So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Heretics!
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
I am quite happy to define who counts as a Tory or not, so this is no different
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
If it it were as straightforward as if someone said they believed in the Christian God thats that I dont think they'd have spent 2000 years arguing about the details. Some people dont think Mormons count. Do Branch Dividians?
Like national recognition of you can get others to accept your self certification as Christian that's what will count.
Getting a Bluto vibe off Cleverley these days. Pretty sure he won’t be giving Ron a hard time over his Ukraine flip flopping.
What purpose would a US Governor have in making extended overseas trips?
R4 news this am made the fairly bleedin obvious point that it’s part of the POTUS in waiting signals he wants to give out. You’d think the polling might give him pause but apparently not.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Those who don't are not really Christians
Because non trinitarians, or those with alternative interpretations of the trinity, were killed?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
I sing hymns, at times, and enjoy many Christian songs.
I like a roast dinner on Sundays.
I celebrate Christmas and Easter.
Am I a Christian?
You sound confused.
I'm not confused in any way. Unless Professor Richard Dawkins is similarly confused.
But you're asking PB.com whether you are a Christian or not. Not sure if Dawkins has done something similar. What's he professor of, by the way? Cos he doesn't understand much about religion.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
The 'Walkie Talkie' building in London is one of my least favourite buildings anywhere. A real blight on the London skyline.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
“The Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief”? So all Christians are compelled to think as they do and have no free will? It’s a cult then….
No, just the presence of the eternal God and his Holy Spirit within them ensuring belief in the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the true saviour of mankind
But what if they say they dont believe? What is the spirit enfusing them with then?
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
The 'Walkie Talkie' building in London is one of my least favourite buildings anywhere. A real blight on the London skyline.
I think in the context of the area it works, with uniquely shaped skyscrapers.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
“The Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief”? So all Christians are compelled to think as they do and have no free will? It’s a cult then….
No, just the presence of the eternal God and his Holy Spirit within them ensuring belief in the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the true saviour of mankind
Good for you. This is the @HYUFD we know and love.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
Eh? I merely said that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Christian God. Only on PB
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
I sing hymns, at times, and enjoy many Christian songs.
I like a roast dinner on Sundays.
I celebrate Christmas and Easter.
Am I a Christian?
You sound confused.
I'm not confused in any way. Unless Professor Richard Dawkins is similarly confused.
But you're asking PB.com whether you are a Christian or not. Not sure if Dawkins has done something similar. What's he professor of, by the way? Cos he doesn't understand much about religion.
Christians don't need to believe in God to be Christians.
Only on PB.
Anabobazina claiming cliche arguments are a particularly PB thing.
Only on PB.
And I think in context the claim being called more complicated was your assertion only belief in Christian God matters in whether you are one- despite thousands of years of Christians, of which I am not one, arguing more specifics are needed.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
Who on earth are you to tell someone if they are a Christian or not? You sound like some kind of fanatic. And a minute ago you also said they had to believe in "Christian scripture" whatever that means.
Eh? I merely said that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Christian God. Only on PB could such a statement be deemed fanatical.
At least you've dropped the need to believe in 'Christian scripture'. That didn't take long. Maybe if you talk to some Christians who don't believe in God you could drop that bit too.
Depends how seriously you take the Dark Night of the Soul stuff- carrying on with the actions not because you believe but because you somehow trust the memories of an earlier time when you did believe. Let alone the solidarity with one's ancestral tribe thing- they believed and did these things, so we do them even though the deity seems to have wandered off.
Are those sort of actions good for us? The evidence seems to be so, even if doing without believing is an odd thing to do in our society. Is God pleased by those sort of actions? You'd have to ask Them.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Those who don't are not really Christians
So 100%?
I think there may have been a rounding error in HYUFD's head.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
I’ve just been looking at lists of ‘world’s ugliest buildings’ and there’s a lot of hate for the MI6 building on the Thames. Which I actually rather like. Holyrood gets a kicking as well
Most of the lists are too old to feature the Edinburgh Turd building, which must be in anyone’s top 3 worldwide
The 'Walkie Talkie' building in London is one of my least favourite buildings anywhere. A real blight on the London skyline.
Yeah. I’ve tried to love it, but I just can’t. Fortunately it’s about to be hidden by a load of new towers. Likewise the great big lump that is 22 Bishopsgate
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
There are few things that mark someone out as a first class objectionable wanker better than when someone tries to mock someone for their religious faith.
Well done for notching up yet another "first class wanker" indicator
Getting a Bluto vibe off Cleverley these days. Pretty sure he won’t be giving Ron a hard time over his Ukraine flip flopping.
What purpose would a US Governor have in making extended overseas trips?
R4 news this am made the fairly bleedin obvious point that it’s part of the POTUS in waiting signals he wants to give out. You’d think the polling might give him pause but apparently not.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Getting a Bluto vibe off Cleverley these days. Pretty sure he won’t be giving Ron a hard time over his Ukraine flip flopping.
What purpose would a US Governor have in making extended overseas trips?
R4 news this am made the fairly bleedin obvious point that it’s part of the POTUS in waiting signals he wants to give out. You’d think the polling might give him pause but apparently not.
If Trump goes down, he’s the front runner
I guess so. The piece this am suggested Trump lovers don’t absolutely detest Desantis, they just love their man much more.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Sorry to hear you were unwell. Just wanted to say to please keep up these travelogues. I enjoy them immensely.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Good man. I too enjoy your travelogues, especially the noble way you walk from town to town. 20 miles a day is a fuckton of hiking, Bravo
I’ll be interested in your take on Carnac. Despite its enormous scale I found it oddly non-moving, and I generally love Neolithic sites
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I nearly mentioned Kirkwall earlier. I've never been there. But from the pictures I've seen it's one of my favourites, both outside and in - not least because it's red.
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
I think the US must be concerned about Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia. I think it is an unnecessary concern. Ukraine has had many opportunities to strike inside Russia and has for the most part spurned these for fear of putting other countries off providing weapons.
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Ukraine needs F-16s and any other weapons we can give them. Russia will only stop when they are stopped.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I nearly mentioned Kirkwall earlier. I've never been there. But from the pictures I've seen it's one of my favourites, both outside and in - not least because it's red.
I absolutely recommend it. I was totally unprepared but it is stunning, partly because of that orange-red sandstone, but also the fascinating Viking elements, Kirkwall in general is a great little “city”
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
You were complicating it by disputing people's self-identification as Christian.
I thought that was the basis for an interesting discussion about the boundaries between belief and non-belief, cultural observance, etc, and then you contradicted yourself by having a go at me for complicating things.
You seem to do this a lot with beliefs that you have - atheism, the death of cash, the greatness of London, etc - that you have to denigrate those who disagree with you and suggest that they're only pretending in some way. It's really childish.
'Only 67% of Protestants who belong to the EKD believe in God, according to a survey of magazine Der Spiegel. In 2005, 79% of Protestants affirmed this belief.
The number of members of the Catholic Church who believe in God is a bit higher: 75%. In 2005, 85% said they believe in God.
Asked about the central teaching of Easter, only 58% of Protestants and 61% of Catholics believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'
and so on...
And these are proper paying members of Churches - people who pay a church tax to their churches out of their salaries.
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Getting a Bluto vibe off Cleverley these days. Pretty sure he won’t be giving Ron a hard time over his Ukraine flip flopping.
What purpose would a US Governor have in making extended overseas trips?
R4 news this am made the fairly bleedin obvious point that it’s part of the POTUS in waiting signals he wants to give out. You’d think the polling might give him pause but apparently not.
If Trump goes down, he’s the front runner
If Trump goes down, he will either try and run as an Independent still or endorse Pence over DeSantis
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
Part of me thinks that if you take the analogy of a boxing contest, so long as the Ukrainians are on the back foot the US is clearly in their corner offering support. However let us say Ukraine was to get on top, I think the US would like to turn themselves into the referee and decide when Russia has had enough. Armed with F-16s the Ukrainians might want to carry on fighting.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I nearly mentioned Kirkwall earlier. I've never been there. But from the pictures I've seen it's one of my favourites, both outside and in - not least because it's red.
I absolutely recommend it. I was totally unprepared but it is stunning, partly because of that orange-red sandstone, but also the fascinating Viking elements, Kirkwall in general is a great little “city”
Google seem to have sent their StreetView cameras inside it. You can have an explore here:
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
it's an eccentric view, agreed. The difference between' beyond reasonable historical doubt' (for that period), and 'conclusively proven' is small, but non zero.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I nearly mentioned Kirkwall earlier. I've never been there. But from the pictures I've seen it's one of my favourites, both outside and in - not least because it's red.
I absolutely recommend it. I was totally unprepared but it is stunning, partly because of that orange-red sandstone, but also the fascinating Viking elements, Kirkwall in general is a great little “city”
Google seem to have sent their StreetView cameras inside it. You can have an explore here:
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
For all you F1 fans, don't forget it's a sprint race weekend (and they've changed it too), so qualifying for the main race is starting now.
Damn! As I’m too cheap to buy into the sky f1 nonsense, it means I need to log off pb all weekend to avoid having the utter predictability of Verstappen’s win confirmed to me before Channel 4 manages to rewind and upload the video tape…
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I nearly mentioned Kirkwall earlier. I've never been there. But from the pictures I've seen it's one of my favourites, both outside and in - not least because it's red.
I absolutely recommend it. I was totally unprepared but it is stunning, partly because of that orange-red sandstone, but also the fascinating Viking elements, Kirkwall in general is a great little “city”
Google seem to have sent their StreetView cameras inside it. You can have an explore here:
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
Part of me thinks that if you take the analogy of a boxing contest, so long as the Ukrainians are on the back foot the US is clearly in their corner offering support. However let us say Ukraine was to get on top, I think the US would like to turn themselves into the referee and decide when Russia has had enough. Armed with F-16s the Ukrainians might want to carry on fighting.
They might want to Inn that situation, but F-16s won't help them to get very far off their don't have any ammunition.
Someone on here once talked about how the US fine-tuned the support they provided to Croatia to prevent them from going too far when they retook areas of Croatia occupied by Serbia. They have more effective ways of doing this than holding back on F-15s, just in terms of the intelligence support they provide.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Gosh I'm impressed you have walked all that way. I do regular cycle trips through France and many years ago did North to South Brittany and back on what looks like a similar route to you. We did river banks for about half of it and then a converted disused railway line for the rest. Stopped at some wonderful places.
Getting a Bluto vibe off Cleverley these days. Pretty sure he won’t be giving Ron a hard time over his Ukraine flip flopping.
What purpose would a US Governor have in making extended overseas trips?
R4 news this am made the fairly bleedin obvious point that it’s part of the POTUS in waiting signals he wants to give out. You’d think the polling might give him pause but apparently not.
Do you hate my guts but still hope that I beat Donald Trump? ... I do, Ron Ron Ron, I do Ron Ron
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
Probably not born in Bethlehem though.
And was born around four years before he was born (4BC) IIRC from the podcast. Or was that died? Genuinely can't remember.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
I'm not a huge one on cathedrals but in Spain they are pretty spectacular. Plenty more art and reliquaries than boring old Guildford, etc. What's that one that is on street level if you see what I mean? Salamanca? Can't remember.
I made it to Vannes yesterday, which is a beautiful (in the centre, as usual) city with a huge, interesting cathedral. It was built over five hundred years with changing styles representing those ages. Unfortunately it’s really hard to get good pictures of because there’s no space to the neighbouring buildings
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Gosh I'm impressed you have walked all that way. I do regular cycle trips through France and many years ago did North to South Brittany and back on what looks like a similar route to you. We did river banks for about half of it and then a converted disused railway line for the rest. Stopped at some wonderful places.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
Probably not born in Bethlehem though.
Almost certainly not. All part of a legitimation myth, common in the ancient world.
We can try and compare polls to 4 years ago to set a benchmark for the local elections. One complication is that 4 years ago we have fewer polls and polling companies.
So broadly L+9, LD+4, Brexit/Reform/UKIP -13 and no Change UK.
The complication with the polls before the locals in 2019 is that it was unclear as to whether Change UK would take over from the Lib Dems: this was answered by the locals. But the impact of Change UK affects the LD and Labour voting in the polls.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
What if you believe in the Christian God AND you also believe in the Muslim God, and you happen to think they are really one and the same? Many, I presume most, other Christians would say you are not a Christian. Are you a Christian?
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
It's not up to anyone else is it? Really surprised at the enthusiasm for takfir around here.
Yes and no? I don’t know that relying entirely on self-identification works for all purposes. If someone says they’re a Christian, but they say they worship Tiamat and that the most important principle is that everyone must eat pumpernickel on a Thursday, are they a Christian, or just a madman, or just being deliberately difficult? So I think claims of belonging to a particular religion possibly should be tempered by a broader consideration of whether those claims are supported by a wider community in certain situations, depending on why you are asking the question in the first place.
Interesting that YouGov today has Labour on the same percentage that Corbyn got in 2017, 41% in Great Britain. (The figures for UK are slightly different).
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
it's an eccentric view, agreed. The difference between' beyond reasonable historical doubt' (for that period), and 'conclusively proven' is small, but non zero.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
Yes, that's true. Though it should be said until relatively recently that wasn't the case; FPTP absolutely screwed the SNP, until it didn't.
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Why isn't Liverpool (where Christians were 57% of the population in the 2021 census) on the list?
Atheist selective reporting? Or good old-fashioned Southerner anti-Scouse bigotry?
Or anti Popery as most Liverpudlians are Roman Catholic? Liverpool is a rare strongly Christian and strongly Labour city
The biggest declines are usually in Church of England areas. The percentage of Christians has probably held up better in Catholic areas like Liverpool.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Why isn't Liverpool (where Christians were 57% of the population in the 2021 census) on the list?
Atheist selective reporting? Or good old-fashioned Southerner anti-Scouse bigotry?
Or anti Popery as most Liverpudlians are Roman Catholic? Liverpool is a rare strongly Christian and strongly Labour city
The biggest declines are usually in Church of England areas. The percentage of Christians has probably held up better in Catholic areas like Liverpool.
In rural areas and many market towns Church of England and Christian percentage is still well above average. In urban areas Roman Catholic and Church of England membership is well down albeit Roman Catholic membership less so apart from the more well attended C of E cathedrals, though there is some rise in evengelicals.
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
I think the US must be concerned about Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia. I think it is an unnecessary concern. Ukraine has had many opportunities to strike inside Russia and has for the most part spurned these for fear of putting other countries off providing weapons.
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Ukraine needs F-16s and any other weapons we can give them. Russia will only stop when they are stopped.
The Falklands War? The UK carefully never declared war and never attacked Argentina.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
it's an eccentric view, agreed. The difference between' beyond reasonable historical doubt' (for that period), and 'conclusively proven' is small, but non zero.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Of course, the same evidence that he existed also pretty clearly demonstrates that he never claimed to be God and that he predicted the End Times were imminent…
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
Nice article here by one of our great Bach interpreters, on the mental processes of a pianist.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Heretics!
But seriously, who on earth are you to say who counts as a Christian and who doesn't? Nasty.
I am quite happy to define who counts as a Tory or not, so this is no different
The truest words written today.
It’s not so much belief as the promise to follow the Christian path.
At infant baptism the promises are made on the child’s behalf by the parents and godparents and witnessed by the community
But as an adult (or at least a teenager) the child chooses to confirm that vow at the Confirmation
The US doesn't want to supply Ukraine with F-16s because that might reduce their leverage over the Ukrainian government. The more desperate Ukraine is, the more likely they are to do what their told by Washington.
In what sense? Aside from defeating Russia's military what is there that Ukraine is doing it not doing that affects US interests?
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
Part of me thinks that if you take the analogy of a boxing contest, so long as the Ukrainians are on the back foot the US is clearly in their corner offering support. However let us say Ukraine was to get on top, I think the US would like to turn themselves into the referee and decide when Russia has had enough. Armed with F-16s the Ukrainians might want to carry on fighting.
They might want to Inn that situation, but F-16s won't help them to get very far off their don't have any ammunition.
Someone on here once talked about how the US fine-tuned the support they provided to Croatia to prevent them from going too far when they retook areas of Croatia occupied by Serbia. They have more effective ways of doing this than holding back on F-15s, just in terms of the intelligence support they provide.
That might have been me.
The concern was that once the Croats stared winning, some of their units might start committing war crimes. They had quite a few irregular units - practically private armies.
The Americans took care to totally control the logistics, and the provision of air support.
When a couple of Croat units didn't take the warnings the'd been given seriously and started mis-behaving, the Americans cut them off. They were slaughtered in Serb counter attacks.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
Probably not born in Bethlehem though.
And was born around four years before he was born (4BC) IIRC from the podcast. Or was that died? Genuinely can't remember.
It is possible to calculate the exact date of the Crucifixion if you're into that kind of thing. About 3pm on April 3, 33AD
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
99.9% of Christians, regardless of denomination, believe in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Those who don't are not really Christians
So 100%?
I think there may have been a rounding error in HYUFD's head.
No-one has mentioned St Albans Cathedral with longest nave in the UK.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
wow. I’ve never been there, and I thought I’d been to every major, interesting cathedral in the UK!
