The way ministers of religion use words

I am used to the bland platitudes, contentious statements and patronising homilies of most speakers on Radio four's 'Thought for Today' but when the Rev Rob Marshall said that HOPE is linked intrinsically to FAITH and LOVE, I thought hold on a minute Reverend let's exame this statement in more detail.

What is hope? The dictionary definition says it's a feeling of trust (that things are going to get better for example)  The one thing it is not, is the certainty that things will change in the way that you would wish, whether for the individual, or more broadly in current world events. On the contrary, pious hope has done nothing to alleviate cruelty and injustice in the world.

Now FAITH is an entirely different concept. It implies Divine Truth and certainty even where there is no scientific evidence, therefore Faith and Hope far from being intrinsically linked are diametrically opposed to each other.  Logically one cannot have FAITH that things will turn out the way you would wish, because if they don't you would have to renounce your faith.

What about LOVE;  is there any intrinsic connection between hope and love? Love implies care, concern, tenderness and empathy, and it is true that one can hope that these attributes permeate through society, but there is no intrinsic connection. One could just as easily hope to cause pain, harm, and suffering to one's fellow human beings, and some individuals are currently doing just that.

Labour Party and Anti-Semitism

Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah have been suspended from the Labour Party for alleged anti-Semitic remarks.  I have no idea whether or not these two individuals are anti-Semitic, but there is a problem here that does not seem to be voiced in the media, and that is you cannot criticise Israel's policies without being accused of anti-Semitism.  I say this both as a Jew (albeit a non-practising agnostic one) and a member of the Labour Party.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews in particular, thinks co-religionists who criticise Israel are letting the side down!
Why is it all right to criticise radicalised Muslins, but not Jewish settlers who think they have a God-given right to Palestinian territory because of some four-thousand year old bible story? Their justification for the settlements is quite ridicules.  
My own view about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that there are rights and wrongs on both sides, but the Palestinians have been hard done by.  The only way to lasting peace is by compromise, but that doesn't seem likely in the near future.
What worries me about current political attitudes, is the danger to free speech; you cannot criticise religious faiths, or practices without being branded as racist, or at the very least intolerant.
The fact is you can respect a person,even if you think his beliefs are silly, or nonsense.  I have a very good friend who is a practising Christian.  He believes in the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the resurrection.  He knows exactly what I think about that, but we are still friends.  In any case, no one has a right not to be offended. 
29.04.16
  

We Are doomed!

A character ion the British comedy 'Dad's Army's' favourite catchphrase was "We are doomed."
And of course in the very long term we all are as all life on Earth will disappear when the sun becomes a red giant. That is millions of years away but I think homo Sapiens will become extinct long before that, perhaps only in three or four thousand years time, or about the same time as recorded history.
This extinction will not happen at a stroke - unless we are hit by a large asteroid- but life on Earth will become increasingly difficult and much of it will be our own doing. Our contribution to climate change, man's propensity to kill one another mostly for irrational reasons means that at some point another world war is very likely notwithstanding the so called 'nuclear deterrent.'  Also man's inherent selfishness, in primitive times a survival mechanism, but now resulting in the world's population being divided into the 'haves' and the 'have nots.' Despite the work of voluntary agencies, some governments, and philanthropy I suspect the affluent will get richer and the poor poorer  until the poor die out from starvation and disease.
The irony is that the rich and powerful, and that includes the resources of governments could do something about this if they really wanted to.  I say this because of man's ingenuity. Scientific knowledge and technical know how has been increasing exponentially.  one has only to look at developments in space technology, genetics, and nanotechnology to name some examples.  Why is the USA spending billions in an effort to get men to Mars and return them safely?
The main reason is curiosity, although the expense is given added justification for other reasons such as advancing scientific knowledge and even creating employment.  Think what could be achieved if the same resources were directed towards earthly problems.  There are those who believe that when the world eventually becomes uninhabitable space ships will be the means of escape to other worlds, but such escape would only be for the privileged few, and anyway who would want to spend a lifetime-perhaps even procreating- in a spacecraft in the hope of finding a habitable planet?  Even on Mars one would have to live in a totally enclosed environment, and a long term experiment in the United States did not bode well for this kind of living.  If this same ingenuity were used towards eliminating Third World disease and poverty the results could be spectacular.
But no, we are far to selfish, ans added to that corrupt governments of former colonies, taking a leaf from their colonial history have learned that lining one's pockets at the expense of the populace is the way to go.
So you see I am far from optimistic about the future.  I don't have any grandchildren but I don't envy babies born today, and as for their grandchildren and great grandchildren well I think they are in for a rough time!