SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Has anyone read a book by David Owen, called "The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power"?
Found this further gem of Catholic wisdom from a Father Gabriele Amorth. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/31/-devil-atheism-priest-insists-pope-francis-did-perform-exorcism_n_3364818.html
Quote:But in an interview with The Sunday Times, Amorth remains adamant an exorcism was carried out and appears to suggest the ritual will help balance the growth of atheism.He said: “The Pope’s exorcism is a splendid sign because one of the main causes of today’s atheism is that people don’t believe in the Devil any more. But Jesus said: ‘Who is not with me is with Satan.’ If you don’t believe in Satan, Satan has got you in his pocket.Sounds like he is suggesting atheism is the work of the horned red dude, with goats legs, a tail and barbecue fork.And to think I thought my atheist view came about because I see no sound reason to believe in supernatural entities. Can't argue with the logic of an exorcist. Looks like I'm gonna have to re-evaluate my reasoning on the subject, lol.Maybe Charles Baudelaire was onto something.
For me this thread is, in essence about the belief that many religious people hold, that morality does not exist without a belief in a creator. The popes slip up, publicly exposed the uncomfortable fact for biblical believers, that there are plenty of good people past and present who do not believe in a biblical creator.
No probs JS, I got the humour (hope mine was not missed). But you are right, it is a seriously taxing issue, one that is always a potential threat to life and limb, as we see all to often.A couple of weeks ago I got a Sunday visit from two Jehovah Witnesses. I was polite and courteous, we had a discussion about a few issues and exchanged literature. I gave them a copy of the Thatcher Standard and they gave an Awake and Watchtower. On reading some of the stuff in their publications I was nearly floored by the child like expression of views they contained. I have read some of their stuff in the past, but the simplemindedness never fails to throw me, even scare me. How can you argue with the blind acceptance of "biblical truth"?
J Surman wrote:I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting bored to death by God so they'll soon be able to add one more to the total.I get where you're coming from JS, but the religious zealots are far from bored with the likes of us.
Found this interesting and humorous blog. Judging by this stuff, we do not want to get on the wrong side of the all powerful creator dude. Not sure about anyone else but the wine and wafer is starting to look pretty damn tempting, lol.http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
Ooops! Seems like he got it wrong, and us atheist, socialists are still going to hell. Oh well, it was good while it lasted, I think.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/27/vatican-confirms-atheists-still-going-to-hell_n_3341368.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Hey, I just heard something quite hilarious. I am watching the late edition of the "10 ' o' clock show". Ken Livingstone is, dare I say, debating some wannabe tory politician, I think Toby Young from The Spectator. Something ridiculous about, who is better, Cameron or Miliband.Ken came out with a gem, " Ed Miliband is a genuine socialist."Anyone ever heard of a genuine socialist who wants to, "save capitalism from itself."?
So essentially, "progressive capitalism" is capitalism that allows a minority of people to own and control the majority of the worlds resources, and get stinking rich in the process, but at the same time has room for a rather vague and ill defined concept of social justice or fairness.So it's capitalism then?I bet he'll sell a few books to Labourites who keep looking for something positive to believe in. Some people will read any old crap.
AdamI was wondering if you had any idea as to what this Sainsbury bloke means by "progressive capitalism"?Could it be linked to what "Red" Ed Miliband was spouting about, "responsible capitalism", with it's "predators and producers"?Check out this little brown nugget of wisdom from "Red" Ed, found in the thoroughly played for laughs, link below, "I want to save capitalism from itself,".I expect there will be many a teary eyed capitalist, sleeping sounder in their luxury hotel rooms knowing the likes of "Red" Ed is on a mission to make capitalism care, should he ever get a go on, The Boom and Bust Merry-Go-Round.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9544522/Ed-Miliband-interview-I-want-to-save-the-capitalism-my-father-hated.html
Brian wrote:I have yet to see any communication or statement to the effect that in future you intend using the democratic procedures available in pursuance of a complaint on the moderation of the forum. Yours For Positive Socialist ActivityBrianBrian wrote:I'm not talking about "guarantees" wrapped up in an ambiguous generalisation but a specific statement of intent to use the democratic procedures available to all users.Yours For Positive Socialist ActivityBrianThis for me at least, shows the area of disagreement aimed at Steve. His frightful, utterly outrageous behaviour on this forum. He and several others dared to question moderation, dared to highlight the flaws. How dare they flout rules and regulations in trying to highlight inconsistencies and problems. (deliberate sarcasm on display)I admit that sometimes things got out of hand, but as some have pointed out on other party forums, there were two sides at each others throat. From this mess something positive has come about. The report into forum moderation has accepted failings and come up with some solutions. It is a potential workable guide.But if no one had bothered to highlight the failings in the first place, and simply followed the rules and regulations then nothing would ever have changed. Socialists of all people should be aware of this fact. History is littered with the corpses of those who saw problems/flaws and stood up to highlight and challenge them. Going against the rules and regulations. We as socialists stand up to highlight the failings of capitalism and challenge it. Rising to the challenge and confrontation is in our socialist DNA.Now I find a person who once supported a change in moderation, who saw the problems, and took it upon himself to offer an alternative, a socialist alternative, is criticising another member for daring to challenge the status quo in the first place. For not following the rules 100%.What does Steve have to do? Does he have to perform a task that no other forum member or socialist must do, or for that matter is capable of doing. Provide a 100%, airtight guarantee to never, ever fall foul of forum rules? Who can give such a guarantee?What more can a socialist do other than to apologise and state that they will abide by good comradely behaviour? Do some want Steve to cut his wrists and sign in blood, a document that does not exist?The party is of course free to decide on rules and regulations of conduct, but they must be applicable to all members, not just those some have taken a personal dislike to and decided have flouted their code of conduct.
Ed wrote:Steve, personnally I thought your statement to be a genuine and sincere apology and I'm sure others will as well.I only hope others will heed Ed's words.
EdThere is constructive criticism and discussion, then there are unhelpful slurs. I think Steve is ok with party members discussing his request to rejoin, but it is unpleasant and distracting to see little inflammatory remarks that have little to add to the debate.I thought such remarks are part of the reason we are here in the first place?
Hi EdIn my opinion, those pursuing this unhelpful discourse on SPintcom are just as guilty of continuing the squabbles they claim are so harmful.Reminds me of the old saying, "There's none so blind as those who will not see."
Hi EdWhat is it you want here? Are you goading Steve into an argument, even though he has stated he wants an end to the squabbles?At the end of the day we are socialists. We want the same things. But it does not mean we must all be best of friends. This form of communication is fraught with pitfalls, that can so easily lead to arguments and acrimony. I am no angel, I have taken the wrong path with a few on this forum. Can I promise it will not happen again, of course I can't. No one can, we can't predict the future.Steve has had a decent result in his local elections. We should not let personal squabbles get in the way of positive socialist activity.Time to put this mess behind us, once and for all.
