I assume you are being witty, but in these peculiar times of fake news and ignorance one can never assume anything.
So: 'suffer', can mean, and does in this instance, 'to allow'.
408 posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
It depends on whose 'rule' you listen to, but it depends even more about what we decide 'love' is all about.
As far as Jesus' teaching goes, it seems pretty clearly to boil down to 'those who put themselves in hell are those who refuse to love'. With the rider that it is important to be wise about what love is.
Without being an exhaustive definition a fairly reasonable one is provided by Paul in 1Corinthians 13.1-13; and for an actual example, the life and teaching of Jesus is taken to be definitive by Christians, but plenty of other examples are available - hopefully even amongst our own families and friends.
Jesus' used 'Gehenna' - the rubbish dump outside the city walls of Jerusalem, where the fires were alwsys burning - as an evocative illustration of what happens to what is not fit for life in ybe presence of yhe source of life and love.
It seems that whatever label we walk under - self-imposed or otherwise - we all have a chance to find out and put into practice the things that really matter and transform mere existance into life 'in all its fullness' - as the good book puts it. If 'hell' exists, it is a self-imposed consequence, no one to blame but ourselves.
Well, I've checked and I'm definitely a Christian and if this statement is intended to be taken seriously then it is utter bollocks.
First of all there's this issue: All/most/many/some/a few Christians enjoy... Take your pick, which in reality do you suspect is closest to the truth? I've been a card carrying Christian for over forty years and have mixed with Christians around the world - I reckon 'some' would probably cover the reality, maybe even tending towards 'a few'.
The there's the theological question: Are 'heathens, atheists and sinners who share this world... all going to Hell?' Short answer: No, not if we take seriously Jesus teaching. To start with, we're all 'sinners', so no one is ruled out of a toasty afterlife, and see below as to why being a 'heathen' or 'atheist' is rather beside the point.
If we change the criteria to: Are arrogant, selfish, greedy, violent and hate fuelled people who deny the place of love in their lives, and deny it to others also going to Hell? Well, it certainly doesn't look good for people like that; the flag we fly under, whether 'Christian' 'Satanist', 'Atheist', or simply 'Human being' doesn't really matter.
I'd still love to know what the fake nun was doing dropping a goats head outside Weatherspoons was all about. The symbolic significance is a bit opaque.
Obviously the EU will remain a scapegoat, in or out, as long as UK politicians and members of yhe public refuse to take responsibility for the internal problems we face.
As it happens the vote to become members of the EEC, etc. was nothing like the farce of the Brexit referendum. In fact in comparison it wad a model of probity and gave a more usable outcome.
But the EU is not the issue, as far as I am concerned. The issue is our failure ad a nation to govern ourselves properly, such that we end up having to deal with a failure of good governance called 'Brexit'.
Because it is all so pointless, and beside the point. The 'EU', whatever it's faults, is not our problem. Our problems are internal, but joy of joys we have this thing called the 'EU' which makes the most wonderful scapegoat, right on our doorstep. Everything is the 'EU's fault! If only we left everything would be fine.
It's absolute rubbish.
You're right, I really don't mind if 'Britain' leaves the 'EU'; in a considered, planned manner, with a clear understanding of why, what the costs will be, and what the benefits will be, and in a way that engages the support of a decent majority of the population (something at least approaching a consensus), so that the nay sayers have to acknowledge that the nation as a whole generally supports the move.
But 'Brexit' is none of the above. I'm not against 'leaving'; I think that as things stand we are probably better off remaining in, and getting our own house in order; and I am against 'Brexit', which on all the evidence to date is doing nothing but harm to this country.
Codejunky, your paranoia is showing. One common theme of many who favour 'Brexit' is their determination that everything they are unhappy about -- EU, the state of the nation, the fiasco of 'Brexit' -- that it is all someone else's fault.
In reality the EU is a joint effort of nation states (it is not a monolithic construct); the state of the 'British' nation is the responsibility of all of it's inhabitants (the EU is a sideshow); and 'Brexit' is simply a turd that no amount of polishing is going to improve. 'Brexit' is a stinking excretion by a nation that is being poorly led, and is hamstrung by it's own internal contradictions, aggravated by ignorance, racism, and generations of entrenched social injustice driven by greed and entitlement.
Leaving the 'EU' or staying in is, in the end, almost an irrelevance to the realities of Britain's besetting problems. It's rather like people who emigrate and then wonder why they are still miserable, perhaps are even more miserable, because they lack the insight to understand that they have merely taken all their baggage - the things that really are making them miserable - with them to their new home. They have completely failed to address the actual causes of their distress, i.e. not their location, but themselves.
Your reasons for wanting to leave, well founded or not, do not constitute a plan - they are effectively wishful thinking so far as the actualitie of our situation is concerned.
Nothing in this life is 'perfect', and that certainly applies to the EU. The point of belonging to the EU is a very old one - simply symbolised by a bundle of sticks bound together contrasted with a single stick. Who knows whether the 'EU' has a future - that is up to its members.
As for 'Britain' going it alone, well it will have some kind of future. On the strength of present performance not a particularly healthy one: there is no clear vision for the nation as a whole that everyone can cleave to with some integrity and hope, and what vision there is is largely that of self-serving charlatans out to enrich and aggrandise themselves, with little to no regard for the well being of those most effected by their vainglory and greed.
Britain going it alone is certainly an option, and could be a decent if hard option given the reality of world politics and economics. It is very unfortunate that 'Brexit' has been chosen as teh way of doing it, because 'Brexit means Brexit' and we all know that that means that 'Brexit' either means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, or it means nothing at all - which is summed up well in the present state of things. Truly it is a Humpty-Dumpty departure and Humpty has already fallen off the wall, and no one has any plausible plan for putting Humpty back together again.
If it's any consolation I don't particularly care whether we leave or remain. What I do care about is how and why we make such a decision. The how and why of Brexit has been abjectly poor, the evidence for that is all around us - including our discussion.
Brexit is most likely to prove a very poor choice - there is no evidence to suggest otherwise cand plenty to support that assertion. At no stage has anyone supporting 'Brexit' presented a cogent and substantiated argument as to why leaving in the manner that we are is going to result in a situation that is equal to or better than remaining and having a seat at the table.
Added to which the chief proponents of Brexit don't seem to care that they have no useful plan. Presumably they hope that at best they will become the new leaders of the new regime and reap their rewards, and at worst they will be free to plunder the wreckage. Either way there is no evidence whatsoever that any of them give a shit about the wellbeing of the nation and its many inhabitants - especially the most vulnerable to economic and social crisis.
And as for handling the 'referendum', as has already been said many times, any fundamental change is normally and sensibly handled by: a. offering an 'advisory' referendum (which this one technically was except the politicians decided to overlook that constitutional legality), with a view to using the result as a means of assessing how to proceed, and b. when any decisive vote us taken (whether in the referendum or later) that a 'super-majority' is required to avoid the divisive mess we are now in with the country split down the middle and riven by entrenched positions.
This is all basic stuff to the managers and organisers of countless groups and companies, but apoarently beyond the wit and/or beneath the status of our political class, who presume to serve us, but seem mostly interested in serving their own interests.
But what we do have is being a relatively small country now outside our immediate neighbour's 'club', and also the largest trading bloc on the planet. We will be giving up our influence and benefits for a 'mess of pottage' indeed.
No doubt we will find our way, but the world is not the world where Britain once called the shots, looting and slaughtering it's way to wealth and influence. Instead we will join all the other middling nations who have to take what they can get from the big players, and from each other. Nothing wrong with that at all, except it is probably not quite what many 'Leavers' and 'Brexiteers' have in mind.
And there will be an immediate and painful cost to the nation, which as usual will be borne by those least able to cope. So much for 'social justice' and the 'well being' of the nation. Mind you, no doubt the poor deserve their poverty, they clearly lack what it takes to succeed in the 'survival of the fittest', 'dog eat dog' world of those who are so keen to have a 'clean break', whatever the cost.
You're right, there is no consensus, because of the incompetent and self-serving way the whole thing has been handled.
If the UK were a business the CEO, and the whole Board, would long ago have been sacked for their complete mishandling of the situation.
We are, in fact, reaping the consequences of years of political cowardice, inaction and complacency; not over the EU, but over the management of this country. The EU is largely a very convenient scapegoat and distraction that politicians and other stirrers have used quite shamelessly to excuse and justify their deeds, or lack of them.
