Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
For those who have done much canvassing, do people ever claim to be be supportive of your party/position in a way which makes it clear they are saying it just to make getting you to leave without having to see you get all sad/disappointed?
In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
''I suppose Labour losing H&M would be about the only positive news Cameron could hope for on his birthday, in politics at least, if he's still around by then. Seems a tougher challenge, understandably.''
Labour and UKIP having a giant shouting match about whether labour policies are a major cause of Rotherham etc would suit David Cameron perfectly.
That byelection is a manna from heaven for the tories.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.
I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because: a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.
Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.
I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).
Or they were told that if they read the speech then they would be let go
Well quite -or at least told that they would only be 'pretend killed' or something. Then off screen (as it seems) the genuine thing happened. It's all extremely perplexing.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. .
Plenty of people would, I am sure, be happy to disagree on that, which is surely the point. I think they'd be wrong, but then clearly we are now just querying about how broad a definition Christianity has, not that one cannot take a very broad definition of it, just where the line is. Given how different some existing denominations are, personally I don't see the introduction of an additional book to be so radical as to make all the things that are so very christian about it mean nothing in comparison. Not believing Jesus was the son of God at all, or something along those lines, seems far more radical than deciding the bible could use some amending, to me at least, and some diverge from 'proper' christian ideas a lot.
But I shall leave it to the Christians to resolve this one I guess. Given the 'return to the teachings of the early church' sort of ideas that pop up over the millenia, people worried about things changing too much over time (not a purely christian thing of course), it might be amusing to wonder if those early christians would feel if some of the largest denominations of today were proper christians or not.
More on that H&M byelection, this time from the UKIP candidate himself.
It is going to get very, very, very nasty.
Ugh, Labour are not spending more time criticising UKIP for bringing attention to these issues than to addressing the issue itself.
Quite.
UKIP won't be the only ones. Everyone who detests Labour will use it as a stick to beat them with, they deserve it. It should be unremitting until they all resign and disappear from public life,
In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.
Personally I don't exclude Quakers. All have different ways of observing their faith. Quakers by sitting in silence till God starts making them wobble around, Methodists by singing Sankey and Moodey hymns, The Salvation Army by brass bands and soup kitchens, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed. The Reformation (and I admit I'm not the world authority) disagreed with Purgatory, indulgences, Mass said in Latin etc. etc. -things that the Roman Catholic Church had introduced, not things that were fundamental to the faith. It was back to basics, not on to something new.
Fine so what are you saying? Suppose Osborne's next budget changes the VAT level from April. Are you saying that Scottish businesses should continue to operate under the old VAT level? So the UK basically operates on the basis that Scottish tax levels are fixed until such time as Independence is finalised? What if that takes years?
The legitimacy of Scottish MPs remains until such time as Scotland is Independent. If laws are passed in the interim which are still in place post independence then the new post independence parliament has the right to change them.
You agree a fixed cash budget for 2015/16.
You also have a reconcilliation mechanism so that if Osborne increases taxes (or reduces them) this is adjusted by the estimated tax change in Scotland
Trolling his tweets again. My observation was that his first of the recent two tweets was; Yes supporting and he got a mild response from the Yes people. Second was No supporting for which Yes abused him aplenty.
Remember the Nats have the most sophisticated voter ID system in the West. They know where their vote is and the there will be an army calling them up reminding them to vote. This is how they won in 2007 adding around 5% to their vote and winning by a single MSP.
Think also about the new registrants who are mostly poor, young and Yes voters. They know where they are and how to contact them. This is a huge advantage if the polls are right and the race is as tight as they say it is..
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a raty book.
, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.
Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed. And yet previously they were still referred to as Christians, until a more dominant sect decided to declare on their own authority that they could not be christians even if they thought they were apparently.
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
Its all a bit weird.
OR they just agreed with you to get rid of a bloody annoying canvasser?!
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.
Personally I don't exclude Quakers. All have different ways of observing their faith. Quakers by sitting in silence till God starts making them wobble around, Methodists by singing Sankey and Moodey hymns, The Salvation Army by brass bands and soup kitchens, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed. The Reformation (and I admit I'm not the world authority) disagreed with Purgatory, indulgences, Mass said in Latin etc. etc. -things that the Roman Catholic Church had introduced, not things that were fundamental to the faith. It was back to basics, not on to something new.
Quakers don't even believe in the Bible as the Word of God. That's surely further away from the traditional Protestant position of the absolute important of scripture. How is the Mormon position of believing in the literal truth of the Bible AND another a book less Christian than the Quaker position of not believing in the literal truth of the Bible?
And Jehova's Witnesses, like Protestants, are restorationists, believing they are getting "back to basics". So they should be included too, if you're using that basis.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.
, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.
Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed.
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
I find it fascinating, though I only have GCSE level knowledge!
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.
, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.
Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed.
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
I find it fascinating, though I only have GCSE level knowledge!
Me too, although my school was criticized for its particularly poor RE teaching, so I put even less weight on what I learned there!
Makes a nice break between Referendum battles though.
Mr. 1983, you could legitimately also say the filioque saw the Roman Church break away. Despite nonsense about the Donation of Constantine, the Emperor was Vice-Gerent of God and the Patriarch of Byzantium could make a strong claim to equal billing with the Pope, if not pre-eminence.
Modified Sainte-Laguë in constituencies and nationally; compensatory; semi-open list (8% of a party's vote to upset the list); threshold 4% nationally, 12% in a constituency.
So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.
Its all a bit weird.
OR they just agreed with you to get rid of a bloody annoying canvasser?!
Yeah, you are right that is definitely (e).
But of the alleged surge in Yes or the swing in No supporters to yes supposedly picked up by the polls, particularly Yougov, there was no sign at all.
The second last house which were now 3 definite "yesses" seemed to arise because the previous canvasser had spoken to the mother and I was speaking to the son who was a first time voter and obviously very pro yes.
Recent events, not least the "battle of Reform Street" (on which I have previously commented and which seemed to me more a joke than a battle) had clearly had more impact on the people I was speaking to. In the odd house I was treated like a returner from the Somme, which made it difficult to keep a straight face.
Tweets from Murdoch tonight suggest he has got a touch of the wobbles about Scottish independence.
He seems to have imagined there was a possibility of a Scotland outside both the UK and the EU which makes one wonder whether he has really lost it. Or what he has been smoking.
It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.
Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.
If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.
[snip] )
It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
Neil, they can do what they want.
[snip]
Swissbob seems to be under the impression that Scotland becomes independent on 19th September rather than at the point of the passing of Act of Separation (or date contained within) at Westminster.
Poor show. Of course I understand the situation. It is my opinion that Scots MPs will be illegitimate after a 'Yes' vote.
And not just mine.
It is pretty unlikely that the Civil Service have not 'war gamed' this out and already have advice ready for the PM as to what to do next wrt to Scottish MPs. IMHO it will be that they continue as they are until Separation in 2016, or more likely late 2017. The UK has lived for years with the fabled West Lothian Question unanswered; a few more months will not matter to most people, once everyone has calmed down and refocussed on X-Factor/Strictly.
Would one not expect an 'informal' but real enough concordat of all parties, to make sure the Labour/LDs avoid breaching the WLQ? Just to encourage them not to be suicidal. The SNP and Tories are already sorted.
Possibly, but the stakes are raised when one reads in the Sunday Times that Osborne is gaming plans to block future Labour finance plans because they might rely on Scottish MPs to get their first couple of budgets through the House.
Thanks for that. I had a shufti at the print edition at a family member's during dinner but it didn't mention Osborne - else much as you say.
By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter
Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"
Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.
Exit polls were out at 7, Moderates biggest losers, main gainers Sweden Democrats and Feminist Initiative, all other parties (including Social Democrats) changed by 1% or less v 2010.
9/5837 stations reporting, Sweden Democrats currently up 8% at 14%.
If Soc Dems + Greens + Left + Feminists is not a majority (175 needed), Reinfeldt may be able to continue his centre right govt with tacit support of Sweden Democrats.
By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter
Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"
Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.
I see the majority coming from Twitter on the referendum, is any old , made up tripe in order to get retweets et al.
The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.
By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter
Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"
Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.
I see the majority coming from Twitter on the referendum, is any old , made up tripe in order to get retweets et al.
The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.
It's no surprise everyone is running out of ideas by this point. Longest campaign in history, or outside US at least?
By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter
Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"
Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.
I see the majority coming from Twitter on the referendum, is any old , made up tripe in order to get retweets et al.
The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.
It's no surprise everyone is running out of ideas by this point. Longest campaign in history, or outside US at least?
Aye, agreed.
