Slarti

3 parties??? I wasn't invited to any of them. 😪

It's basically just a dickhead who has found something that he can do to annoy people that isn't against the law. There are quite a few of them on You Tube.

I expected @shull to stop flogging dead horses. Unfortunately, ...

To be fair, I don't know anyone (not even Alan) who refers to him as Mr St Mirren. That was just a press invention, though he really should have nipped it in the Bud (pun intended).

IIRC (though I could be wrong), Alan's action against "the club and the board (as a whole)" was due to the stadium ban and totally separate from any proceedings the Kibble members of the board had taken (or implied they were taking) regarding Alan's comments. It seems unlikely that Alan dropping the threat of legal action resulted in the decision to lift the ban (at least directly) as that was not the reason for the ban in the first place. More likely that the board has said to Alan "we'll let you back in but we want you to drop the legal action" and Alan has replied "OK, the legal action was only because of the ban". So, in respect of this matter only, Alan gets what he wants without proceeding with legal action. In essence, the board have realised that they haven't got a (legal) leg to stand on regarding the ban and Alan's threat of legal action has made them shit themselves. The statement's wording is just a bit of spin to save face.

I think it's the former. I was in 2 Fridays ago and it was pretty quiet(ish). Apparently it's always packed on a Wednesday.

To me, he comes across as a complete tosser.

I'm not excusing them, but isn't the whole of Gaza densely populated?

It doesn't make sense at all. God made everything according to a single book that has no corroborating evidence. There's just as much evidence that a universe creating pixie called Kevin created everything. I.e. none. There is no evidence that the universe was "created" at all. He didn't die for my sins. Sin only exists if God exists and there is no good evidence for God.

I have no trouble agreeing, for arguments sake, that Jesus existed and said all the stuff he is supposed to have said. I could even grant all the miracles and the resurrection. None of that, in part or whole, proves that he was the son of god.

Jesus fulfilling the law means that he obeys the law perfectly, it has nothing to do with the law ending. He said (paraphrasing), that the law still exists if heaven still exists. As Christians believe that they will spend eternity in heaven then heaven can't end and therefore the law can't end. I won't be judged by anyone after I'm dead. If it simply means that the message will be divisive, he could have said "My message will be divisive" instead of all that nonsense so, no, I don't think that is what it means. He specifically says that you should love him MORE than your family members.

But he also said: Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (I actually prefer the "jot" and "tittle" version from the KJV) and: Matthew 10:34-37: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." So unless you think that all is accomplished and heaven and earth have passed away, all the 613 laws of the old testament still apply. You know, the ones about not eating shellfish and stoning a disobedient child to death etc. And don't forget to take up your sword against your parents. Muslims think theirs is the one true faith as do Jews, Hindus, etc. Faith is not a reliable way to come to the truth.

But even then, it's not "universal" as different faiths have different "moral" codes which allow them to do different things. In fact, not just allow, but require. The fact that most people of faith don't follow their faith to the letter is the only thing that saves us from all out religious war. But those that do can give us situations like we have in Gaza just now.

So you're saying that there was a time in human history when it was ok to own other humans as property? To wipe out whole civilisations? To make human sacrifices? And it was OK for Israel to kick out the Palestinians pre 1951? As I said, any timescale is arbitrary. What has already happened can't be changed. What can be changed is actions going forward. There really is no such thing as a set of modern morals, you just need to look at different countries around the world to see that. Or even different people within a country. Or different people on this forum. Morals are personal and totally subjective.

So you don't look back into ancient history and judge the past with today's morals. How far can you look back and judge with today's morals? 1000 years? 500 years? 100 years? Last week? Whatever time frame is chosen is just arbitrary and usually done for the benefit of the person choosing. My point is that shit has happened in the past, more shit now is not going to fix that. Talk and compromise, not hate and killing.

Some folk, back when different empires were continually replacing others, predicted that there would be wars over land. So they basically predicted that things wouldn't change. Geniuses, so they wur.

He's just a c**t, not a total c**t.

I think my "Total Cunts" thread should really have been the place for all this. After all, it covers both sides. There was no need for another thread - or even two (though the 2nd one was only started in retaliation to you-know-who's woeful attempt at being controversial). But that's you-know-who for you.

The question still remains, how far do you go back? The Jews were kicked out 1800 years ago, the Palestinians 70 years ago. If the Israelis are kicked out now, does that give them a better claim than the Palestinians as it's more recent? If the Palestinians were kicked out "illegally", were the Jews kicked out "illegally" 1700 years previously? Does that mean the Palestinians were illegally occupying the area? The same folk that are on the Palestinian side now, would probably have been on the Jewish side when it was a British mandate. It's really all just a big f**kup and most of those in the area probably just want to live their lives peacefully and don't really give a f**k what religion their government are as long as they're treated equally.

The Jewish inhabited state of Israel existed over 3000 years ago along with Judea. It was after the Roman invasion and their renaming of the area as the province of Syria Palestine that "Palestine" came into existence. Therefore, Israel is much older than Palestine. The claim that Jews are usurping land that is rightly Palestinian is based on shaky foundations. The whole thing depends on how far you want to go back. The Israelites invaded the land of others over 3000 years ago. Those people probably kicked out previous inhabitants prior to that. How far do you gp back to determine who's land it is? The whole debacle could be sorted if they all just respected the rights of others to have differing opinions, treated everyone equally and didn't think violence was the answer.

Irish? Is that not what I said? [emoji16]

You're really an Aborginal African Eskimo Pygmy Jew, aren't you.

I don't know what the cartoon was so I can't comment on it. The Guardian have possibly just bowed to pressure and a potential backlash, rather than actually believe it is anti-Semitic. If they do believe it then, yes, they aren't very intelligent. I haven't seen anything in this thread that could realistically be construed as anti-semitic. Even the title isn't anti-semitic.

You can be called it, doesn't mean you are. It's just an attempt at stopping criticism, and not a very clever one. The fact that some folk fall for it says a lot more about the intelligence of they folk than it does about the validity of the argument. On top of that, no religion should be exempt from criticism. Bad ideas/actions should be called out no matter their origin. And this whole situation is rooted in religion - on both sides.

Condemning the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic.