Nige wants a Labour government too? Bring it on. Soon as.
It is in the interest of those that oppose EU membership to have one of the big two parties actually against EU membership in both form and substance, even if they are in opposition.
The Tory bounce has clearly now disappeared. What is their plan to get out of the 20s?
When Labour was polling like this we were asking how long before a new party emerges, what if this really is the end of the Tories and they never govern again
The Tory bounce has clearly now disappeared. What is their plan to get out of the 20s?
When Labour was polling like this we were asking how long before a new party emerges, what if this really is the end of the Tories and they never govern again
I think, barring new black swans (in the 2020s!), the polls will stabilise more than seen thus far in this parliament. The Tories may tighten a little to high teens behind. Any polling move back is either (a) much closer to the election or (b) exit poll / count.
My central expectation is an 8-10 point Labour win, as Tories remain in the doldrums, but Labour don't quite succeed in putting the vision thing to go with their tight ship. Should be enough to not rely on the SNP, might not be enough with the demographics to get an overall majority.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
If you ever need exposure to an instant gammon focus group just check out the comments on NF's FB feed. They have got their Tena for Men in a tightly constricted knot over this.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
I believe this is true. Since my summer holidays I have helped with Christian charity once nearly every week.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Talking of Science and religion, Einstein, the most important scientist of the last 100 years, was very interesting on spirituality, although most people know little of that because of how rarely his views on this are shared nowadays, in amongst what is our modern and often ultra-secular culture and prejudices.
“We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yep I agree, but that is not what I said is it? I was referring to the 'no greater learning' statement not whether you could be educated and christian. Hence I stated 'most' for this part and 'many' for the second part (not being a christian). I appreciate you may not understand the subtle logic in that but I suspect that Newton might not have agreed with 'no greater learning' while still being a christian (ie he is in the 'most' but not in the 'many' set)
Talking of Science and religion, Einstein, the most important scientist of the last 100 years, was very interesting on spirituality, although most people know little of that because of how rarely his views on this are shared nowadays, in amongst what is our modern and often ultra-secular culture and prejudices.
“We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
I like that.
And we are back with the example of neutrinos.
I have already used MarqueeMark excuse for putting on weight, saying his body has started retaining neutrino’s. I was told by dear GF to stop eating so many of them then.
So not everyone knows about neutrino’s. I only found out about them recently from my Christian counsellor who explained sub atomic particles that make up all the universe and dark matter allow Angels and Daemons who are in another place to be in our place.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
"A file of evidence into the “cash-for-honours” scandal embroiling the King and his longest-serving aide has been passed by police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Prosecutors are expected to decide before Christmas if charges will be brought after Charles, then Prince of Wales, personally presented a wealthy Saudi businessman with a CBE after donations to royal causes worth £1.5 million.
If the case goes to trial, the King’s involvement — including meetings with the businessman in London, Scotland and Riyadh — will be played out in court, potentially before the coronation in May."
Surely no chance the establishment lets this go to trial?
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
Stephen Hawkins attended Church in his later life.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
Stephen Hawkins attended Church in his later life.
I'm not sure who Stephen Hawkins is, but the acclaimed physicist Stephen Hawking was an avowed atheist throughout his life.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Yes a bit of a faux pas there as I was copying the spelling from the previous post. I should have known better having read his books.
Mahathir Mohamad, 97, dominant force in Malaysian politics for decades, ousted by his own constituency. Voters have made plain his era is well and truly over. #GE15 #PRU15"
Mahathir Mohamad, 97, dominant force in Malaysian politics for decades, ousted by his own constituency. Voters have made plain his era is well and truly over. #GE15 #PRU15"
GoIng back to the earlier discussion of second legislative chambers: The state of Nebraska has a unicameral, formally nonpartisan legislature: "The Nebraska Legislature[1] (also called the Unicameral)[2] is the legislature of the U.S. state of Nebraska. The Legislature meets at the Nebraska State Capitol in Lincoln. With 49 members, known as "senators", the Nebraska Legislature is the smallest state legislature of any U.S. state." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature
Unlike the legislatures of the other 49 U.S. states and the U.S. Congress, the Nebraska Legislature is a unicameral legislature, thus not separated into two houses. It is also nonpartisan, and does not officially recognize its members' political party affiliations."
I say "formally", because all 49 have party affiliations; there are 32 Republicans and 17 Democrats. But the legislature isn't organized by party. Each earns "$12,000/year + per diem".
And that is about all that I know about the Nebraska legislature. Which I suppose is a compliment to them, since I would probabaly have heard more about them, had here been any large scandals there, in recent years. (There was a small one this year; the senator resigned when it became public.)
There are other US examples of this formally nonpartisan/actually partisan arangement, especially in city governments. There are even examples of formally partisan, but actually nonpartisan governments. (Sometimes New York City fits that description.)
Malaysia was facing a hung parliament for the first time in its history as support for a conservative Islamic alliance prevented major coalitions from winning a simple majority in a general election.
Without a clear winner, political uncertainty could persist as Malaysia faces slowing economic growth and rising inflation. It has had three prime ministers in as many years.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Yes a bit of a faux pas there as I was copying the spelling from the previous post. I should have known better having read his books.
I've read his books too.
Well, the first two pages of Brief History of Time, 312 times, so it basically counts.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Quote you 'Where did I say...' You said science is based upon beliefs. I said beliefs get in the way of science. I then gave you prime examples of these eg flat earth and sun revolving around the earth. People believed this stuff and persecuted people who challenged it. They are perfect examples where belief gets in the way of science.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Quote you 'Where did I say...' You said science is based upon beliefs. I said beliefs get in the way of science. I then gave you prime examples of these eg flat earth and sun revolving around the earth. People believed this stuff and persecuted people who challenged it. They are perfect examples where belief gets in the way of science.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Yes a bit of a faux pas there as I was copying the spelling from the previous post. I should have known better having read his books.
I've read his books too.
Well, the first two pages of Brief History of Time, 312 times, so it basically counts.
'Brief Answers To The Big Questions' is an easier read for the most part. @MoonRabbit might want to read chapter 1 'Is there a god'
In the last paragraph he says 'it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no god'.
He says a lot more to reinforce that point, but I think that in itself is a pretty clear statement.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Quote you 'Where did I say...' You said science is based upon beliefs. I said beliefs get in the way of science. I then gave you prime examples of these eg flat earth and sun revolving around the earth. People believed this stuff and persecuted people who challenged it. They are perfect examples where belief gets in the way of science.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Quote you 'Where did I say...' You said science is based upon beliefs. I said beliefs get in the way of science. I then gave you prime examples of these eg flat earth and sun revolving around the earth. People believed this stuff and persecuted people who challenged it. They are perfect examples where belief gets in the way of science.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Are you a mathematician or a scientist?
Of course not.
I’m a lover and a poet.
I think we have cleared that up then.
You think so 🤭.
How can it be cleared up when you’re so wrong.
You are trying to fool us that maths and science is more clever than it is - when even a court jester can have an hypothesis and test it. If they turn to him and say “fool. Entertain me” and he asks them to wonder how a collection of zero or one dimensional particles could give rise to at least three spatial dimensions, well, that's the whole point of a court jester isn’t it?
No science starts without preconceived ideas of what kind of phenomena to observe, it’s also true scientific hypotheses and theories are made in abstract terms that don’t come to happen to be in description of like empirical science things. And the end result, just like the brilliant Einstein quote, is science can fail to arrive at universal truths - it may learn the way from Godalming to Heathrow, for example, but not know if Amarillo is actually out there to be found? what is something which don’t arrive at universal truth, like Amarillo, if it’s not using belief about the way to Amarillo or existence of Amarillo?
You are utterly wrong. No belief in humans, no science by humans.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
Just to be a little bit naughty - didn't Gödel show that in any sufficiently complex arithmetic, some things could be true, but not provable?
Apologies if I haven't phrased that quite right, but I is only a mere Engineer. To me maths is just partial differential equations and not a lot else.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Yes a bit of a faux pas there as I was copying the spelling from the previous post. I should have known better having read his books.
I've read his books too.
Well, the first two pages of Brief History of Time, 312 times, so it basically counts.
'Brief Answers To The Big Questions' is an easier read for the most part. @MoonRabbit might want to read chapter 1 'Is there a god'
In the last paragraph he says 'it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no god'.
He says a lot more to reinforce that point, but I think that in itself is a pretty clear statement.
Brief history of of time 1988. There are so many quotes from Hawking right up to his death in 2018 that he was atheist and didn’t believe in God, which you would have been better pointing to, becuase my argument Hawking and Jung came to Church later in life - With Yung it was around the time he wrote Misty Earium, Conny and Toesis.
But the truth is, late in his life Hawking did start attending Church. I’m not saying he converted or anything, only that being a thinker of big things, he still yearned like all the rest of us for the meaning to it all he didn’t know.
Elon Musk’s Twitter poll to reinstate Trump has ended 52/48 in favour.
Here's the question:
Will Trump be back, or will he try and make Truth Social work?
If he goes back to Twitter, Truth Social is dead.
On the other hand, if he "Truths" into a vacuum, then his chances of the Presidency may be diminished.
I reckon he'll dump Truth Social, and get sued to high heaven by those who invested in it.
1) Go back to Twitter 2) Turn the federation setting back on on truth.social 3) Say something unacceptable to Twitter's advertisers so Elon bans him from Twitter again 4) Right-wing Twitter users move to truth.social 5) Profit
The Tory bounce has clearly now disappeared. What is their plan to get out of the 20s?
When Labour was polling like this we were asking how long before a new party emerges, what if this really is the end of the Tories and they never govern again
Couldn't happen to a nicer party that wrecked our future to appease its client grey vote...
Elon is trolling the world. Especially the left. He’s quite good at it
There's that percentage 52% again.
Musk hasn't half got it coming to him. So has Trump. I blame those damned Republican senators who couldn't bring themselves to impeach at the second trial. Trump did seem out of breath a lot during his announcement though.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
I like to think, if the renowned physicist was looking down on us now from the great laboratory in the sky (even though he didn't believe in all that) he'd be saying, "Stephen Hawkins? Who the f*** is Stephen Hawkins?"
Yes a bit of a faux pas there as I was copying the spelling from the previous post. I should have known better having read his books.
I've read his books too.
Well, the first two pages of Brief History of Time, 312 times, so it basically counts.
'Brief Answers To The Big Questions' is an easier read for the most part. @MoonRabbit might want to read chapter 1 'Is there a god'
In the last paragraph he says 'it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no god'.
He says a lot more to reinforce that point, but I think that in itself is a pretty clear statement.
Brief history of of time 1988. There are so many quotes from Hawking right up to his death in 2018 that he was atheist and didn’t believe in God, which you would have been better pointing to, becuase my argument Hawking and Jung came to Church later in life - With Yung it was around the time he wrote Misty Earium, Conny and Toesis.
But the truth is, late in his life Hawking did start attending Church. I’m not saying he converted or anything, only that being a thinker of big things, he still yearned like all the rest of us for the meaning to it all he didn’t know.
Mysterium Coniunctionis. Trump reckons start with Memories, Dreams, and Reflections. I reckon he had his own childhood experience similar to Jung's famous vision of the Basel cathedral turd job.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
You would have no science without belief. Believing in something joins the dots by believing in something between the dots, or else science would never get anywhere.
Sorry this is utter bollocks and anti science. It is what has held science back by people believing stuff eg the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
I totally disagree and claim you are not listening. Where did I say flat earth, or defend eyes gauged out and burnt at the stake for saying earth goes round sun?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
Quote you 'Where did I say...' You said science is based upon beliefs. I said beliefs get in the way of science. I then gave you prime examples of these eg flat earth and sun revolving around the earth. People believed this stuff and persecuted people who challenged it. They are perfect examples where belief gets in the way of science.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Are you a mathematician or a scientist?
You don't realise you are putting your Science on a religious pedestal. You really don't. You are also misusing the word "analysis" both in its general usage and its specifically mathematical usage. F*ck science. Emotion should reign.
Here it is - a very loud alarm saying to everyone who opposes fascism: "If you use Twitter, sure you're an utter utter gumbie, but we won't hold it against you if you STOP DOING IT NOW". But sadly so many are hooked. It's a bit like saying "No pasaran" when the enemy are already in your living room.
Bug out time.
Trump will probably be re-elected unless action is taken fast.
Elon is trolling the world. Especially the left. He’s quite good at it
There's that percentage 52% again.
Musk hasn't half got it coming to him. So has Trump. I blame those damned Republican senators who couldn't bring themselves to impeach at the second trial. Trump did seem out of breath a lot during his announcement though.
