Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of the late Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been chosen as his successor.
Both east and west Christianity did away with that. Which is probably wise really, that they did.
Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of the late Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been chosen as his successor.
Both east and west Christianity did away with that. Which is probably wise really, that they did.
I believe the term for this sort of thing is Caesaropapism, where the leader is secular and religious leader in one.
I think the best way to describe the phenomenal in modern terms is Insurance Risk
Caesarpriapism is when you’re sexually aroused by croutons tho
If he wasn’t in the meeting “attended” by the IDF, shouldn’t he be considered the idiot second son?
Accepting the role seems to confirm that suggestion.
This leadership election must have been interesting. I have visions of all the potential leaders passionately explaining why they weren’t the right man for the job.
Indeed the ideal candidate would be someone already dead. Firstly because they would be very hard for the Israelis to locate and kill again and secondly they would not be able to argue why they shouldn’t be the new leader.
“Welcome back! You know how you were on holiday last week …”
A Board that I sat on had a long tradition of appointing as committee vice-chairmen anyone who wasn’t at the meeting.
Bit of a challenge to HR?
“Where do you see yourself in five years?”
Mahdism gonna Mahdi.
Hereditary military dictatorship, a la North Korea, more like. The only difference is in the coating of religious bullshit sprinkled on top of it.
Are you suggesting that North Korea does *not* have a coating of religious bullshit upon it’s “Great Leader”?
It’ll be interesting to see how far the bonds that bind together Islam and modern socialism stretch before they snap, as they surely will.
Socialists, as is well known, approve of hereditary succession, which is why they love the royalty.
Oh, wait…
Socialists (the UK branch at least) simply love hereditary succession – why else is the Labour party stuffed to the gills with clueless Kinnocks, Blairs, Straws, Milibands …? You don’t find this in other parties, nobody tried to parachute Mark (or even Carol) Thatcher into a safe Tory seat.
Though we were lumbered with Nicholas Soames, and Christopher Soames in the generation above.
Nicholas Soames was able to be a dissenting voice thanks to his ancestory: the apparatchiks could not “unperson” him
They were afraid that he would have eaten them.
Be fair, there’s a bit of fuss in the New Testament about Jesus being a descendant of King David.
(I think it’s most unlikely David existed though I do take my hat off to the brave attempts of some Israeli archaeologists to come up with evidence for him.)
C’mon, man, there is as much evidence for David as there is for Jesus.
The only bit of evidence for David is one doubtful archaeological yarn. Whereas there are a several inconclusive but suggestive bits of evidence for Jesus.
Heavens there’s even one bit of contemporary plausible evidence for Mahomet. (I thought it best to say that before it becomes a crime.)
NO, there are some contemporary Roman documents referencing Jesus and/or his followers whereas there is only the “Wailing Wall” to evidence that someone (probably Herod) built a temple to replace the alleged temple built by David’s son.
You need to buy a few new hats as you are damaging your curent stock by talking through them
I’ve never understood the tendency to assume our ancestors were liars and that we, living thousands of years later with less information, know better?
Well we know that the early and medieval Christian churches lied and lied. Why would you assume that the Old Testament is based on truth?
After more than a century of intensive digging, all the archaeological evidence suggests that the Exodus never happened, Joshua’s conquest never happened, Solomon’s magnificent Jerusalem as capital of a mighty empire never existed, and so on.
Anyway, on many topics we have more information than whoever made up the OT. We know that at the time of the purported Exodus Canaan was ruled by Egypt so that the story about escaping Egyptian rule by fleeing to Canaan can’t be right. Maybe it’s because we have access to more information than the chaps who fabricated the OT.
Even if they were a bunch of scholars at the Library at Alexandria in the third century BC there would still be a lot they wouldn’t know about the late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age that “we” do know.
Well we know that the early and medieval Christian churches lied and lied.
Who’s “we”, Paleface? Can you point to any lies in the writings of St John Chrysostom?
No, you can’t, because he only told us the truth.
Why would you assume that the Old Testament is based on truth?
Every single word in the Bible is true. But it’s the truth as explained to children. We are children.
Anyway, on many topics we have more information than whoever made up the OT
Gell-Mann is a helluva drug. Presumably you remember 5 minutes ago when “experts” were claiming the early inhabitants of Britain were negroes? But you failed to apply the lesson generally. Archaeology, btw, is another niche that’s been thoroughly infested with leftist creeps and trannies. You won’t get the truth out of them, because there’s no truth in them.
3/10 – must do better
But it’s the truth as explained to children.
You tell children that Cain murdered Abel?
You tell children the Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children?
You tell children God kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah’s family?
You tell children God turns Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt?
You tell the kiddies that God utterly destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with fire?
Plagues on Egypt? “Mommy, what’s a plague?”