I've seen some real tall tales out there. Some of them are truly ridiculous. As you say though, people running out of ideas so making it up to get that much needed attention, retweets or 'seen' to be a radical.
I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because: a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.
Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.
I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).
Or they were told that if they read the speech then they would be let go
Well quite -or at least told that they would only be 'pretend killed' or something. Then off screen (as it seems) the genuine thing happened. It's all extremely perplexing.
Not really. If you are about to die, but you think that there's a way out you'll take it. Even if it is very low probability.
Worth a read for those interested in the Scottish media (ignore if not). Only discussion in any depth I can remember seeing of the current situation. Ad interesting too that the Sunday Herald circulation has gone up about a quarter since declaring for indy.
Exit polls were out at 7, Moderates biggest losers, main gainers Sweden Democrats and Feminist Initiative, all other parties (including Social Democrats) changed by 1% or less v 2010.
9/5837 stations reporting, Sweden Democrats currently up 8% at 14%.
If Soc Dems + Greens + Left + Feminists is not a majority (175 needed), Reinfeldt may be able to continue his centre right govt with tacit support of Sweden Democrats.
Thanks
DC
Looks like Swedish Democrats the big winners here. Have to wait until all results are in to see by how much.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. .
Plenty of people would, I am sure, be happy to disagree on that, which is surely the point. I think they'd be wrong, but then clearly we are now just querying about how broad a definition Christianity has, not that one cannot take a very broad definition of it, just where the line is. Given how different some existing denominations are, personally I don't see the introduction of an additional book to be so radical as to make all the things that are so very christian about it mean nothing in comparison. Not believing Jesus was the son of God at all, or something along those lines, seems far more radical than deciding the bible could use some amending, to me at least, and some diverge from 'proper' christian ideas a lot.
But I shall leave it to the Christians to resolve this one I guess. Given the 'return to the teachings of the early church' sort of ideas that pop up over the millenia, people worried about things changing too much over time (not a purely christian thing of course), it might be amusing to wonder if those early christians would feel if some of the largest denominations of today were proper christians or not.
Mormons aren't Christians. They're good people, in the main, but they're not Christian.
The key thing to look at is whether the Anglicans will allow people to participate in Anglican Communion. They're pretty open about the whole thing.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.
You're making up a raty book.
, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.
Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed. And yet previously they were still referred to as Christians, until a more dominant sect decided to declare on their own authority that they could not be christians even if they thought they were apparently.
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true
If Soc Dems + Greens + Left + Feminists is not a majority (175 needed), Reinfeldt may be able to continue his centre right govt with tacit support of Sweden Democrats.
Thanks
DC
Is that a realistic option ? Looks a dreadful result for the Moderates and it now seems they are set to concede to the Social Democrat/Green/Feminist group which looks close to a majority.
More on that H&M byelection, this time from the UKIP candidate himself.
It is going to get very, very, very nasty.
Two absolutely classic paragraphs in that piece:
A BBC Countryfile presenter who won an ageism claim against the broadcaster, Miriam O'Reilly, will head a list of Labour candidates at a constituency hustings on Monday night.
BBC? Couldn't they find a RC Bishop?
There is understood to be unrest among Labour activists at the way local candidates have been overlooked in favour of O'Reilly. Richard Scorer, a solicitor who represents some of the Rochdale abuse victims, has been kept off the final list.
Yep, Labour are really serious about cleaning up their act.
Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own H
I'm ians.
You're making up a raty book.
, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.
Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed. And yet previously they were still referred to as Christians, until a more dominant sect decided to declare on their own authority that they could not be christians even if they thought they were apparently.
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true
They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.
There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.
Comments
Not if the conservatives have anything to do with it, sunshine.
It would suit the tories perfectly to block every rash promise being made by desperate labour and liberal politicians until after 2015.
Labour and UKIP having a giant shouting match about whether labour policies are a major cause of Rotherham etc would suit David Cameron perfectly.
That byelection is a manna from heaven for the tories.
TV4
DEAD HEAT ???
Feminist Initiative get in to Riksdag with over 4%
RED-GREENS 44%
CENTRE-RIGHT COALITION 43%
SWEDEN DEMOCRATS 8.3% (+2.6)
FEMINIST INITIATIVE 4.4% (+4.0)
But I shall leave it to the Christians to resolve this one I guess. Given the 'return to the teachings of the early church' sort of ideas that pop up over the millenia, people worried about things changing too much over time (not a purely christian thing of course), it might be amusing to wonder if those early christians would feel if some of the largest denominations of today were proper christians or not.