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
The 2018 investigation into the then supreme court nominee claimed there was ‘no evidence’ behind claims of sexual assault https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/28/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims ...The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.
Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder, Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.
Smith wrote to Davis in the 29 September 2018 email that he was in a class behind Kavanaugh and Ramirez (who graduated in the class of 1987) and believed Ramirez was likely mistaken in identifying Kavanaugh.
Instead, Smith said it was a fellow classmate named Jack Maxey, who was a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity, who allegedly had a “reputation” for exposing himself, and had once done so at a party. To back his claim, Smith also attached a photograph of Maxey exposing himself in his fraternity’s 1988 yearbook picture.
The allegation that Ramirez was likely mistaken was included in the Senate committee’s final report even though Maxey – who was described but not named – was not attending Yale at the time of the alleged incident.
In an interview with the Guardian, Maxey confirmed that he was still a senior in high school at the time of the alleged incident, and said he had never been contacted by any of the Republican staffers who were conducting the investigation.
“I was not at Yale,” he said. “I was a senior in high school at the time. I was not in New Haven.” He added: “These people can say what they want, and there are no consequences, ever.”..
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed.
It was interesting however that when it came to the supernatural elements of Jesus then the podcast hosts said nothing as that was out of bounds for a history podcast. Which I also understand but seems a little strange, given that the whole point of him is that he is supposed to be the son of god, rose again, was a very naughty boy, etc.
Also the funny thing (to me) was that they used throughout the disciples' anglicised names. What was eg Paul or John or Luke's actual names (reminds me ofc of the Eddie Izzard sketch).
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It’s been a while, but I though Josephus was regarded as reasonably reliable?
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief and are filled with the presence of the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Only those who reject the eternal Trinity of the living God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not Christians
Fantastic! So in being baptised you have belief injected along with your Rotavirus vaccine.
So that is how belief comes into being.
Thing is, all definitions of belief that I can find imply some kind of active intention.
You are saying that an external party can imbue a baby with belief. But the baby is unaware of this belief until it develops consciousness and perhaps critical/analytic tools. So I'm thinking here that you mean something else.
How long does the belief as injected via baptism last? Does it need a booster?
It's one of the mysteries of faith. Or something.
I listened to the "The Rest is History" podcast(s) on Jesus recently. Apparently there is very good evidence that Jesus exists and scholars are agreed on this. One of the podcast hosts was adamant that he did and frankly, I have no problem with thinking that someone called Jesus existed...
It does seem extremely likely - though the evidence is all textual, and postdates his life, naturally. The reliability of first century writers is very far from absolute, of course, so it's not entirely impossible (though unlikely) that the accounts of his life represent some sort of composite myth.
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
Two great scholars with no special dog in the fight have written in recent years very fine 'biographies' (as far as can be done) of Jesus. Both regard his non-existence as an utterly eccentric view. EP Sanders 'The Historical Jesus' (Penguin, easy read) and Maurice Casey 'Jesus of Nazareth' (more technical). Casey was an atheist. Most Christians would learn a lot from his book.
it's an eccentric view, agreed. The difference between' beyond reasonable historical doubt' (for that period), and 'conclusively proven' is small, but non zero.
Wikipedia drily notes that 'Evidence contradicts the hypothesis and it failed to gain the support of historians.'
There are more recent examples of phantom time.
For example accounts of the period between 6 September 2022 and 25 October 2022 are highly suspect. Some of the events people want us to believe defy credibility.
So we are all agreed that people are born with no religion whatsoever because a babe in arms can't believe in the holy trinity.
So could someone pls let me know at what age people acquire religion and what is the status of those babes and children who have not yet come to a decision about it all.
@HYUFD a thought experiment: when or if you and Mrs HYUFD choose to have children at what point would they become Christian. And before then, what religion are they?
TIA
When they are baptised in the name of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost
Hold on. That's your belief. Not theirs.
Your words: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian"
Unlike some evangelicals we Anglicans are fine with Baptism soon after birth rather than 'Believers' Baptisms'. They are still baptised in the name of the living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit into his Christian church
Irrelevant.
You said: "Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Or do you now retract that statement?
Absolutely not, as the Trinity of the Living God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is real, eternal and everlasting.
If you reject that eternal truth you are not a Christian
Cool. Sounds good.
So your child wouldn't be a Christian for a while. What would that make them?
Yes they would, as they would have been baptised in the name of the living God, Father and Son and filled with his holy Spirit
You said that this was the qualification for being a Christian:
"Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian."
Now you are saying that there is another criterion - to be baptised. So that invalidates your first criterion.
Which is it?
No it doesn't, because the moment you are baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit automatically ensures you have belief ...
Well, golly gosh!
How on earth could it possibly be that there are so many hundreds of jarring 'Christian' sects, all believing different things and at each others' throats metaphorically (and sometimes literally)?
Could it be that you have picked up some incorrect information from "Janet and John Go To Church"?
There are few things that mark someone out as a first class objectionable wanker better than when someone tries to mock someone for their religious faith.
Well done for notching up yet another "first class wanker" indicator
Did the Holy Spirit just make you yell "Wanker!"?
Just caught up on this.
It is said that God moves in mysterious ways and while it unlikely that He would use me as his conduit for his opinion, it is quite possible that he does have the same opinion of @Chris as many of the rest of us do.
Comments
(My wife is the Christian, and she's in charge........)
Like national recognition of you can get others to accept your self certification as Christian that's what will count.
Only on PB.
For a remainer you know you you're not all bad.
Do they also need to believe in the Devil?
Heaven and Hell?
Only on PB.
And I think in context the claim being called more complicated was your assertion only belief in Christian God matters in whether you are one- despite thousands of years of Christians, of which I am not one, arguing more specifics are needed.
Are those sort of actions good for us? The evidence seems to be so, even if doing without believing is an odd thing to do in our society. Is God pleased by those sort of actions? You'd have to ask Them.
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
I found quite a nice, central hotel and went out for dinner not far from the cathedral. I had oysters then skate wings, washed down with a nice bottle of Muscadet. It was all delicious and seemed perfectly cooked
All was going well until about halfway back to the hotel when the unexpected relocation of ingredients began. I don’t know if it was something wrong with the food or my gut, but my gut had to own it for a while
Luckily I made it back to the hotel room, so was able to speak to God on the big white telephone rather than pebble-dashing the pavement. I then slept extremely well, partly due to exhaustion, and some due to the quite exceptional mattress in my recently renovated hotel room
I had a very large and rather tasty breakfast at the hotel, then set off a bit again. I’m now halfway through another twenty mile walk, possibly to Carnac - I’ve not booked tonight’s room yet - about to arrive in a town called Auray
I’ve had two beers and am halfway through my second 750ml bottle of Breton cidre; I’m fortified like wine!
Everything you might need to know to understand politics is therein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nrZBtKWSfs&ab_channel=hogemoh
We can trust he existed as much as any other figure from the period who didn't leave an archaeological mark.
It was upgraded to Cathedral status in 1877; originally the Abbey Church dating back to Norman times with current building conscrated in 1115. The tower was built using bricks from the old roman town of Verulamium.
I’ll be interested in your take on Carnac. Despite its enormous scale I found it oddly non-moving, and I generally love Neolithic sites
Ukraine is almost entirely reliant on external support for ammunition, financing and targeting intelligence. Providing F-16s makes very little difference to Ukraine's reliance on support from the US.
Speaking of which, another one to add to the list is St Magnus in Kirkwall in the Orkneys, which is fantastically weird and Viking and beautiful, and deffo in the British top ten
https://www.stmagnus.org/
Has there ever been a war like this where one side has regularly struck civilian targets inside the enemy country and the other has deliberately avoided hitting almost any target (including important military ones) inside the adversary's country?
Ukraine needs F-16s and any other weapons we can give them. Russia will only stop when they are stopped.
I thought that was the basis for an interesting discussion about the boundaries between belief and non-belief, cultural observance, etc, and then you contradicted yourself by having a go at me for complicating things.
You seem to do this a lot with beliefs that you have - atheism, the death of cash, the greatness of London, etc - that you have to denigrate those who disagree with you and suggest that they're only pretending in some way. It's really childish.
'Only 67% of Protestants who belong to the EKD believe in God, according to a survey of magazine Der Spiegel. In 2005, 79% of Protestants affirmed this belief.
The number of members of the Catholic Church who believe in God is a bit higher: 75%. In 2005, 85% said they believe in God.
Asked about the central teaching of Easter, only 58% of Protestants and 61% of Catholics believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'
and so on...
And these are proper paying members of Churches - people who pay a church tax to their churches out of their salaries.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@58.9814071,-2.9598803,2a,75y,92.46h,91.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJuUXe-KkGSIAAAQo8YhyQA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=JuUXe-KkGSIAAAQo8YhyQA&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=96.62385&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656
When you see their caskets it is very moving
The difference between' beyond reasonable historical doubt' (for that period), and 'conclusively proven' is small, but non zero.
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
And I much prefer the Church of Scotland aesthetic to that of the Church of England.
Chester Cathedral also has an enjoyably reddish tinge.
Someone on here once talked about how the US fine-tuned the support they provided to Croatia to prevent them from going too far when they retook areas of Croatia occupied by Serbia. They have more effective ways of doing this than holding back on F-15s, just in terms of the intelligence support they provide.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 41% (-2)
CON: 27% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REF: 7% (-)
via @YouGov, 26 - 27 Apr"
"Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 44% (-)
CON: 30% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
REF: 6% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-)
via @techneUK, 26 - 27 Apr"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
YouGov - 27.4.23 - C27, L41, LD11, S4, G7, R7, O3
YouGov - 30.4.19 - C29, L29, LD13, S4, G5, B15, UKIP2, CUK3, O3.
So broadly L+12, Brexit/Reform/UKIP -10 and no Change UK.
Opinium - 14.4.23 - C28, L42, LD10, S3, G6, R8, O3
Opinium - 23.4.23 - C26, L33, LD6, S5, G4, B17, UKIP4, CUK4, O2
So broadly L+9, LD+4, Brexit/Reform/UKIP -13 and no Change UK.
The complication with the polls before the locals in 2019 is that it was unclear as to whether Change UK would take over from the Lib Dems: this was answered by the locals. But the impact of Change UK affects the LD and Labour voting in the polls.
Though it should be said until relatively recently that wasn't the case; FPTP absolutely screwed the SNP, until it didn't.
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/b5hfshk8fs/TheTimes_VI_230427_W.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis
Wikipedia drily notes that 'Evidence contradicts the hypothesis and it failed to gain the support of historians.'
Angela Hewitt: ‘Memorising Bach is about the hardest thing you can do’
https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2017/may/09/pianist-angela-hewitt-australian-tour-memorising-bach
At infant baptism the promises are made on the child’s behalf by the parents and godparents and witnessed by the community
But as an adult (or at least a teenager) the child chooses to confirm that vow at the Confirmation
The concern was that once the Croats stared winning, some of their units might start committing war crimes. They had quite a few irregular units - practically private armies.
The Americans took care to totally control the logistics, and the provision of air support.
When a couple of Croat units didn't take the warnings the'd been given seriously and started mis-behaving, the Americans cut them off. They were slaughtered in Serb counter attacks.
https://youtu.be/iWoI8vmE8bI
The apparent simplicity hiding infinite and beautiful complexity
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/jesus.html#:~:text=Jesus died, therefore, on Friday,in use at the time.
Revealed: Senate investigation into Brett Kavanaugh assault claims contained serious omissions
The 2018 investigation into the then supreme court nominee claimed there was ‘no evidence’ behind claims of sexual assault
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/28/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims
...The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.
Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder, Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.
Smith wrote to Davis in the 29 September 2018 email that he was in a class behind Kavanaugh and Ramirez (who graduated in the class of 1987) and believed Ramirez was likely mistaken in identifying Kavanaugh.
Instead, Smith said it was a fellow classmate named Jack Maxey, who was a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity, who allegedly had a “reputation” for exposing himself, and had once done so at a party. To back his claim, Smith also attached a photograph of Maxey exposing himself in his fraternity’s 1988 yearbook picture.
The allegation that Ramirez was likely mistaken was included in the Senate committee’s final report even though Maxey – who was described but not named – was not attending Yale at the time of the alleged incident.
In an interview with the Guardian, Maxey confirmed that he was still a senior in high school at the time of the alleged incident, and said he had never been contacted by any of the Republican staffers who were conducting the investigation.
“I was not at Yale,” he said. “I was a senior in high school at the time. I was not in New Haven.” He added: “These people can say what they want, and there are no consequences, ever.”..
For example accounts of the period between 6 September 2022 and 25 October 2022 are highly suspect. Some of the events people want us to believe defy credibility.
It is said that God moves in mysterious ways and while it unlikely that He would use me as his conduit for his opinion, it is quite possible that he does have the same opinion of @Chris as many of the rest of us do.