Slarti
-
Posts
3,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Slarti
-
-
Henshall was born in 1965 according to da interweb.Douglas was 3 years below me at Barrhead High and Springhill Primary, born in 1969.
The dude in the photo was born in 1953 and resided in Neilston rather than Barrhead.
So your guy was 26 in that photo? And still in school? Or was the photo NOT from 1979 like you said?
Gregor Fisher. -
Must have been a late developer then as he's older than me.No sir.
He was just starting primary school in this year , I think. -
Douglas Henshall?Barrhead High School 1979
A famous television legend in the back row.
Who ?
-
5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:
You can be a good person some of the time.
You're stretching the truth a bit there.
-
1 minute ago, ianmac said:
This is a link to United Nations data on fatalities and injuries of Palestinian and Israelis in the last 15 years. It does not include data for the current crisis.
Maybe it shows why the Palestinians are a bit pissed off, not that I am condoning the actions of Hamas.
Perhaps you could change the the title of this thread to something more balanced.
"Near East Shitfest" would be an accurate title.
-
1 hour ago, antrin said:
OK.
So, I looked at the above kids film then “discussion based around it”.
You really need to seriously consider what you fall for, Albionsaint.
Especially when you come out with comments such as…The not-very-bright loon in the red jacket intimated that the film claimed to say that it was “basically trying to present Britain being massively populated since about 2000 by black people”.
It never did that.
1. Any kid watching would have seen and heard that there had been black people in Britain from the start, since LONG before 2000AD. I explained about that several posts ago. Of all people watching it, YOU should have understood that. I had explained it to you. The Stone Age character in the film is a representation of the Cheddar Gorge People.
2. At no point does the film nor do its characters claim that Britain had been “massively populated” by black people. That’s in the neurotic mind of a fragile racist like red-jacket.
3. The other 2 characters in the short film shown are examples of known black figures in our history.
A. Hadrian’s Wall was guarded by people from all over the Roman Empire. Including North Africa.https://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/pmag/african-garrisons-at-hadrians-wall/
B. Fighting against Bonaparte?
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/forgotten-black-soldiers-battle-of-waterloo
4. Red~jacket, after introducing the film with a litany of bollox (see above), then has the gall to accuse the bbc of historical inaccuracy just because he(a divisive simpleton) just hadn’t understood or bothered to listen.He then says that a bbc producer said they had to make it up…. Link to a quote, name the bbc producer. Any evidence?
Somehow I can’t believe anything red-jacket said..
5. He goes on to complain (as an immigrant himself) that “Britain has never been a nation of immigrants”. Even just thinking of Scotland, we have the “original” Picts, then Angles, Scotti, Britons, Norse, Danes, swedes, Jews, Poles, Italians, English… and not forgetting the Normans/French such as de Brus and Wallace… after Normans had been so successful as immigrants in England after 1066!
And I believe England Wales have had a few other immigrants, whilst Northern Ireland was planted with immigrants from the mainland.
Britain has ALWAYS been a nation of immigrants.
Let me quote you again: “I feel sorry for anyone who is nieve enough to believe this nonsense.”
stet.
Let's face it, apart from the region of Africa where homo sapiens first evolved, everywhere is full of immigrants.
-
Evangelising means proselytising - converting folk to the Christian faith. Most faiths are 'evangelical' in that respect - the only two that I can think of which aren't are Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and I may be mistaken about the former.
Jesus fulfilled the law.
Indeed, you are correct with respect to the councils, however the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church existed up until the Great Schism, in ~1050. I suppose there were other wee offshoots such as the Cathars, but by and large the faith was united.
Getting back on topic, assuming this is genuine (which I cannot verify) it is a chilling example of how the Palestinians have been treated by the IDF:
Exactly, they advocate or promote their religion in an attempt to win converts. They are outgoing by definition.
To a certain extent you are correct, just some are more evangelical than others.
What do you mean "fulfilled the law"? Do you mean fulfilled the prophecy?
Just because something calls itself universal, it doesn't mean it is. Similar to the WORLD Series in baseball. 1054 was the big break but the whole time there were disagreements and "little schisms" not just on religious matters but on cultural and political ones. At one point there were 5 patriarchs who were all equals and controlled their own areas. Many in the east thought that Jesus wasn't equal to God. Etc, etc, etc. Basically they were different but tried to agree a consensus on the major issues.
This is all really irrelevant to modern day Evangelical Christians in the US trying to bring about the end times and the end of the world by supporting Israel. -
Really? Where in the bible does it mention Mary's lineage? It mentions Joseph's in 2 gospels (or more accurately, Jesus' lineage through Joseph) but nothing about Mary's as far as I know.
