Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anelka's quenelle

I know lol. I was reading about Samson earlier apropos of nothing and that story reminded me how intensely interested OT God is.

That's one way of putting it. He expresses His interest quite forcefully here:

"23 And Elisha went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Disproportionate response see.
 
That's one way of putting it. He expresses His interest quite forcefully here:

"23 And Elisha went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Disproportionate response see.
not really, i think it's entirely appropriate. you just don't want to be rent limb from limb by an irate she-bear. coward.
 
That's one way of putting it. He expresses His interest quite forcefully here:

"23 And Elisha went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Disproportionate response see.


you just wanted to introduce baldness into the discussion
 
Ugh, :(:( new year's resolution get involved in anti cuts/workplace stuff, far more important than anything scum like these could achieve.

Going to see an old comrade from PSC tonight for a drink as it happens, suspect she came to the same.conclusions I did
Remember, John Rees and Galloway produce stuff for them. This is exactly how the normalisation of anti-semitism works. Iran funded Anelka's mate's film called 'anti-semitism'. All tied up together. I can't understand why Rees at least hasn't been challenged on this.
 
Last edited:
Remember, John Rees and Galloway produce stuff for them. This is exactly how the normalisation of anti-semitism works. Iran funded Anelka's mate film called 'anti-semitism'. All tied up together. I can't understand why Rees at least hasn't been challenged on this.

Poisoning the well of the firebox coffee? (Sorry)
 
Ah but, what does that mean: "believing in him." Believing in what?

Believing that he is the son of God (who is also God) and that he died on the cross for all our sins. It says in the new testament that if you don't believe this you're going to hell, ehen he says 'i am the way, the truth and the light, and nobody comrs to the father except through me.' And I don't think that you can say he's against organized religion when he says to Peter 'on this rock I will build my church' why would he say that if he didn't believe Christianity should be a religion?
 
Last edited:
But he was talking about all religions when he talked about the worldly god being money, that's what I always took it to mean, because even if someone is the most observant person in the world money still controls their life.

As usual the prof is talking out of his arse - it's a reply to either Bauer or Fauerbach (can't remember which) who had written that capitalism, and particularly finance capital, were specifically 'Jewish' and called for the political suppression of Jews. What Marx is doing here is asking what the material basis of what the author he's replying to criticises Judaism for is and (to an extent) defending Jews.

I do think there is a hint of antisemitism in what Marx is saying - in the language - even if the context is taken into account, but even so compared to the society he was living in his views on Jews were pretty progressive. And the interesting thing about your little exchange with Phil here is that when I had this discussion with him he was adamant that there was *no* antisemitism in On the Jewish Question.

There are therefore two possibilities.

Either Phil was so impressed by my arguments that, after a considerable amount of the keyboard flatulence we've become accustomed to from him, he reconsidered and now agrees that I was right and he was wrong. The omniscient professor beaten in an argument by someone who doesn't even have a degree.

Or he's the kind of dishonest debator that changes his interpretation of a text depending on which one supports the argument he's trying to make.
 
From that Press TV thing...

You can smell the suffering and death. What you can also smell is something else wrong. You see, Auschwitz, at one time credited with the gassing of millions of Jews is, officially, no longer considered a “death camp.”

Definitely not looking for a row here but is the author actually claiming that there is some new research/evidence that claims there was no extermination at Auschwitz?

or is he just playing with semantics on the basis that it was Auschwitz's next-door neighbour, Birkenau, which actually housed the facilities for industrial-scale slaughter?

elbows ?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom