if you learn, down in the halls of Hades, that I let his father have godlike Hector back. The ransom he paid me was a worthy one and I will see that you receive your proper share of it.'
"Priam: Respect the gods, Achilles, and show mercy towards me, remembering your own father, for I am more to be pitied than he, since I have brought myself to do what no other man on earth would do, I have lifted to my lips the hand of the man who killed my sons.’
His words had moved Achilles to tears at the thought of his own father, and taking the old man’s hands he set him gently from him, while both were lost in memory. Priam remembered man-killing Hector, and wept aloud, at Achilles’ feet, while Achilles wept for his father Peleus and for Patroclus once more, and the sound of their lament filled the hut."
which is about pity and sympathy and mercy.
Though if you look at Hitler's record devoid of morality he did create the biggest European empire since the Romans (If you include client states like Spain and Italy) and revived the German economy through mass production of cars and armaments which Germany built on after the War to become the largest economy in Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5162403/Far-Right-extremist-Googled-terrorist.html
It is a good job these people are so dense.
The point which we are both in danger of losing sight of, interesting though this discussion is in its own right, is that this isn't a great example to prove your point. If the Greeks had prized pity, he would have given in to Priam's tears, not the orders of Zeus or the ransom. This is in fact the way the makers of the film Troy played it. But that's not the slant Homer puts on it.
There are Greek ideas in the New Testament, particularly in John. The most obvious borrowings are ideas about the conflict of dark and light, although I've always found parallels between the Cyclops and Jesus as the Good Shepherd intriguing as well. I think however it's a bit of a stretch to see the links between the militarism of Greek culture and the pacifism of early (please note choice of words) Christianity.
I enjoyed that discussion - I hope you have as well. Please excuse me if I have to break it off now as this is the only chance I'll have for a decent night's sleep in about three weeks.
I wish everyone a good evening.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
This is the person who immediately chose to break his big campaign promise in 2010.
After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.
One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.”
The official said that once the UK is out of the single market and customs union in March 2019, there could be no replication of the terms of the current trading relationship, or anything close to it, and no special treatment.
“It is not just an indication of some strange rigid principle. It is because things won’t work,” he said.
“First and foremost we need to stick to this balance of rights and obligations, otherwise we will be undermining our own customs union and single market. Second, we cannot upset relations with other third countries,” the official said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/09/global-powers-lobby-to-stop-special-brexit-deal-for-uk
Until he was in a position to offer one, once Cameron decided it should happen. Rather than saying "now the Tories have our policy" he was instead horrified as now it might really happen.
Utterly reprehensible cynicism. The irony is that it completely backfired, had Lisbon not been ratified then not only would Article 50 not exist but its entirely possible we may have voted another way on an in/out vote.
All these 'sources close to x' leaks seem pretty pointless - the way things have gone so far people making random, ill informed predictions of what would occur, and what we would be told about problems, and last minute deals and all the rest, have a decent chance of being right at the start without listening to any of these no doubt incredibly important leaks which always say how bad things are. Maybe things will go very badly, but 'sources close to x' seem pretty useless as far as indicators go, except in creating newspaper headlines.
Project Fear 4.5
I wonder how many people voted for Brexit simply to punish him for insulting their intelligence in those debates with Farage.
Leading Tories join bid to help force ‘meaningful vote’ on final deal before ministers formally enact Britain’s departure from EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/09/theresa-may-faces-first-brexit-defeat-parliament-rebels
This is the equivalent of the plumber sucking their teeth and saying "ooh, can't do that guv, the boss wouldn't like it"
Next comes "well maybe but I can help you, but it'll cost you mind"
Logically, [ if the Irish border extension to the UK as a whole implies ], UK will have to pay proportionally more than Norway because between Norway and Sweden , it is a hard border for goods.
All the article says is "there are most favoured nation clauses in some if the EU's FTAs"
Businessman involved is Abdul Shukur 'Shuks' Khalisadar.
The most practical analogy could be house rent. A tenant has given notice to the landlord that they will be leaving at the end of January. Come January, there new house is not ready.
Usually, a landlord will allow the tenant to stay a few months more at the same rent. [ It doesn't have to be - after all the contract has terminated ]
Of course, if this "extension" goes on for years and years, I bet the Landlord will not be so nice.
Interesting read.
A row has broken out between Downing Street and senior Eurosceptics over claims Theresa May’s aides told Boris Johnson and Michael Gove that the key concession used to seal Friday’s deal with Europe was “meaningless” and “not binding”.
A senior Eurosceptic with knowledge of the discussions involving Cabinet ministers, including Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, told The Telegraph that No 10 had said a commitment to “full alignment” between the UK and the EU “doesn’t mean anything in EU law”.
A separate source confirmed that a specific Cabinet minister had been told by No 10 aides that the provision was “meaningless” and was simply included to secure Ireland’s approval for the document.
The claims are likely to infuriate the Irish government and threaten to unravel the apparent Cabinet consensus over the deal ahead of the key meeting of the European Council this week,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/cabinet-brexit-truce-threatens-unravel-leavers-told-concession/
A leadership challenge could be the price the Prime Minister pays for a deeply dubious Brussels agreement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/tory-brexiteers-privately-furious-theresa-mays-deal-eu/
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/939627718102212610
But not that one
I think the amendment will fail.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/939620275355836416
Con 37 (nc) Lab 40 (-2)
Changes since end of September
In terms of leaders’ satisfaction ratings, Ms May hit minus 30 (35 per cent satisfied, and 65 per cent dissatisfied) while Mr Corbyn had a rating of minus 12 (44 per cent satisfied and 56 per cent dissatisfied).
Asked who people would prefer to see as the next prime minister, the pair were effectively tied. Once “don’t knows” were redistributed, Ms May had the backing of 32 per cent and Mr Corbyn the support of 33 per cent of people.
Fieldwork: 5-8 December
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-uk-government-ignoring-issues-health-education-eu-talks-latest-a8100231.html
The sectors who will probably take the biggest hit are the high pay, low skill sectors. ie financial services, insurance, property.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/tim-farron-liberalism-is-eating-itself-but-christianity-can-save-it/119921.htm
"Well look, atheism is not the absence of belief, it is a belief in absence and therefore the absence of common values. It's a belief in there being no unifying truth. But if there is no unifying truth then, by its own standard, the belief that there is no unifying truth must also be bogus. If you declare that there is no unifying truth then it stands to reason that this declaration isn't true either. Ergo, atheism doesn't exist. And I refuse to believe in something that doesn't exist."
To think, I actually voted for this guy.
I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men or women.
I have not stolen food.
I have not swindled offerings.
I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
I have not told lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not cursed.
I have not closed my ears to truth.
I have not committed adultery.
I have not made anyone cry.
I have not felt sorrow without reason.
I have not assaulted anyone.
I am not deceitful.
I have not stolen anyone’s land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have not falsely accused anyone.
I have not been angry without reason.
I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
I have not polluted myself.
I have not terrorized anyone.
I have not disobeyed the Law.
I have not been exclusively angry.
I have not cursed God/Goddess.
I have not behaved with violence.
I have not caused disruption of peace.
I have not acted hastily or without thought.
I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
I have not worked evil.
I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
I have not polluted the water.
I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
I have not taken food from a child.
I have not acted with insolence.
I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess