At the last census less than 50% said they were Christian. By the time of the next one there might be a majority of people ticking the "No Religion" box.
It's not just the Bishops that should go, we need Disestablishmentarianism.
But surely then we'll be left with a backlash of antidisestablishmentarianism ?
We can solve that with antiantidisestablishmentarianism.
At Junior School we used to have to spell that without writing it down.
The correct answer was, of course,
"I f-l-o-c-c-i-n-a-u-c-i-n-i-h-i-l-i-p-i-l-i-f-i-c-a-t-e this silly test, Miss."
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
Yes, God might have been too proactive in taking him down before he did much of anything. Eru Iluvatar did a better job letting Melkor show his true colours, and was a lot more humble, to the point his name was barely even mentioned by others.
Well as the christian god is omniscient and created everything he must of known how it would turn out so we can hold satan, the lib dems, and pot noodles up as examples of gods evil
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
Yes, God might have been too proactive in taking him down before he did much of anything. Eru Iluvatar did a better job letting Melkor show his true colours, and was a lot more humble, to the point his name was barely even mentioned by others.
Well as the christian god is omniscient and created everything he must of known how it would turn out so we can hold satan, the lib dems, and pot noodles up as examples of gods evil
Free will, innit.
But god forbid you exercise that free will in an unapproved way.
Like voting for Robert Jenrick, just to lamely bring things back to modern events.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
The idea of marriage itself is weird. A contract we enter into that's kinda legally binding but also not, best case scenario you live happily ever after together (in which case you can do that without the bit of paper), worst case scenario you end up hating each other and then it's a costly and difficult process to disentangle yourself.
As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?
Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
I got married because I kinda needed to for visa reasons, otherwise my wife who I'd met here on a tourist visa would have had to fuck off (well she still did actually, due to the way the application works - the application can't be done in country - but it wasn't for that long). Taking a gambler view on it I figured that if it didn't work out then a divorce after a year (I have a tenuous claim to being Scottish which halves the time limit) wouldn't be that big a deal). This sort of eloping is also extremely handy as it makes the wedding etc miles cheaper as you do it at a registry office on the Isle of Man (only way to legally manage it in British Isles in our situation) and spend fuck all.
After a few years and it getting to stage kids were sensible, it has a lot of advantages for them if we were to split up, although yes, admittedly not so much for me. But it would be artificial to ignore them and concentrate only on me in my calculus.
Anyway it's going great so far after six or seven years, but no proper gambler would assume the past guarantees the future!
Incidentally as any married man will confirm you get treated better by civilised people with a wedding ring / wife. Significantly better in many cases. In all sorts of ways. Something that surprised me as, not being a civilised person, I didn't really know how they behaved.
That's fair.
I'm essentially a parody of a forty something Houellebecq protagonist at this point, living like a hobo and railing against society.
I miss being in a relationship, it did make one feel more grown up. As you say, people treat you differently. Too old and too heartbroken to fall in love again now, though.
What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
It was not a conservative evangelical church, they only marry non conservative evangelicals in English C of E churches as they have to as it is the established church
That in general is not how it operates in CofE AIUI; the philosophy is far more welcoming than 'you can only marry here because you have a legal right; we don't really want to do it'.
In every place I know it is treated as part of the work of the Church and local church to help create strong, lasting marriages. It is seen as part of mission to an instant-satisfaction society which has lost sight much of the value of enduring relationships, and experience thereof.
For an example of Evangelical Anglican practice, this is what HTB say about their Marriage Course, which is used in quite a number of places:
Are your courses only for Christians? While The Marriage Course and The Pre-Marriage Course are based on Christian principles, they are designed for couples with or without a Christian faith. We would love any couple to feel welcome to attend whether or not they have a Christian faith or any religious faith at all. We are confident all couples will find the courses relevant and helpful for their relationship. https://www.themarriagecourse.org/frequently-asked-questions
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
My last for this evening .
That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.
Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.
In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.
There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
My last for this evening .
That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.
Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.
In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.
There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
Marriages (and to a lesser extent funerals) keep the Cof E at parish level going. The church itself, diocese, organist and choir (if there is one and it is used) get paid. As an added bonus, it is customary to leave the wedding flowers to decorate the church for Sunday's service.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...
I was only there briefly to get married (and a couple of weeks before to do the paperwork) for what I was describing then.
I did live there in 2012 for more or less a year. It's a possible solution to your current issues as certainly back then top rate of income tax was 20% and CGT was 0% in most circumstances. IHT 0% too. Also income tax was capped - you couldn't pay more than iirc 250k. This was why I moved.
And most importantly - there is no national speed limit.
Still, it gets boring after a while. And I had certain recreational hobbies that were incompatible with its penal regime.
In a lot of ways it is what I imagine the UK in the 60s was like.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
I feel like I need to rewatch/listen to Sir Henry at Rawlinson End now.
Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.
There is a conflict between what I see and hear in the actual campaigns, and the polling/betting data.
Do I trust my senses or the data?
My resolution of the conflict is that the data is being manipulated. There is the motive and capability. But I can't be absolutely certain, just fairly certain. Enough to put the largest sum I've ever bet on Kamala Harris.
I miss being in a relationship, it did make one feel more grown up. As you say, people treat you differently. Too old and too heartbroken to fall in love again now, though.
The treatment you get for being in a relationship is an incredibly minor effect, compared to being married.
If you want to be cynical about it, you don't have to be in love per se I suppose. Plenty of cultures where it's not a pre-requisite. And if you want to maximise your personal position you could certainly come to an arrangement with an incredibly attractive, much younger lady. I don't think it would work in the UK though... you'd have to move to wherever that is.
The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
Also, some loon is going to bring the Dodo back eventually.
A DNA sequence exists.
"What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." - Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum).
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
I should add that there are a small minority of people who are so deeply malevolent, that I could well believe that their sociopathy comes from a supernatural source.
Most of the Glastonbury/Totnes folk that I've met are much more of the light and white witch variety, but you do always get a slightly darker group.
There are aiways exceotions, but the darker group are usually more akin to performative heavy rockers and bikers than genuine satanists, in my experience.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
But maybe enough Jedis?
Or, Sith?
For the nth time, there are only two Sith. One is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the other is Sir Jacob Rees Mogg. 😃
"The UK is to be reorganised into the First Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society!"
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
Prices in Glastonbury for crystals and stuff is insane.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Well, I think it’s rubbish, but you can go to Glastonbury, Totnes, Stroud etc. and find people who think magic, and pacts with the devil *work.* They likely think that (a) 99% of people are hell bound so why not get something out of it while alive or (b) they can get out of the deal at some point.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
Prices in Glastonbury for crystals and stuff is insane.
Most of the crystal folk are very much.on the more positive and optimistic side, though.
I know a very interesting chap who was actually a physics lecturer that I was at school with, who sells them in Brighton.
Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.
There is a conflict between what I see and hear in the actual campaigns, and the polling/betting data.
Do I trust my senses or the data?
My resolution of the conflict is that the data is being manipulated. There is the motive and capability. But I can't be absolutely certain, just fairly certain. Enough to put the largest sum I've ever bet on Kamala Harris.
I'm reaching the opposite conclusion that Trump will narrowly prevail in the Electoral College (Harris may very narrowly win the popular vote).
Let's imagine that the race is between Generic Democrat and Generic Republican, who wins?
The key issues are the cost of living, which is impacting the US as much as many other Western countries, immigration where the Dems have lost control and crime. Abortion is really the only issue that favours the Dems. There's also the personnel issue of having a President who is seen as past it.
So in my view, Generic Republican wins handily.
In the real race, Trump is clearly marmite. He drives up Republican turnout but also Democrat turnout. Harris, after a convention bounce has reverted to the mean. She's better than Biden, but not good enough to overcome the fundamentals. For me, the error is not distancing herself more for Biden, especially on policies that are unpopular.
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
People often get a bit confused or even contradictory when they get to the 'because' part of why they like someone. It's gut feeling and the brain doesn't always catch up to provide logical explanation.
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...
I was only there briefly to get married (and a couple of weeks before to do the paperwork) for what I was describing then.
I did live there in 2012 for more or less a year. It's a possible solution to your current issues as certainly back then top rate of income tax was 20% and CGT was 0% in most circumstances. IHT 0% too. Also income tax was capped - you couldn't pay more than iirc 250k. This was why I moved.
And most importantly - there is no national speed limit.
Still, it gets boring after a while. And I had certain recreational hobbies that were incompatible with its penal regime.
In a lot of ways it is what I imagine the UK in the 60s was like.
Sounds quite similar to Jersey and Guernsey, then. However the house prices there are horrific. And I am a cheap bastard, so if I absolutely have to exile myself to somewhere without CGT, I could see myself putting up with IoM for a year before moving somewhere else the following year. Painful but doable.
Honestly I'm good with paying 20% or thereabouts, but if they do put it up to 40% as rumoured I'd be mad to stay...
There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
I don't buy it either. I just checked:
In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7% In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
"Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes? Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Harris wins 49 times out of 100."
The dodos did survive rather longer (or at least lived much later) than the non-avian theropod dinosaurs, though.
Also, some loon is going to bring the Dodo back eventually.
A DNA sequence exists.
"What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world." - Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum).
Which strongly suggests that the Ian Malcolm character has some serious issues.
People often get a bit confused or even contradictory when they get to the 'because' part of why they like someone. It's gut feeling and the brain doesn't always catch up to provide logical explanation.
You'd have got the same from a lot of followers of Boulanger, I expect.
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
I don't buy it either. I just checked:
In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7% In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
Some of the polls apparently reckon she could win the EC even if she is behind in the popular vote. I don't buy it. She needs a big popular vote win to be confident of getting enough in the super tight states, unfortunately.
I don't buy it either. I just checked:
In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7% In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
Wisconsin was Biden in 2020?
Sorry
In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote and won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
My last for this evening .
That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.
Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.
In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.
There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
I had a High Anglo-Catholic wedding service with bells and incense and AV/prayerbook liturgy. Plus lots of great choral music, some of it composed by me.
Which felt a bit like sticking it to the Evangelicals, which was nice.
A friend of mine just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Fuck.
That's horrible. I'm sorry to hear that.
There's a hint of hope with the new treatments being developed by Revolution Medicines, but very early days with those.
One of my friends was recently diagnosed with PPC, which is similarly bleak news.
If you know a contact at Revolution who might be able to get my friend on a trial, ping me on gmail. (My username at gmail.)
I don’t, sorry; just stuff I follow.
K(RAS) is a potential target expressed by most pancreatic tumours, that was thought for a long time to be ‘undruggable’. Theirs was the first therapy to do so (it’s a so called “molecular glue”).
Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.
Can't remember the name of the story...."
Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)
"Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes? Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Harris wins 49 times out of 100."
The various models’ predictions are no better than the polls they’re based on. And I’m fairly sure that the assumptions based around the last electoral cycle (or two) will prove inaccurate for this one. Though in whose favour is anyone’s guess.
"Blow to Meloni’s Albania deal as court orders asylum seekers’ return to Italy Judges’ decision on 12 men held in Italian migration hub in Albania also casts doubt on EU’s hardline plans"
Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.
Can't remember the name of the story...."
Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)
No doubt @leon will be tucking into this shortly thanks to Knappers and will report back from the portal.
Malmesbury said: "There was an SF short story, where they go back in time. On the way back a Tyrannosaur tries to get through the portal and gets thoroughly cooked. They discover it's like chicken. But infinitely better. So they start a fast food company that makes zillions.
Can't remember the name of the story...."
Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)
"Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes? Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Harris wins 49 times out of 100."
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.
The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.
South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.
Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.
The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
I thought 'proper' C of E attendees weren't too keen on people with no prior affiliation getting married in their churches.
My last for this evening .
That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.
Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.
In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.
There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
Marriages (and to a lesser extent funerals) keep the Cof E at parish level going. The church itself, diocese, organist and choir (if there is one and it is used) get paid. As an added bonus, it is customary to leave the wedding flowers to decorate the church for Sunday's service.
In most liberal Catholic ones maybe, in many conservative evangelical urban churches with big congregations certainly not.
Holy Trinity Brompton has a £10 million a year annual income excluding wedding revenue
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.
The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.
South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.
Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.
The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.
There are no circumstances under which Sir Gavin 'Huawei' Williamson speaks for anyone but himself and his chums.
He's right on this.
No he isn't. We had the argument about the nature of the HoL a decade ago and the answer is clear: it shouldn't be a democratically elected body, but instead a collection of experts and interest groups to advise, amend, and delay.
Actually, we had the argument 114 years ago and the 1911 Parliament Act includes the following by way of introduction:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"
The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.
For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
A "Senate" isn't British and STV even less so. We're not a Roman Republic.
The reason HoL Reform has never happened is due to the shit ideas for its alternatives.
STV was invented by an Englishman. It was first used within the British Empire (Tasmania) in 1896. It was first used for UK elections for some Commons seats in 1918 and was retained there until 1950. There was then a gap, before it returned for elections in Northern Ireland in 1973. It has remained in use in the UK since then, extending to Scotland in 2007. That means it has been in use in the UK for over three quarters of the last century.
And that's just government elections. It is widely used in UK bodies, such as trades unions, the Oxford Union, and the General Synod of the Church of England.
STV is literally nicknamed the British proportional representation system. It is exceedingly British. It has never been used for Italian or Roman elections.
Don't care if the General Synod use it or some poncey debating society in Oxford University, or some koalas used it on an island Down Under 120 yeara ago.
It's shit. It's possibly the most tedious, pedantic and soul destroyingly endless voting system there is, and I'd take almost anything else.
"Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes? Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Harris wins 49 times out of 100."
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.
The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.
South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.
Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
China and Japan are declining population wise and economically as are most of the non religious western nations.
The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.
Not my area at all, but is the story of Egyptian slavery of the Jews actually accurate?
It’s hard to say that the Jews really existed, as a people/religion, prior to the Babylonian captivity. Prior to that, I’d say they were a number of mostly pagan Canaanite tribes (and even within the Old Testament, there’s plenty of evidence for their worshipping Canaanite deities and practising child sacrifice). Yahweh was likely worshipped along with Baal, Chemosh, Astarte, etc.
In exile, the people had to sit down, rationalise what had happened to them, and work out how to preserve their identity.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
I thought the hurricane was the work of the Deep State, like Jewish space lasers.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
I thought the hurricane was the work of the Deep State, like Jewish space lasers.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
If you really want to ruin an english middle class dinner party say you dont agree with abortion
Conservative, Evangelical Christian whose company has had lawsuits for things like an employee being a lesbian or another having a child out of wedlock, supports Trump. Shocked.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Umm God is supposed to be omnipotent so doing all that shit to the Egyptians seems entirely gratuitous.
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
Which might be fair enough. My children moan massively about the suffering the experience from vaccination injections, but they are better than the alternative.
So it's not a question of concept but of scale- we look at the enormous sufferings in the world and think "if there is a God, there must be a way for Him to stop that". Perhaps there is, but the price tag is too great.
See also the pre-Budget debate. There is lots of talk about all the awful things that Reeves and Starmer are about to do to us all. There's rather less talk about the supposed pain-free alternative. Which makes me suspect that there isn't one, and that Sunak and Hunt were bullshitting for Britain from about the moment of the first NI cut.
Interesting article on the Chagos deal supporting the obvious theory that it was a stitch-up by the Americans. I hadn't realised USA like Mauritius had requested a ruling from the international court.
Is the US election really in just two and half weeks' time? It felt like it would never arrive.
If MoonRabbit and Gareth are right and the orange haired loon wins, the next one *will* never arrive.
*If* the polling is correct, the orange shit stain will win.
If the polling is correct, something strange has happened to mathematics given how wildly different they all are.
If the more reputable polls are correct he will lose.
If they are out by the same margin as before he might win.
The only thing we can say for sure is that it’s close.
In an election where one side wasn’t frantically rigging the system to try to win it probably wouldn’t be given how much of a loon one candidate has become, but unfortunately a large chunk of America has decided it’s had enough of democracy.
If pay per mile for EVs is introduced, what on earth happens if you take your motor out to the continent ? Are miles on Dutch and French roads charged ?
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
The Egyptians had enslaved the Jews, Pharoah refused to let them go so what else would you expect the Jewish God of Abraham to do to ensure they were freed?
Comments
"I f-l-o-c-c-i-n-a-u-c-i-n-i-h-i-l-i-p-i-l-i-f-i-c-a-t-e this silly test, Miss."
But god forbid you exercise that free will in an unapproved way.
Like voting for Robert Jenrick, just to lamely bring things back to modern events.
I'm essentially a parody of a forty something Houellebecq protagonist at this point, living like a hobo and railing against society.
I miss being in a relationship, it did make one feel more grown up. As you say, people treat you differently. Too old and too heartbroken to fall in love again now, though.
What's the Isle of Man like? I know Jersey and Guernsey reasonably well, and suspect I may end up on one of the islands after the Budget...
There's a hint of hope with the new treatments being developed by Revolution Medicines, but very early days with those.
One of my friends was recently diagnosed with PPC, which is similarly bleak news.
I’ve had some pretty outlandish conversations with people in those parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4BJgaOStI
In every place I know it is treated as part of the work of the Church and local church to help create strong, lasting marriages. It is seen as part of mission to an instant-satisfaction society which has lost sight much of the value of enduring relationships, and experience thereof.
For an example of Evangelical Anglican practice, this is what HTB say about their Marriage Course, which is used in quite a number of places:
Are your courses only for Christians?
While The Marriage Course and The Pre-Marriage Course are based on Christian principles, they are designed for couples with or without a Christian faith. We would love any couple to feel welcome to attend whether or not they have a Christian faith or any religious faith at all. We are confident all couples will find the courses relevant and helpful for their relationship.
https://www.themarriagecourse.org/frequently-asked-questions
The Church of Wales seems to have similar legal regulations to the Church of England, based around a piece of legislation called the "Marriage (Wales) Act 2010":
https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/life-events-2022/weddings/legal-requirements-weddings/
That depends very much on who you ask; it's variable. Most of the people who staff the services will be unpaid volunteers (eg churchwarden) doing it for the love of it. The people paid will be officiant (eg vicar), organist (who usually have contracts defined by the Royal School of Church Music), and something for the choir / music group.
Evangelical Anglican churches may be different, in that organists may more often be volunteers who view it as a 'ministry' (their service for the church). This is partly theology, but also because E churches tend to have musicians in their community; many organists are peripatetic across multiple churches for weddings and funerals.
In other places there may be have a professional / semi-professional choir, and a Director of Music / Worship which may be a salaried position.
There are also places which specialise in marriages because they have a beautiful building or setting.
As an added bonus, it is customary to leave the wedding flowers to decorate the church for Sunday's service.
I did live there in 2012 for more or less a year. It's a possible solution to your current issues as certainly back then top rate of income tax was 20% and CGT was 0% in most circumstances. IHT 0% too. Also income tax was capped - you couldn't pay more than iirc 250k. This was why I moved.
And most importantly - there is no national speed limit.
Still, it gets boring after a while. And I had certain recreational hobbies that were incompatible with its penal regime.
In a lot of ways it is what I imagine the UK in the 60s was like.
Do I trust my senses or the data?
My resolution of the conflict is that the data is being manipulated. There is the motive and capability. But I can't be absolutely certain, just fairly certain. Enough to put the largest sum I've ever bet on Kamala Harris.
If you want to be cynical about it, you don't have to be in love per se I suppose. Plenty of cultures where it's not a pre-requisite. And if you want to maximise your personal position you could certainly come to an arrangement with an incredibly attractive, much younger lady. I don't think it would work in the UK though... you'd have to move to wherever that is.
Will the 30th never bloody arrive??
There are aiways exceotions, but the darker group are usually more akin to performative heavy rockers and bikers than genuine satanists, in my experience.
I know a very interesting chap who was actually a physics lecturer that I was at school with, who sells them in Brighton.
Let's imagine that the race is between Generic Democrat and Generic Republican, who wins?
The key issues are the cost of living, which is impacting the US as much as many other Western countries, immigration where the Dems have lost control and crime. Abortion is really the only issue that favours the Dems. There's also the personnel issue of having a President who is seen as past it.
So in my view, Generic Republican wins handily.
In the real race, Trump is clearly marmite. He drives up Republican turnout but also Democrat turnout. Harris, after a convention bounce has reverted to the mean. She's better than Biden, but not good enough to overcome the fundamentals. For me, the error is not distancing herself more for Biden, especially on policies that are unpopular.
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
Trump supporter: I like Trump because he did everything he said he was going to do
Q what are some of these things he said and then did?
Trump supporter: “Hmm…You caught me off guard there…I don't know”🤦♂️
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1847325714514587832
2% isn't enough. Harris needs to be 4% up to be sure of winning the Electoral College. A 1% Harris lead means Trump wins the Electoral College. 2 or 3% is squeaky bum time
Honestly I'm good with paying 20% or thereabouts, but if they do put it up to 40% as rumoured I'd be mad to stay...
Can't remember the name of the story....
In 2016, Hillary was 2.1% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7%
In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote, but Trump won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
So based on that the tipping point nationally is a Harris lead of 3.2% - more than that,she wins; less than that, Trum wins.
"Who Is Favored To Win Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral Votes?
Trump wins 51 times out of 100in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Harris wins 49 times out of 100."
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/
In 2020, Biden was 4.5% ahead in the popular vote and won the tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%
I had a High Anglo-Catholic wedding service with bells and incense and AV/prayerbook liturgy. Plus lots of great choral music, some of it composed by me.
Which felt a bit like sticking it to the Evangelicals, which was nice.
K(RAS) is a potential target expressed by most pancreatic tumours, that was thought for a long time to be ‘undruggable’. Theirs was the first therapy to do so (it’s a so called “molecular glue”).
It’s suddenly an big area of development; here’s a list of (mostly very early) clinical trials:
https://x.com/brindaalagesan/status/1846353522947703088
A physician at one of the big cancer centers is probably the person to ask.
Can't remember the name of the story...."
Sounds like Isaac Asimov's "A Statue for Father". (It's in his "Buy Jupiter" collection.)
And I’m fairly sure that the assumptions based around the last electoral cycle (or two) will prove inaccurate for this one.
Though in whose favour is anyone’s guess.
Judges’ decision on 12 men held in Italian migration hub in Albania also casts doubt on EU’s hardline plans"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/18/blow-to-melonis-albania-deal-as-court-orders-asylum-seekers-return-to-italy
That might be the very one - thanks!
(And I have the awful feeling that something very much like it may have already happened here in the US.)
https://www.thebullfinchgroup.com/post/your-election-guide-for-the-midrust-battlegrounds
The fastest growth and highest level of optimism in the world is in more religious nations in Africa and Singapore and India and the UAE etc.
72% of Italians say they are religious as do 71% of Greeks, 73% of Mexicans and 72% of Portuguese, so you are wrong on that too
https://ceoworld.biz/2024/04/08/worlds-most-and-least-religious-countries-2024/
Holy Trinity Brompton has a £10 million a year annual income excluding wedding revenue
It's shit. It's possibly the most tedious, pedantic and soul destroyingly endless voting system there is, and I'd take almost anything else.
https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1847312899301101979
https://www.ft.com/content/19286bbf-d98e-4852-bfe9-e18ce4d64af2
See also: the rest of human history.
Mind you, according to some US conservative evangelicals, God sent that hurricane to North Carolina just to divert JD Vance from his schedule so he could talk at their conference.
Not my area at all, but is the story of Egyptian slavery of the Jews actually accurate?
(Albeit his piece on it was properly nuanced.)
Betting PostF1: backed Sainz at 16 each way to top qualifying. He was 5th in sprint qualifying but 3rd to 5th were covered by four-hundredths of a second.
So you can be assured that God approves of all pain and suffering as it is for the greater good.
In exile, the people had to sit down, rationalise what had happened to them, and work out how to preserve their identity.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1847335359325381088
It's a cracker
So it's not a question of concept but of scale- we look at the enormous sufferings in the world and think "if there is a God, there must be a way for Him to stop that". Perhaps there is, but the price tag is too great.
See also the pre-Budget debate. There is lots of talk about all the awful things that Reeves and Starmer are about to do to us all. There's rather less talk about the supposed pain-free alternative. Which makes me suspect that there isn't one, and that Sunak and Hunt were bullshitting for Britain from about the moment of the first NI cut.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/68245/the-chagos-sovereignty-deal-shows-the-uks-legal-and-diplomatic-weakness
If the more reputable polls are correct he will lose.
If they are out by the same margin as before he might win.
The only thing we can say for sure is that it’s close.
In an election where one side wasn’t frantically rigging the system to try to win it probably wouldn’t be given how much of a loon one candidate has become, but unfortunately a large chunk of America has decided it’s had enough of democracy.
Are miles on Dutch and French roads charged ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/18/kentucky-man-wakes-up-organ-harvesting
A man who had gone into cardiac arrest and been declared brain dead woke up as surgeons in his home state of Kentucky were in the middle of harvesting his organs for donation, his family has told media outlets...