It was surely the Russian bots that swung it for him?
The authorities on Saturday arrested two people at New York’s Pennsylvania Station and seized a large hunting knife and an illegal firearm with a 30-round magazine in what they described as a “developing threat to the Jewish community.” https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1594087902174216194
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
Classic Saturday night on pb.com last night. CondescendingCutlets was two fingers of schnapps away from chucking a brick through the window of his local 'woke' bookshop. Leon was predicting the end of the world. Moon'Raab'it appeared to have done acid and was having some sort of gnostic revelation. Trump's back on Twitter. Lovely stuff.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
A prediction, rather. The alternative is letting Putin create more Aleppos - or Mariupols.
I did use to think that DJT's manifold legal travails were of no moment but the sheer mass and density of them is now really quite something. Especially now the RNC aren't going to be picking up his legals bills which must be millions/month.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
Smart idea. He's finally getting the hang of this politics lark. Now he has a significant lead he can start eating away at the edges.
Get some intense market research done and find out what the public want. Then start molding the party accordingly. Not vote changers in themselves but getting with the zeitgeist of the voters.
I'm sure another beached gravy train will be pretty well received particularly if Rees Mogg and Mad Nad have a place reserved.
It's all straight out of the TB playbook. Blair's research guru was of course on the payroll and was integral to their success
Has Starmer solved the problem of emptying Parliament so the building can be repaired? The Commons can sit in the Lords while the builders are in, and then scoot back down the green end.
Perhaps Starmer's plan to abolish the Lords might concentrate Nadine's (and other Tories') minds about Boris's wheeze of deferred peerages. Maybe they will need to jump sooner rather than later, risking the odd by-election, if they want to get there at all.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
I did use to think that DJT's manifold legal travails were of no moment but the sheer mass and density of them is now really quite something. Especially now the RNC aren't going to be picking up his legals bills which must be millions/month.
He’ll fundraise on the back of it, and the marks will continue to give. But the classified documents case, elements of which are strict liability offences, ought to be a lot easier to prosecute and prove than something like conspiracy.
Which way the Republican party jumps will be interesting to watch. They are already showing some signs of rallying behind him. While the new House majority prepares for two years of investigations into Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The English refusing to accept that Brexit is responsible for the economic crisis is like Americans refusing to accept guns are responsible for gun crime.
People see huge numbers for gun deaths in the US. Which they are.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
The unimpeachable source of the man in the pub.
Where are you? Sat in your living room in a remote farmhouse in Lincolnshire plotting revolution whilst your wife patiently cooks the lunch?
Smart idea. He's finally getting the hang of this politics lark. Now he has a significant lead he can start eating away at the edges.
Get some intense market research done and find out what the public want. Then start molding the party accordingly. Not vote changers in themselves but getting with the zeitgeist of the voters.
I'm sure another beached gravy train will be pretty well received particularly if Rees Mogg and Mad Nad have a place reserved.
It's all straight out of the TB playbook. Blair's research guru was of course on the payroll and was integral to their success
Has Starmer solved the problem of emptying Parliament so the building can be repaired? The Commons can sit in the Lords while the builders are in, and then scoot back down the green end.
Perhaps Starmer's plan to abolish the Lords might concentrate Nadine's (and other Tories') minds about Boris's wheeze of deferred peerages. Maybe they will need to jump sooner rather than later, risking the odd by-election, if they want to get there at all.
Think Dories and Co will be happily wrapped in ermine for the rest of their lives. The Labour party's record on actually achieving any reform of the Lords is not great.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
No, because it is not that scientists invoke God in their equations; rather, it is just a question of whether they are trying to discover God's laws or Nature's laws; it makes no operational difference. Regarding anecdata on physicists, two of my chemistry professors had turned their collars round, and a third chaired a church something-or-other committee.
ETA not to mention, of course, that they'd have been religious from childhood, long before taking up science.
F1: backed Leclerc each way to win at 14 (third the odds top 2). Odds against but the numbers feel too long for a chap four-hundredths off second-placed Perez. Also in prime position to benefit if Red Bull have an error/collision. And if Sainz is 2nd and Leclerc 3rd, then the Spaniard may give way.
The Tory bounce has clearly now disappeared. What is their plan to get out of the 20s?
When Labour was polling like this we were asking how long before a new party emerges, what if this really is the end of the Tories and they never govern again
Couldn't happen to a nicer party that wrecked our future to appease its client grey vote...
The obvious problem being that the over 55s constitute the majority of the electorate, and are liable to creep back to the Tories as we get closer to the next GE. Yes, much of the economic pain is still to come, but we also have to stop from time to time and remember that the Government will bleed the rest of the country white to ensure that the wealthy, homeowning pensioner base gets to keep the triple lock, is cushioned with extra bungs against the worst of the fuel bill excesses, and that taxation of both their properties and their estates, when they eventually kick the bucket, will be kept at rock bottom levels. That's going to buy a lot of loyalty from the already decrepit and their late middle-aged heirs.
In short, these polls are irrelevant. The Conservative Party will certainly get more than 30% of the vote, and probably over a third, which should be enough to save about three-quarters of Tory MPs from the chop, regardless of how much everyone else is hurting and longing to be rid of them.
My guess at this stage is that Sunak keeps his fingers crossed for signs of recovery in 2024, and most likely ends up going for an election in Spring 2024, off the back of some token budget giveaways like a penny off the basic rate of income tax, and perhaps the abolition of IHT. Result: Labour minority Government.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
It's always been the easy way out! What gets me is that we can all look back to pagan times or primitive civilizations around the world or the ancient Greeks and Romans and see straight away how their beliefs were merely human constructs that usefully explained away gaps in their knowledge, imposed some sort of social order and conformity, and offered tangible upside to get younger people to volunteer risking death in battle - yet when it comes to the various flavours of nonsense that some people cling to nowadays, many suddenly have a blind spot.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be found among various loads of beliefs dreamed up thousands of years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
Mr. B2, it's also interesting to compare the Garden of Eden and the story of Prometheus.
In the Greek original, the guy who gives us technology/knowledge is a good fellow. In the Christian remake, he's a villain. Bloody Satan, giving us science. The swine!
Edited extra bit: probably should be Judeo-Christian, to be honest.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
It's always been the easy way out! What gets me is that we can all look back to pagan times or primitive civilizations around the world or the ancient Greeks and Romans and see straight away how their beliefs were merely human constructs that usefully explained away gaps in their knowledge, imposed some sort of social order and conformity, and offered tangible upside to get younger people to volunteer risking death in battle - yet when it comes to the various flavours of nonsense that some people cling to nowadays, many suddenly have a blind spot.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be a load of beliefs dreamed up two thousand years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
Human beings are hard wired with a survival instinct that's incompatible with the acceptance of mortality. Religion is a way to cheat death by pretending that we aren't just complex biological computers that stop working after a few brief moments, utilising supernatural explanations to ensure that believers can feel solid in their faith with no threat of it being definitively disproven by logical means. There's nothing more to it than that.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
It's always been the easy way out! What gets me is that we can all look back to pagan times or primitive civilizations around the world or the ancient Greeks and Romans and see straight away how their beliefs were merely human constructs that usefully explained away gaps in their knowledge, imposed some sort of social order and conformity, and offered tangible upside to get younger people to volunteer risking death in battle - yet when it comes to the various flavours of nonsense that some people cling to nowadays, many suddenly have a blind spot.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be a load of beliefs dreamed up two thousand years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
Human beings are hard wired with a survival instinct that's incompatible with the acceptance of mortality. Religion is a way to cheat death by pretending that we aren't just complex biological computers that stop working after a few brief moments, utilising supernatural explanations to ensure that believers can feel solid in their faith with no threat of it being definitively disproven by logical means. There's nothing more to it than that.
FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)
Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
“Negotiate…”
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825 Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
It will prompt the Ukrainians allies giving them aircraft to prevent Russia reclaiming the skies. They have already been training pilots en masse to fly them.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
What's your source on training pilots? (Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it apart from some random simulator thing that didn't seem to be connected with any government.)
It's more of a 'vibe' than an actual fact.
The fact I know it is happening (from one of those doing the training) and you don't says pretty much all we need to know about your record on the Special Military Operation....
The unimpeachable source of the man in the pub.
Where are you? Sat in your living room in a remote farmhouse in Lincolnshire plotting revolution whilst your wife patiently cooks the lunch?
What is there in Lincolnshire? Quite a lot of crab-fat types from the Raff. So .,..
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Given that the education system gives preferential employment to Christian sectarians and allows them to indoctrinate, that's not surprising. Jobs for C of E and RCs (but not, say, Wiccans or Jedis or members of the Religious Society of Friends, special schools apart). And biologists know much better that the Genesis stuff is plain wrong on a factual level.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
It's always been the easy way out! What gets me is that we can all look back to pagan times or primitive civilizations around the world or the ancient Greeks and Romans and see straight away how their beliefs were merely human constructs that usefully explained away gaps in their knowledge, imposed some sort of social order and conformity, and offered tangible upside to get younger people to volunteer risking death in battle - yet when it comes to the various flavours of nonsense that some people cling to nowadays, many suddenly have a blind spot.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be a load of beliefs dreamed up two thousand years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
Human beings are hard wired with a survival instinct that's incompatible with the acceptance of mortality. Religion is a way to cheat death by pretending that we aren't just complex biological computers that stop working after a few brief moments, utilising supernatural explanations to ensure that believers can feel solid in their faith with no threat of it being definitively disproven by logical means. There's nothing more to it than that.
Even if that's true, please don't say it.
It's depressing.
No it's not. Dying sucks big time, and you can advance a good case that our lives (especially the healthy, active portion of them) are too short, but ultimately we are finite beings. It would be worse to live forever.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Yes. Newton was weirdo though, he believed in Gnocchi. I prefer that Stephen Hawkins attended Church. Carl Jung believed too.
Stephen Hawkins was an atheist.
Stephen Hawkins attended Church in his later life.
I find it's quite common. One's friends tend to die off and one finds oneself going to one's friends funerals, sometimes in the kirk. So, in strict logic, that stat does not prove anything.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
Would it?
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries. That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.
There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.
Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.
There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
It is perfectly possible to be educated and a Christian eg Newton or Francis Collins
Physicists are very often Christians/believers in God - much more so than chemists or biologists. I've seen this said many times, and I believe it. Anecdotally it was true of physics teachers in my secondary school.
Isn't that because quantum physics is so difficult that physicists have so far been unable to come up with a "theory of everything" that hangs together so the easy way out is to invent God?
It's always been the easy way out! What gets me is that we can all look back to pagan times or primitive civilizations around the world or the ancient Greeks and Romans and see straight away how their beliefs were merely human constructs that usefully explained away gaps in their knowledge, imposed some sort of social order and conformity, and offered tangible upside to get younger people to volunteer risking death in battle - yet when it comes to the various flavours of nonsense that some people cling to nowadays, many suddenly have a blind spot.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be a load of beliefs dreamed up two thousand years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
Human beings are hard wired with a survival instinct that's incompatible with the acceptance of mortality. Religion is a way to cheat death by pretending that we aren't just complex biological computers that stop working after a few brief moments, utilising supernatural explanations to ensure that believers can feel solid in their faith with no threat of it being definitively disproven by logical means. There's nothing more to it than that.
Comments
Blair would never have done this. Focus on the game in hand
Starmer's feeble ineptitude is the one thing that might give Tories hope. He is boring and useless and has no good ideas what to do
My central expectation is an 8-10 point Labour win, as Tories remain in the doldrums, but Labour don't quite succeed in putting the vision thing to go with their tight ship. Should be enough to not rely on the SNP, might not be enough with the demographics to get an overall majority.
2nd para - In your opinion. Most educated people would disagree. Physic, chemistry, languages, art, sport, etc are more important to most and to many they believe what you have said is a fiction.
The idea that oceans of parliamentary time in first term will be taken up with this is utter hogwash.
Not Going To Happen.
Floating it though is the Tofu-eating class equivalent of throwing some red meat at the party members.
“We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
And we are back with the example of neutrinos.
I have already used MarqueeMark excuse for putting on weight, saying his body has started retaining neutrino’s. I was told by dear GF to stop eating so many of them then.
So not everyone knows about neutrino’s. I only found out about them recently from my Christian counsellor who explained sub atomic particles that make up all the universe and dark matter allow Angels and Daemons who are in another place to be in our place.
How do you know that’s definitely not true?
Science should be based upon observation, experiment and mathematics.
