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.
Well, that all sounds very clever, but it's a logical fallacy. If there is a God, and if he created humanity, then he's the one who hard-wired humans in such a way as to make religious belief likely to propagate. So your argument becomes circular: you can only prove God doesn't exist by axiomatically assuming he doesn't.
Mr. Endillion, you can't prove a negative like that. No more than you can prove Zeus doesn't exist. Or the Tentacular Goat of Endless Fish. Or that there isn't an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter.
It's the role of the one who has a theory or belief to either prove it correct or convince others.
I find Peterson a curious phenomenon. He has a cultish following among some young men, and from time to time carries himself in a ridiculously over-selfconsciously traditional way. He also has some bizarre views on society being reorganised to allow men, most particularly, to be more naturally polygamous.
On the other hand he only became famous because of over-restrictive control of language on a message board on the internet, about 20 years ago as I remember, which at that time he had challenged with a reasonable amount of academic rigour. In amongst the oddities he also has quite a lot of more mainstream-traditional views in some areas of culture, more than you might believe from the opprobrium he attracts because of some of the more extreme ones.
A bizarre phenomenon overall, at times filling some sort of modern gap for more mainstream-traditionalist values that is not ultra-religious, but in a strange way, I think.
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.
Doesn't work. Tony Blair has set the template. Go along with all the Tory giveaways but offer competence and a few well researched modernisations-like HoL reform-to remind voters that Labour are the 'white heat of technology' Party and quite how worn out the Tories are. I think we can confidently look forward to a Tory wipeout.
If their last constitutional upfuckery is anything to go by they'll have a chamber with 100 members for Wales, 200 for Scotland, and 300 for English inner cities.
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.
As a wise man once said, I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 years would be pretty nice.
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.
It's not true, it's pigeon's truth. He believes it, and probably even experiences 'proof' of it in his daily life, as Christians experience evidence that confirms their faith in their daily lives.
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.
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.
Off topic. No reply, just hit me with an off topic. I guess that clears that up then. 🤣
You have no evidence God does not exist, you merely “choose to believe” he doesn’t - that’s a belief system. It is! 😇 And the same “I can’t prove it, but I choose to believe” systems are always used in science to join the dots.
Anyway, I’m busy now, at Church about to learn more about the meaning of it all.
I find Peterson a curious phenomenon. He has a cultish following among some young men, and from time to time carries himself in a ridiculously over-selfconsciously traditional way. He also has some bizarre views on society being reorganised to allow men, most particularly, to be more naturally polygamous.
On the other hand he only became famous because of over-restrictive control of language on a message board on the internet, about 20 years ago as I remember, which at that time he had challenged with a reasonable amount of academic rigour. In amongst the oddities he also has quite a lot of more mainstream-traditional views in some areas of culture, more than you might believe from the opprobrium he attracts because of some of the more extreme ones.
A bizarre phenomenon overall, at times filling some sort of modern gap for more mainstream-traditionalist values that is not ultra-religious, but in a strange way, I think.
Alternatively, he's an utter tw@t who wasn't worth the five minutes attention I paid his nonsense.
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.
Off topic. No reply, just hit me with an off topic. I guess that clears that up then. 🤣
You have no evidence God does not exist, you merely “choose to believe” he doesn’t - that’s a belief system. It is! 😇 And the same “I can’t prove it, but I choose to believe” systems are always used in science to join the dots.
Anyway, I’m busy now, at Church about to learn more about the meaning of it all.
How do you know the OT wasn't divine intervention via neutrino stream ?
Comments
It's the role of the one who has a theory or belief to either prove it correct or convince others.
I find Peterson a curious phenomenon. He has a cultish following among some young men, and from time to time carries himself in a ridiculously over-selfconsciously traditional way. He also has some bizarre views on society being reorganised to allow men, most particularly, to be more naturally polygamous.
On the other hand he only became famous because of over-restrictive control of language on a message board on the internet, about 20 years ago as I remember, which at that time he had challenged with a reasonable amount of academic rigour. In amongst the oddities he also has quite a lot of more mainstream-traditional views in some areas of culture, more than you might believe from the opprobrium he attracts because of some of the more extreme ones.
A bizarre phenomenon overall, at times filling some sort of modern gap for more mainstream-traditionalist values that is not ultra-religious, but in a strange way, I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63692981
If their last constitutional upfuckery is anything to go by they'll have a chamber with 100 members for Wales, 200 for Scotland, and 300 for English inner cities.
Usually.
You have no evidence God does not exist, you merely “choose to believe” he doesn’t - that’s a belief system. It is! 😇 And the same “I can’t prove it, but I choose to believe” systems are always used in science to join the dots.
Anyway, I’m busy now, at Church about to learn more about the meaning of it all.