Bible is great for kids because people do all sorts of bloodthirsty things to each other.
Judith, Samson, that old dear who sticks a tent peg through that general’s head
Even as a little boy I knew all about Samson, David and Goliath, the Exodus and Lot ( not about all the bumming though ).
I lapped up all the Biblical films that were on BBC2 on Saturday afternoon. It was much later that I discovered Hedy Lamar, Gina Lollobrigida etc…
There is a lot of historical truth in the Old Testament, it is just that much is in the wrong order a lot is built of composite characters and quite a bit embellished. Read the stories around Daniel – it is full of actual historic personages.
Well, if I was trying to produce a narrative that I was wonderful, I should not include killing Hamor – would you?
I do not often agree with Steve and I regard much of Genesis as stories passed on down by previous generations (where did Cain’s and Seth’s wives come from?)
“Every single word in the Bible is true. “
In which case the beginnings of the human race was a complete incest-fest……….
NO, you do not know that – you assume that based on some information (of dubious reliability) that you possess. We do not *know* that any archaeological data is true, we just *assume* that the archaeologists know what they are talking about.
Your claim that you *know* the date of Exodus is a trifle arrogant since most Biblical scholars merely propose possible dates/periods. You make yourself look like an idiot by saying “escaping Egyptian rule by fleeing to Canaan can’t be right” since the Exodus took a long time (that is what “40 years” means) and Joshua took control of Canaan by conquest so the alleged identity of the previous rulers is irrelevant.
If you should like to re-read the New Testament, that you have obviously “skimmed”, you will find many references that would enable first century readers to check the narrative e.g. Mark XV21 identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus so anyone in the early church could ask them …
Because when you look at all that our ancestors all around the world have said, you get many different incompatible stories so, even if we didn’t know the truth, we could be certain that it’s almost all wrong. And once you have established the principle that so much is wrong, that casts huge doubt over the rest.
This would be a good plot for a Sascha Baron-Cohen movie. Imagine being the poor fucker who gets voluntold to that job?
Sopwith Camel pilots had a longer life expectancy.
Apparently he’s not even qualified or senior enough in the clergy to be an Ayatollah.
Apparently he’s not even qualified or senior enough in the clergy to be an Ayatollah.
nor was his dad.
Ask not for whom the Aya tolls
Weren’t the tribe of Levi heriditary priests?
Not all of them – all priests belonged to the tribe of Levi but not all Levites were priests.
Still alive on 1 April?
Maybe. Being second tier might be the key to survival, though this probably means a dispersal of power.
Y’all reckon Mojtaba is his real name?
Nope. It’s Torquil. Trust me, I have that on good authority.
Plus, why do they all have such suspiciously well-trimmed beards (I mean facial hair, not wives who outlived their usefulness)?
Turns out he’s impotent, too. Not a great quality for a Supreme Leader.
Sounds like a cocktail.
There’s a hilarious scene in one of the Sharpe series where French troops are advancing on a fort held by Sharpe and his merry men, and the latter keep shooting whichever Frenchie is holding aloft the regimental Imperial eagle. One after another, until eventually the remaining Frenchies just refuse to pick the bloody thing up.
Be good if this escapade could be like that.
I recently watched the whole series on ITVX – brilliant, I don’t know why I missed it first time round. Hornblower was pretty good, too.
I read the first Hornblower book, found him an insufferable little prig, and haven’t bothered with them since.
The Hornblower books are brill. Amazing technical knowledge and (apparent) understanding of seamanship and late 18th century life at sea.
Hornblower himself is, imv, not exactly an insufferable little prig, but he’s certainly not your average leading man (like Sharpe, for instance, although I have not read the books).
Before Cornwell wrote Sharpe he sat down and read all the Hornblowers in order to make sure he got the arc of the storyline right….
Gracias. I’ll get around to Sharpe one of these days….
Hornblower is good. I don’t know what is meant by the first Hornblower, the midshipman one is a later-written prequel.
However, for me it’s Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series. I’ve never read Sharpe but CS Forester did a one-off about a peninsular war rifleman, can anyone remind me of the name?
Don’t know, but you might also like Dennis Wheatley’s Roger Brook series. It runs from about 1780 to 1820, 15 or so books.
His account of Waterloo is the clearest I’ve read.
Death to the French by C S Forester.
Thanks, BB. Do you have books in Australia?
Plenty, Rhoda.
Although I’ve noticed that, these days, they conduct Toddler Time at the local library to introduce the kids to books at the earliest possible age.
Did I succeed in getting a lady-of-the -manor condescending tone there? That’s what I was trying for.
I thought it was something like that.
But I’ve always believed in Mark Twain’s saying, ‘When in doubt, tell the truth.’ It saves you the trouble of thinking!!