UKIP won't be the only ones. Everyone who detests Labour will use it as a stick to beat them with, they deserve it. It should be unremitting until they all resign and disappear from public life,
Left Party (communists) 5.2% (-0.4)
Social Democrats 30.7% (+/- 0.0)
Greens 8.1% (+0.8)
Centre Party (Lib Dems) 7.7% (+1.1)
Christian Democrats 5.7% (+0.1)
Peoples' Party (Lib Dems) 6.8% (-0.3)
Moderates 22.8% (-7.3)
Sweden Democrats (UKIP) 8.3% (+2.6)
Feminist Initiative 4.4% (+4.0)
You also have a reconcilliation mechanism so that if Osborne increases taxes (or reduces them) this is adjusted by the estimated tax change in Scotland
Trolling his tweets again. My observation was that his first of the recent two tweets was; Yes supporting and he got a mild response from the Yes people. Second was No supporting for which Yes abused him aplenty.
His trolling has been an amusement today.
Think also about the new registrants who are mostly poor, young and Yes voters. They know where they are and how to contact them. This is a huge advantage if the polls are right and the race is as tight as they say it is..
Looking like a Red-Green victory:
RED-GREENS 44.8%
CENTRE-RIGHT 39.7%
Feminists UNLIKELY TO BREACH 4% threshold !
Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?
But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.
Left Party 6.6% (+1.0)
Social Democrats 31.1% (+0.4)
Greens 7.1% (-0.2)
Centre Party 6.5% (-0.1)
Peoples' Party 6.0% (-1.0)
Christian Democrats 5.0% (-0.6)
Moderates 22.2% (-7.9)
Sweden Democrats 10.5% (+4.8)
Feminist Initiative 4.0% (+3.6)
And Jehova's Witnesses, like Protestants, are restorationists, believing they are getting "back to basics". So they should be included too, if you're using that basis.
Makes a nice break between Referendum battles though.
Mr. L, good work.
But of the alleged surge in Yes or the swing in No supporters to yes supposedly picked up by the polls, particularly Yougov, there was no sign at all.
The second last house which were now 3 definite "yesses" seemed to arise because the previous canvasser had spoken to the mother and I was speaking to the son who was a first time voter and obviously very pro yes.
Recent events, not least the "battle of Reform Street" (on which I have previously commented and which seemed to me more a joke than a battle) had clearly had more impact on the people I was speaking to. In the odd house I was treated like a returner from the Somme, which made it difficult to keep a straight face.
(a) Making the Westminster elite sweat over his final decision.
(b) Backing the eventual winner, whichever side it is.
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/live/direktrapportering-valdagen
@piersmorgan
Dear People of Scotland, if you vote NO, I promise to go straight back to America. #indyref
Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"
Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.
TV: http://www.svtplay.se/video/2309322/valvakan
Official results: http://www.val.se/val/val2014/valnatt/R/rike/index.html
Results map: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valaret2014/riksdag/Valresultat/#/area=national&graph=procent
Liveblog in English: http://www.thelocal.se/20140914/the-locals-live-blog-sweden-elections-stockholm
Exit polls were out at 7, Moderates biggest losers, main gainers Sweden Democrats and Feminist Initiative, all other parties (including Social Democrats) changed by 1% or less v 2010.
9/5837 stations reporting, Sweden Democrats currently up 8% at 14%.
If Soc Dems + Greens + Left + Feminists is not a majority (175 needed), Reinfeldt may be able to continue his centre right govt with tacit support of Sweden Democrats.
Thanks
DC
The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.
I've seen some real tall tales out there. Some of them are truly ridiculous. As you say though, people running out of ideas so making it up to get that much needed attention, retweets or 'seen' to be a radical.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics
Ladbrokes: 20 people have backed Kim Jong-un to visit Scotland this week at 500/1. 20 more than I expected tbh.
Worth a read for those interested in the Scottish media (ignore if not). Only discussion in any depth I can remember seeing of the current situation. Ad interesting too that the Sunday Herald circulation has gone up about a quarter since declaring for indy.
see by how much.
The key thing to look at is whether the Anglicans will allow people to participate in Anglican Communion. They're pretty open about the whole thing.