And now, in a crass and bungled attempt to deal with the internal politics of his own party Cameron leads us into the present clown-show. You really couldn't write the script, no one would believe it - although for everyone on the sidelines it makes great entertainment.
In or out of the EU, the 'EU', for all it's faults, is not our major problem - we are, as a nation and as a political entity. And 'Brexit' has exposed the truth - we are a joke, a whining bunch who refuse to take responsibility for the mess we are making, who look everywhere but ourselves to cast the blame.
Inside or outside the EU the only people who are going to fix 'Britain' are us, but as it stands if 'Brexit' is an example of our present quality as a nation then it doesn't bode well.
Codejunky, I don't think you understand what I said at all, or you choose not to.
It's not about 'majorities', it's about how people live and work together when they disagree. A very small majority merely emphasises the need for consensus.
The referendum and 'Brexit' are a classic example of how NOT to do democracy and how NOT to implement a fundamental change.
So, in codejunky's world, the half who voted for the status quo, and all the rest who didn't express an view for whatever reason (including not being allowed) magically vanish. A tiny majority is exactly the same as a massive majority in codejunky's mind.
Please don't ever go into politics - there are far too many like you there already. People who don't know what 'public service' means, who think 'my way or the highway' is the only way, and who would happily nuke the enemy because 'they deserve it'.
No, codejunky, we really don't need more people with those kinds of attitudes towards other human beings, and how we all live together. We have far too many of them already - and look at the state we're in!
But there is a GUI, several in fact! There is a choice, and has been for years, but for those who like 'casting spells', that is also an effective option.
But it's not about the UI, it's about the fact that the spell, however it is unleashed, reliably updates not just the OS but every bit of software that has an update issued.
As I said, updating/upgrading in a sane and reliable way is possible. Perhaps MS should try harder. :-P
It's only an annoyance if what you have come to expect (from PP, or whatever) isn't what happens when you use Foo. But then Foo isn't PP (or whatever), and if it does what you want in it's own way perfectly adequately then that is really a problem for you, not Foo.
Adaptation is the key to survival in the real world -- adapt or die.
Can I do what I need to do using Foo - Yes/No?
Can I learn to do what I need to do using Foo - Yes/No?
Am I willing to change in order to do what I need to do using Foo - Yes/No?
Is it worth my time and/or money changing in order to use Foo to do what I need to do - Yes/No?
'Its full of job justifiers, desparate to appear like they are doing something. Building little enclaves and empires, expanding remits, etc. It's like a large conglomerate or multinational' - so pretty much exactly like any civil service bureaucracy anywhere on the planet; worse than some and a lot better than others.
If this is a reflection of the nature of your discontent (and that of many other leavers) then the outcome of 'Brexit' is going to prove bitterly disappointing.
I would like to have it on record that Disney's representation of Pooh is an utter travesty of the character as written by AA Milne and as drawn by EH Shepherd. Shepherd's drawings are definitive, and Disney's transmogrification deserves to be exiled to a hell of hard radiation for all eternity.
There truly is nothing new under the sun - in this case an appreciation of what 'numbering the people' is likely to lead to given what we know about human beings and their behaviour.
Just to add a little frisson of numerology and a pinch of apocalyptic: '16He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. 17And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name. 18Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.c His number is 666.' - Revelation 3.16-18.
In the numerology of the writer '6' is the number of humanity ('7' is for the divine), and a triple six indicates a human antithesis to what 'God' is seen to be all about - which is the practice of love.
In other words, here is someone setting out the idea that numbering the people is a means of controlling the people, not for their well being and freedom, but for their enslavement to a purely materialist narcissistic ideology that has no room for anything as dangerous and freeing as 'Love'.
Whatever we may think about 'the divine', we should all think very hard about what kind of world we wish to create with the power we have, especially given our long history of power and wealth in the hands of the few being used to oppress and control the many.
You seem to have the idea that the UK is in tip-top shape and all ready to make the weight in the heavy-weight division.
But we're not, are we? Our politics are a shambles, largely populated by 2nd and 3rd raters; our social justice is a mess and has been for years; our economy is heavily weighted towards services, i.e. our tangible exports are mostly easily substituted by other nations, often cheaper, and (in the case of the rest of the world) often nearer.
The UK is by no means a hopeless case, but it is not fighting fit, is definitely in the middle-weight division, and really really needs to demonstrate some humility, AND has a hell of a lot of work to do getting it's house in order.