It is worth noting what was said by the Professor of Analytics during my very first lecture of my maths degree where you go back to the foundation of mathematics with the creation of the axioms. We were told to clear our minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong.
So the exact opposite of what you believe is the basis of science.
"A file of evidence into the “cash-for-honours” scandal embroiling the King and his longest-serving aide has been passed by police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Prosecutors are expected to decide before Christmas if charges will be brought after Charles, then Prince of Wales, personally presented a wealthy Saudi businessman with a CBE after donations to royal causes worth £1.5 million.
If the case goes to trial, the King’s involvement — including meetings with the businessman in London, Scotland and Riyadh — will be played out in court, potentially before the coronation in May."
Surely no chance the establishment lets this go to trial?
The bit about “ clear minds of all preconceptions (beliefs) because much of what you believe to be true will be wrong” is actually be true enough, but if it’s all you got to connect you from knowing A to knowing B, you will never get to B if you don’t use it.
You are so utterly wrong I ask you to think again. Science only works if it uses preconceptions and beliefs to join the dots.
@zuibrahim
Mahathir Mohamad, 97, dominant force in Malaysian politics for decades, ousted by his own constituency. Voters have made plain his era is well and truly over. #GE15 #PRU15"
https://twitter.com/zuibrahim/status/1593998663306526720
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593769469741932544
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature
Unlike the legislatures of the other 49 U.S. states and the U.S. Congress, the Nebraska Legislature is a unicameral legislature, thus not separated into two houses. It is also nonpartisan, and does not officially recognize its members' political party affiliations."
I say "formally", because all 49 have party affiliations; there are 32 Republicans and 17 Democrats. But the legislature isn't organized by party. Each earns "$12,000/year + per diem".
And that is about all that I know about the Nebraska legislature. Which I suppose is a compliment to them, since I would probabaly have heard more about them, had here been any large scandals there, in recent years. (There was a small one this year; the senator resigned when it became public.)
There are other US examples of this formally nonpartisan/actually partisan arangement, especially in city governments. There are even examples of formally partisan, but actually nonpartisan governments. (Sometimes New York City fits that description.)
Malaysia was facing a hung parliament for the first time in its history as support for a conservative Islamic alliance prevented major coalitions from winning a simple majority in a general election.
Without a clear winner, political uncertainty could persist as Malaysia faces slowing economic growth and rising inflation. It has had three prime ministers in as many years.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/malaysia-votes-general-election-anwar-expected-lead-tight-race-2022-11-19/
Well, the first two pages of Brief History of Time, 312 times, so it basically counts.
You are utterly wrong in you will never get to B. Mathematical Analysis is a perfect example of that and it is what all our maths is based upon. At school you do not learn maths from first principles and much of what you are taught at school is a special subset (for instance until A level you will only ever come across the Real number set). In mathematical analysis you do start from first principles. So you start from a few basic axioms. It is absolutely essential that you DO NOT have any preconceptions or beliefs. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is the very first thing you are taught.
Preconceptions and beliefs are what destroy good science. That is not to say you observe stuff, believe it might be true or false, test it by experiment to see if it is, or prove it or otherwise mathematically. That is fine, but vague belief and preconceptions are not.
Are you a mathematician or a scientist?
I’m a lover and a poet.
In the last paragraph he says 'it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no god'.
He says a lot more to reinforce that point, but I think that in itself is a pretty clear statement.
How can it be cleared up when you’re so wrong.
You are trying to fool us that maths and science is more clever than it is - when even a court jester can have an hypothesis and test it. If they turn to him and say “fool. Entertain me” and he asks them to wonder how a collection of zero or one dimensional particles could give rise to at least three spatial dimensions, well, that's the whole point of a court jester isn’t it?
No science starts without preconceived ideas of what kind of phenomena to observe, it’s also true scientific hypotheses and theories are made in abstract terms that don’t come to happen to be in description of like empirical science things. And the end result, just like the brilliant Einstein quote, is science can fail to arrive at universal truths - it may learn the way from Godalming to Heathrow, for example, but not know if Amarillo is actually out there to be found? what is something which don’t arrive at universal truth, like Amarillo, if it’s not using belief about the way to Amarillo or existence of Amarillo?
You are utterly wrong. No belief in humans, no science by humans.