Mary was also a descendent of David [emoji6]
Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.
-
Your claim that evangelicals are more outspoken appears speculative. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, though.
Christians are over-represented. My maths is rubbish, so please correct me if I'm wrong (not that I feel I need to invite you to do so
) but Jewish people are over-represented by > 300%, according to that, whilst Christian Congressmen are over-represented by 135%, is that correct? It would be interesting to see those figures for the cabinet.
Something being contradictory and open to different interpretation is not the same thing. The often cited 'eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' actually established the limits on retribution. It is also from the Old Testament. As a Christian the New Testament supersedes the Old, regardless. It is a new covenant.
Christianity was unified for approx 800 years. Then came the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Afterwards, protestants decided anybody can interpret the Bible however they liked, the floodgates opened.
Evangelising is about speaking out so it's not speculative at all. There will obviously be exceptions but again, that doesn't negate my point.
The page tells you about the over representation.
I know it's not the same thing, I never said it was. If they were the same thing there would have been no need to mention both.
Yes, I know it's the limit of retribution, I've mentioned that on here before.
You don't get to have a New Testament without an Old Testament, you can't just throw it away. Jesus said that he never came to change the law:
“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."
Christianity was never unified. That was the main crux of a lot of Peter's writings. He was chastising others for not believing/behaving as he thought they should. It was also the reason for all of the Councils, they were trying to unify it.
The fact that people interpret it differently (and also have different books in their bibles) just adds weight to my claim. -
1 hour ago, W6er said:
So the president of the US and many others in top positions are not Evangelicals, then? How many of them actually are? I would say that America's foreign policy has largely been influenced by the Wolfowitz Doctrine and Paul Wolfowitz is not an Evangelical, either. If you assert something it's good practice to evidence it.
The meaning of the names from the genealogy in Genesis is very interesting: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/284/
The human Jesus' father is God, the creator of the universe - that's an impressive enough lineage, IMHO. However, legally I would imagine he'd inherit his earthly father's lineage, particularly as it was not known that Joseph wasn't his biological father.
The fact that the current POTUS and those he appointed are (mainly) not Evangelicals does not negate the point I was making.
The Religious Composition of the 117th Congress
By their very nature, evangelicals are more outspoken and more likely to "take action" against those who do not agree with them and so even those politicians who are not themselves evangelicals are more likely to "be influenced". And, YES, they do also put a lot of money into politics.
Christians are over-represented in congress (especially Protestants - the majority of which are from evangelical denominations - and Catholics). The Jewish contingent in congress is also larger percentagewise that Jews in the population. It's not a new thing and US foreign policy towards the middle east has, at least since the early 20th century, been influenced by this. Whether any specific person is an evangelical is irrelevant.
Anyway, the point I was actually making about the bible being self contradictory is borne out by the fact that there are so many denominations of Christianity, if there were no contradictions or ways to derive different meanings from the same text, there would only be one denomination. Let's face it, those that move from one denomination to another (or one religion to another) do so because they find that denomination (or religion) agrees more with their own self determined ideas and ideals, not because it doesn't. The same applies, to a lesser degree, to those that go from religious to non-religious - but in that case it's more that they find that they can't believe or agree with what religion teaches.
-
48 minutes ago, W6er said:
Evangelicals? 🤔
https://www.timesofisrael.com/all-the-jews-biden-has-tapped-for-top-roles-in-his-new-administration/
Indeed they would have had access to the Old Testament. What is truly remarkable is the meaning of the genealogy in Genesis.
Biden is a Roman Catholic, not an Evangelical protestant. What's your point?
The meaning of the genealogy in Genesis? It's an attempt to show that the Jews are direct descendants of Adam (who didn't exist - at least in the biblical sense). Are you talking about something else?
The Messiah was supposed to be a direct descendent of David but Jesus wasn't as it was Joseph that was supposedly descended from David, not Mary, and the bible goes out of its way to say that Joseph wasn't Jesus' auld man.
-
I disagree. Christianity has a consistent theme. The the creator of the universe was born a man (paradoxically, both fully man and fully God) in a stable, that he led a humble life and died the painful death of a slave (see Tom Holland's Dominion). He washed his disciples' feet, remember. He wasn't even a good looking man:
Isaiah 53: 2-5
IIRC, that follows on from God talking about "his people" being persecuted by the Assyrians (?) in Egypt and being led out. It is obviously not a prophecy of Jesus. Even if it was, the Gospel writers (well, just the writers of Mark and John really as Matthew and Luke are just copies of Mark with supernatural embellishments and some minor changes) would have had access to Isaiah and would have been able to tailor their stories accordingly. -
I was just stating why the US supports Israel 100%, not what the main issue in the region was. Most politicians in the US (at least the "powerful" ones) are Evangelicals of one hue or another.True, but its not the main aspect of the issue.
