The Political Thread

[Sideshow Bob]

^
Where is the LIKE button on this forum....
Can we get one.....Please...

Cheers

[Eric Plumrose]

Not sure I get this Eric. Are you saying that Christian theologians are guilty of hubris towards Judaism but should nevertheless dump the entire Old testament to avoid the nasty bits and hence resolve the identified issues?

Star Trek? Are you referring to a religious amalgam or Spock's Judaic based Vulcan salute?

Sorry, Prodigal. I'll usually give up if I can't articulate something to my satisfaction by the third or fourth attempt of writing. Last night? Just one of those times I decided to post and be damned.

What I was trying to say is that it's Christian hubris that has created the kind of problem Boyd is addressing. He quotes several 'horrific portraits of God in Scripture' yet glosses over the rather salient fact they're all taken from the Tanakh (i.e. the 'Old Testament') – the God of which is not the same as the New Testament's. As a Christian, I presume you accept both Gods as being one and the same despite the former making good on his threats while the latter . . . simply makes threats.

As for Star Trek . . . well. The Original Series has effectively been overwritten by the franchise it spawned; that, despite the various spin-offs remaining so intrinsically linked to the adventures of Kirk and co. The more obsessive Trekkies try their best to reconcile the various discontinuities of an already inconsistent and contradictory narrative; a narrative complicated further by a reboot that's little more than a mish-mash of tropes and characters but with a Star Wars aesthetic.

[TordelBack]

Apologies if you read my rant as directed at you, Prodigal - I know theocracy is most definitely not your game.  They were intemperate if heart-felt remarks, and inspired by those who see intelligent theological argument as somehow better than the old dumb stuff, and thus more suited to be a guide to morality in modern governance.  To my ear all theological arguments sound like we do on here when debating how many monkeys-in-fezs there should be in Dredd's chain, or which cheese is better for cleaning your iPad screen.  As I completely reject the premises on which these arguments are based, I find it hard to deal with the idea that they should affect my life.  Which they frequently do. 

[The Prodigal]

Not sure I get this Eric. Are you saying that Christian theologians are guilty of hubris towards Judaism but should nevertheless dump the entire Old testament to avoid the nasty bits and hence resolve the identified issues?

Star Trek? Are you referring to a religious amalgam or Spock's Judaic based Vulcan salute?

Sorry, Prodigal. I'll usually give up if I can't articulate something to my satisfaction by the third or fourth attempt of writing. Last night? Just one of those times I decided to post and be damned.

What I was trying to say is that it's Christian hubris that has created the kind of problem Boyd is addressing. He quotes several 'horrific portraits of God in Scripture' yet glosses over the rather salient fact they're all taken from the Tanakh (i.e. the 'Old Testament') – the God of which is not the same as the New Testament's. As a Christian, I presume you accept both Gods as being one and the same despite the former making good on his threats while the latter . . . simply makes threats.

As for Star Trek . . . well. The Original Series has effectively been overwritten by the franchise it spawned; that, despite the various spin-offs remaining so intrinsically linked to the adventures of Kirk and co. The more obsessive Trekkies try their best to reconcile the various discontinuities of an already inconsistent and contradictory narrative; a narrative complicated further by a reboot that's little more than a mish-mash of tropes and characters but with a Star Wars aesthetic.

Gotcha Eric.

There have been times in my life where I have steered very close to your position believe it or not. I am no stranger to both faith and doubt and this area of OT/NT has been one of my battle-grounds.

[The Prodigal]

Apologies if you read my rant as directed at you, Prodigal - I know theocracy is most definitely not your game.  They were intemperate if heart-felt remarks, and inspired by those who see intelligent theological argument as somehow better than the old dumb stuff, and thus more suited to be a guide to morality in modern governance.  To my ear all theological arguments sound like we do on here when debating how many monkeys-in-fezs there should be in Dredd's chain, or which cheese is better for cleaning your iPad screen.  As I completely reject the premises on which these arguments are based, I find it hard to deal with the idea that they should affect my life.  Which they frequently do.

Tordel no apologies are necessary. You are a most eloquent and keenly intelligent fellow (not that you need an endorsement from me) who challenges my beliefs where they need to be challenged. Your opinion on these things and (in the past) what 2000AD goodies I should read as a relative newbie have been most welcome and I am grateful for them.

Tbh I have friends in the "real world" who would dismiss my beliefs with a far more agricultural turn of phrase.

[TordelBack]

Turn that other cheek Prodigal baby, I got another slap right here!   

You are a fine advert for your faith, Prodigal.  These days I wouldn't seek to challenge anyone's beliefs (since even the most ardent rationalists operate with world views that are riddled with the irrational) right up to the point where those beliefs include a conviction that others should be made to think and do likewise. 

For myself, I believe that all public policy should be evidence-based, which by definition eliminates all faith-based input, and where addressing a question that is really about prevailing mores should be open to debate with a strong presumption in the favour of freedom of thought, word and deed.  It's about as naive a position as most religions aspire to, so I'll have to get in the queue for the stone-throwing.