Apologies if I haven't phrased that quite right, but I is only a mere Engineer. To me maths is just partial differential equations and not a lot else.
Will Trump be back, or will he try and make Truth Social work?
If he goes back to Twitter, Truth Social is dead.
On the other hand, if he "Truths" into a vacuum, then his chances of the Presidency may be diminished.
I reckon he'll dump Truth Social, and get sued to high heaven by those who invested in it.
But the truth is, late in his life Hawking did start attending Church. I’m not saying he converted or anything, only that being a thinker of big things, he still yearned like all the rest of us for the meaning to it all he didn’t know.
2) Turn the federation setting back on on truth.social
3) Say something unacceptable to Twitter's advertisers so Elon bans him from Twitter again
4) Right-wing Twitter users move to truth.social
5) Profit
Elon is trolling the world. Especially the left. He’s quite good at it
CHB?
Leon?
I’m voting Leon.
Musk hasn't half got it coming to him.
So has Trump.
I blame those damned Republican senators who couldn't bring themselves to impeach at the second trial.
Trump did seem out of breath a lot during his announcement though.
Trump reckons start with Memories, Dreams, and Reflections. I reckon he had his own childhood experience similar to Jung's famous vision of the Basel cathedral turd job.
Bug out time.
Trump will probably be re-elected unless action is taken fast.
Russian influence, just like….
According to Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin, almost 90% of the dead bodies found in liberated settlements of Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Kherson oblasts are civilians.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1594066782272163840
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1594087902174216194
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594068262996045825
Meanwhile in Russia: a lawmaker argues that the strikes against Ukraine's critical infrastructure are meant to express Russia's "holy hatred" towards Ukrainians and prompt them to overthrow Zelensky. Others pontificate that freezing Ukrainian civilians will prompt a capitulation.
War by war crime cannot be allowed to win. This is Russia's only remaining strategy.
Vox Eloni, vox Dei.
The alternative is letting Putin create more Aleppos - or Mariupols.
Trump explodes at special counsel appointment: ‘I am not going to partake in it’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3742413-trump-explodes-at-special-counsel-appointment-i-am-not-going-to-partake-in-it/
Or the man on the Hill?
Perhaps Starmer's plan to abolish the Lords might concentrate Nadine's (and other Tories') minds about Boris's wheeze of deferred peerages. Maybe they will need to jump sooner rather than later, risking the odd by-election, if they want to get there at all.
But the classified documents case, elements of which are strict liability offences, ought to be a lot easier to prosecute and prove than something like conspiracy.
Which way the Republican party jumps will be interesting to watch. They are already showing some signs of rallying behind him. While the new House majority prepares for two years of investigations into Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Edit: or rather the intent is there. Defence Authorisation Act still not done so I gather. But it doesn’t stop other nations from doing it
I've laid some more.
ETA not to mention, of course, that they'd have been religious from childhood, long before taking up science.
F1: backed Leclerc each way to win at 14 (third the odds top 2). Odds against but the numbers feel too long for a chap four-hundredths off second-placed Perez. Also in prime position to benefit if Red Bull have an error/collision. And if Sainz is 2nd and Leclerc 3rd, then the Spaniard may give way.
In short, these polls are irrelevant. The Conservative Party will certainly get more than 30% of the vote, and probably over a third, which should be enough to save about three-quarters of Tory MPs from the chop, regardless of how much everyone else is hurting and longing to be rid of them.
My guess at this stage is that Sunak keeps his fingers crossed for signs of recovery in 2024, and most likely ends up going for an election in Spring 2024, off the back of some token budget giveaways like a penny off the basic rate of income tax, and perhaps the abolition of IHT. Result: Labour minority Government.
If there is an unexplained mystery to the origin of everything, the answer is most unlikely to be found among various loads of beliefs dreamed up thousands of years ago and moulded over time for purely terrestrial motives.
In the Greek original, the guy who gives us technology/knowledge is a good fellow. In the Christian remake, he's a villain. Bloody Satan, giving us science. The swine!
Edited extra bit: probably should be Judeo-Christian, to be honest.
Red meat to the base.
It's depressing.
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1594139381727916033?t=xn3RfaRix3xlMtxDwgy0Mg&s=19
Soon people will be live streaming movies on Twitter.
Heck, they'll live stream the World Cup.