The main one is a colonial reality which began at the end of the 18th century when the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl had consulted with Britain's prime colonialist, Cecil Rhodes to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.
Today, colonial Jews are still emigrating to the Palestinian West Bank and evicting, by military means, the indigenous people from their homes and land.
Plus the US doesn't like admitting they got something wrong, they just throw more money or military at it. -
It apparently stems from the 1830s - can't recall the guy's name - so relatively modern.Partly true. It's more the influence of AIPAC, IMHO, which is arguably the second biggest lobby group in the US.
The whole Christian Zionist phenomenon is much bigger in the US and something I have never understood. My girlfriend and her mother told me they believe the Jews are God's "chosen people" and therefore it's the duty of Christians to support Israel. Indeed, the Bible does state that, but it's the Old Testament. They seem to have skipped over the bit where...well, let's just say that led to Jesus' crucifixion.
Traditional Christianity was hardly pro-Zionist. Indeed, Pre-Vatican II Catholicism has been described as anti-Semitic, this is borne out by the likes of Fathers Coughlin, Feeney and Fahey , whose speeches and writings are considered deeply anti-Semitic. Indeed much of Vatican II was devoted to addressing this. Even so, I don't believe the Catholic Church even recognised Israel until the 1990s.
Christian Zionism seems to be a relatively modern concept, though that's perhaps not surprising given Israel as a state was founded in 1947(?). I categorise it along with the Prosperity Gospel - where people who give money to God (via their 'church') are blessed with wealth. I'm going off on a tangent here, but I was staying in a hotel in London a few years back and this guy came out of the neighbouring conference suite, covered in gold and other ostentatious displays of wealth (Roles, designer clothes, etc). He was followed out by a lot of fawning admirers before eventually getting in a Lamborghini and driving off. I assumed he was a musician of perhaps a sportsmen or something and asked one of his groupies about him. I was informed he was their pastor.
The Bible has been distorted to such an extent by some unscrupulous people, that its message has been turned on its head.
Prosperity gospel (Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland etc) is just con-men fleecing folk.
The problem with the bible is that it is so self contradictory that passages from it can be used to support almost any position. It doesn't help that there are so many versions of it.
It's literally impossible to follow all of the rules from the bible.
Most (possibly all) religious texts are the same.
Anyway, far enough down this rabbit hole for tonight. -
It's a religious thing.Ridiculous.
Why don't they do that for Ukraine? Because they are bullies. Well, they do send military aid to the Ukraine who are under part-Russian occupation but they support the Israeli occupation 100%.
There are many in the US (mainly Evangelicals, who are now the largest Christian group in the US) who believe that they have to support Israel as it is important for Israel to exist to bring "The Rapture" and "Second Coming".
They're basically just nutters. -
£80k over 4 years at 5% Pa equates to circa £8k interest
It would be about £17,500 over 5 years if you had £80k in an account paying 5% p.a., the exact amount depending on how often the interest was paid. I suspect the SMiSA account probably doesn't pay as much as 5%. There will also be accounts available that SMiSA are not able to take advantage of as they are not an individual.
-
Nah, Labour won and doubled their number of Scottish MPs.Was there a wee by election in Scotland recently?
Got to be a win for the SNP? -
1 hour ago, HSS said:
Out of curiosity I scanned that QR code - you really should give it a go.
-
Is it, aye?It's costing him his dignity and reputation right now. -
And more money in the bank. I'm sure he'll stop when it starts costing him to play.What the hell is it going to take for murray to realise he's done as a serious player everyone and there granny's are beating him he keeps going at this rate he will have more losses than wins in his record. -
No, they shouldn't.A bit off topic, but by that logic the transatlantic slave trade reparations should not really be considered either? -
I never said anything remotely like that.Just to be clear, you don’t think that if you committed war crimes against the Jewish and Russian people 80 years ago it should matter and the Scottish government should not be questioned about giving £52k towards a chapel and monument for a waffen ss unit? -
Ye didnae bring wan, just get oot. [emoji16]I heard it was a Bonny Wee Well……..
Do I get my coat now ?? -
Personally, I think the two are unrelated and the actions of people 80 years ago should not affect how their decendents are treated today.Don’t think I said they were? Just worth thinking about when waving a little yellow and blue flag.
Music Gigs
in General Nonsense
Posted
Went for a pizza last night after the pub. There were a bunch of females of various ages with cowboy hats etc on. My mate said "where were you lot?", expecting to hear about some Shania Twain concert or such like. The reply? "Rock'n'rollers - we didn't realise Big Country were a rock band". [emoji1787]