[The Prodigal]

Turn that other cheek Prodigal baby, I got another slap right here!   

You are a fine advert for your faith, Prodigal.  These days I wouldn't seek to challenge anyone's beliefs (since even the most ardent rationalists operate with world views that are riddled with the irrational) right up to the point where those beliefs include a conviction that others should be made to think and do likewise. 

For myself, I believe that all public policy should be evidence-based, which by definition eliminates all faith-based input, and where addressing a question that is really about prevailing mores should be open to debate with a strong presumption in the favour of freedom of thought, word and deed.  It's about as naive a position as most religions aspire to, so I'll have to get in the queue for the stone-throwing.

I found myself nodding sage like at that Tordel. I am very fond of freedom of thought, word and deed and recognise religion's often oppressive presence there.

Btw I should thank you for a very recent fine read. I departed all domestic produced comics for years and having returned to the fold find that there are enormous gaps in my knowledge both 2000AD wise and broader a-field. I saw your  endorsement of Mezolith in a thread and picked it up. Beautiful stuff so genuine thanks for that.

[Hawkmumbler]

So. No Syria campaign. 'Looks around nervously' Well. I'm OK with that t least.

[The Prodigal]

So. No Syria campaign. 'Looks around nervously' Well. I'm OK with that t least.

Me too hawk. I was actually quite taken back by the UK's Parliamentary stance-good to see the brakes being applied.

So very often when I read sabre rattling posts about no need for UN approval for military action etc I genuinely see Charley's War and Pat Mills commentaries flash before my eyes.

[Old Tankie]

Oh! there'll be a Syrian campaign all right, it just won't involve the British (apparently!!).  Are we really supposed to believe that GCHQ in Britain, and the extensive British surveillance facilities in Cyprus, are not helping the campaign?!  And do we really, really, really believe that there are no British special forces on the ground in Syria, helping to locate possible targets?  Oh! look!  there's a pink pig flying!!!

Don't you just love Parliamentary democracies, you always get the truth!!

[Hawkmumbler]

Ah I don't care. I keep my nose out of politics mostly, but I just don't want our lads being dragged into another wild goose chase by the US.

[Richmond Clements]

Ah I don't care.

And that right there is what's wrong.

[Frank]

Oh! there'll be a Syrian campaign all right, it just won't involve the British (apparently!!).  Are we really supposed to believe that GCHQ in Britain, and the extensive British surveillance facilities in Cyprus, are not helping the campaign?!  And do we really, really, really believe that there are no British special forces on the ground in Syria, helping to locate possible targets?  Oh! look!  there's a pink pig flying!!!

Don't you just love Parliamentary democracies, you always get the truth!!

If Bush and Blair had finished the 9/11 memorial service by announcing that - instead of invading Afghanistan then Iraq - they were going to send a dedicated team of 12 hard bastards into the wilds of Afghanistan/Pakistan and tell them not to come back unless one of them was carrying Osama Bin Laden's head in their kit bag, absolutely everyone in both countries would have been fine with that. Everyone would still be fine with that course of action today, had it been taken.

Even if whatever the US seems determined to get itself into in Syria proves to be an unqualified success, I don't think anyone in this country will look back and regret not being a major part of it. Whatever the reason for UK conventional forces sitting this one out (and I suspect it might have as much to do with us being skint as the 2015 General Election), kudos to Dave and Nick for not employing the fanatic zeal and chicanery of Tony Blair to make sure we do the right thing.

[Hawkmumbler]

Ah I don't care.

And that right there is what's wrong.

Dude, the population of the earth is 7 Billion. There will always be conflict, deaths and tragedies. Filtering money into a campaign while our country goes down the fucking gutter is what's been going on the last decade. Do you know haw hard it was for me to get a first job? It took me 4 years of constant searching because there was fuck all in my home town. No work what so ever. We should be focusing on our own issues not solving those of others, I have a right to live as well. If the yanks want to get involved in every damn genocide that occures wether it involves them or not, by all means, let them, they are a world power, we are not (anymore). Fact is we don't have the money, and after the right ball's up that was Iraq I frankly just want us to stay out of it.

[Frank]

Do you know haw hard it was for me to get a first job? It took me 4 years of constant searching because there was fuck all in my home town. No work what so ever. We should be focusing on our own issues not solving those of others, I have a right to live as well.

If there's an easy answer to whether I should care more about you not being able to get on in life and a Syrian kid being slaughtered by their own government, I can't think of it. Like you say though, Hawkmungous, it's a big old world - why I should just shrug my shoulders and acquiesce to genocide because the victims have a different postcode to my own also escapes me. If you want to reduce it to a matter of borders and governments, we live in different countries to each other.

I'd still care if someone decided to dose you with nerve agents, I'm just not sure that bombarding Leeds (?) with tomahawk missiles from a submarine off the North East coast of England would be the best way of helping you out.