We may well cut ourselves adrift from the 'wicked EU', but it's clear already, through the 'Brexit' shambles, that there is no coheren,t intelligent and realistic plan and no sign of one emerging. So, all we are doing is exactly that - 'cutting ourselves adrift' - and there are people within and without who are only too willing to take full advantage of that, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else.
@codejunky - There is an old saying which applies perfectly to your post: 'Cut off your nose to spite your face'.
You're right, the UK can sit and wait until the clock ticks down. Who do you think will be the biggest loser? It is not going to be the EU, they are a little bit bigger that us and quite able to absorb the ensuing losses, although I am sure that they would prefer not to have to do that.
@ Phil O'Sophical - If the UK was on an economic and population par with the EU then your point might be well made, but in reality the UK is a light weight when standing alongside EU/China/India/US. In other words they get to call the shots, just like we did when we 'ruled the waves, and waived the rules'.
No doubt there's plenty of wiggle room if the UK can come to terms with the reality of its position. The EU doesn't show any sign, and it is not in its interests, to treat the UK with contempt, but it must be getting increasingly difficult not to have that attitude given the blustering chaotic clown show the UK Govt.(TM) has been putting on to date, in lieu of actual well formulated long term propositions - with a dash of humility thrown in to grease the wheels.
As mentioned further up Matrix looks like a far more pragmatic and user friendly solution for anyone who has the slightest interest in being in control and maintaining at least a semblance of security/privacy.
'Fair enough. The majority of Brexiteers harbour no delusions about the future of the EU, we're simply aghast at the stupidity of Remain.' - should I assume that you do not understand that 'Brexit' has nothing to do with leaving the EU in a considered, well supported manner involving comprehensive planning and with clear and substantive evidence as to why leaving will be so much better than remaining - that might be a perfectly rational and intelligent thing to do, but we don't know, that discussion and exploration has never been had.
So far as I am aware very few 'Remainers' consider the EU perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. They generally seem to feel that there is far more to be gained by constructive membership than by leaving in a chaotic and ignorant manner.
'I do find it saddening that so many people refuse to even consider that there could be a better future, and are happy to leave everything in the hands of someone else. It's almost a religious attitude' - that may be what you think, but back in reality the vast majority of 'Remainers' harbour no such delusions, they are simply aghast at the stupidity of 'Brexit'.
'Brexit' - how to leave something functionally useful without a plan, without a clue, and without sufficient support to make it viable without years of backbiting, recrimination, undermining and sullen refusal to co-operate.
'Brexit' is an object lesson in how not to leave a massive trading bloc in which one has been intricately entwined and involved in running (for some divisive insubstantial nostalgic self-serving dream).
There's quite a bit of complacency and misunderstanding being expressed by some posters here.
It's not really about 'ID Cards' per se, as some have already expressed, properly done they serve a badic and useful purpose.
The problem is the associated 'database/s' - what info does it hold and why; who has access to it and why; what are the security measures, are they credible, are they effective; what recourse does the private citizen have in the event if error or abuse, is the recoursr timely, affordable and effective?
These, and similar fundamental questions, were almost entirely unable to be answered in ways that demonstrated a genuine ability to protect individuals from mistakes and abuses in the Labour sponsored scheme - it was rightly dumped.
Probably best to leave 'God' out of this. If all 'this' is simply a desperate attempt to 'prove' that God is not then it really is a monumental fraud. If it is a genuine attempt to understand what is (within our abilities to perceive the reality we are part of) and to understand how that 'reality' works then 'Hurrah', a very worthy goal.
But, the 'God' question is a whole other matter, that quite properly remains open to anyone to explore - regardless of intellect, education, money, or power, and long may it stay that way. It's bad enough having the religious institutions trying to monopolise the space, not to mention monetise it in some instances, without having 'scientists' attempting a land grab.
There may be one functional universe or billions - doesn't really effect the basic questions facing us all: 'How shall I live, and why?' The reality of 'God', or not does impact our answers to those questions, but if 'God is love' then in quite an interesting way. Anyway, we each get to decide: how I shall live, and why.
... they'll keep the whole shambles grumbling along for as long as humanly possible without actually ending up with kit on the deck in the hope that something will turn up that will just make it all go away.
Project Taranis perhaps. Another money-making scheme waiting in the wings.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019