politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With just four days to the big day Marf returns to give her

Brilliant Marf.

On Sweden looks from early results like the populist Swedish Democrats the biggest winners. Could that have a small impact on Scotland, if they say they want to be more like the Nordic countries, looks like they will not be able to escape the likes of UKIP after all!

You're on song there Marf. However, I'm told that deep fried Mars bars are irresistible. Must try one, gluten free. DIY that's quite feasible.

I live in Scotland, and if I leave, I'll have nice thoughts/fond memories toward ALL those things. Scotland is great! A wonderful, beautiful country, with fantastic people. Scottish people (and English people) need to realise we're not each other's enemies!

However, I love Marf's drawing style -welcome back.

@ Charles - 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.

There must be a way to categorize, from those who believe in the teachings of Christ, to those who believe in his divinity, to those who believe in X or Y, rather than completely arbitrary definitions like 'At this point from xxx AD, anyone before or after is not a christian if they believe X, even if all their other beliefs match up'

Loving the Extra Slimey Salmond.

FPT

Charles said:

Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

And just who has the authority to declare someone a heretic, and therefore not a Christian? The pope of Rome, some apostate Anglican archbishop or even the state? It is certainly arguable, on the basis of tradition, that your own Anglican sect is nothing more than a heretical bunch of schismatics intent on corrupting the one true apostolic Catholic faith. Indeed, the late Runcie, like Stephen Gardiner before him, devoted much of his time in office to healing the so-called Anglo-Roman schism.

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

Charles said:

Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

And just who has the authority to declare someone a heretic, and therefore not a Christian? The pope of Rome, some apostate Anglican archbishop or even the state? It is certainly arguable, on the basis of tradition, that your own Anglican sect is nothing more than a heretical bunch of schismatics intent on corrupting the one true apostolic Catholic faith. Indeed, the late Runcie, like Stephen Gardiner before him, devoted much of his time in office to healing the so-called Anglo-Roman schism.

Indeed, but then if you look at the state of the CofE today you would have to wonder if Runcie and Gardiner didn't just waste their time.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - 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.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians, might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to, as even a non-christian is able to say without controversy. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

Christians of whatever denomination are of course free to determine for themselves whether an alternate denomination still fits without the bounds of Christianity, even though the see them as still wrong on the particulars. It's just that consensus is hard to achieve - practically unanimous in some areas, Arianism being one I would guess, but not so much others.

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - 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.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

I mention it because my understanding is it's just been quite constant. And when you radically depart from that, for example by adding your own Holy Book (Mormons), you therefore depart from being a Christian in its traditionally understood sense.

SD So it looks like the Sweden Democrats will hold the balance of power, the march of populist eurosceptics across the EU continues

Brill cartoon - and welcome back Marf ; )

A heretic can be very devout.

I think the sine qua non for being a Christian is theism. That would rule out some Anglicans, some US Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Unitarians, and all British Humanists.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - 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.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

I mention it because my understanding is it's just been quite constant. And when you radically depart from that, for example by adding your own Holy Book (Mormons), you therefore depart from being a Christian in its traditionally understood sense.

There may well be near total consensus among Christian denominations as to the 'un-christianity' of some beliefs and sects, and acceptability of others as, while wrong from their perspective, still not enough to be branded as 'un-christian' exactly. But while some parts have more consensus than others, the denominations will continue to determine on a case by case basis it seems.

The possibility that a "yes" vote might spur some Scots to move south reminds me of an obscure, but relevant, episode in American history. In the 18th century, when things were hotting up, a number of loyalists moved across the border to Canada. They were called "Tories" by the (revolting) Americans to be.

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner

So it was a slander against the Orange Order?

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

I've learnt a new phrase tonight;

'Dog Whistle Nationalism'.

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

SD SDP/Moderate Grand Coalition?

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

A heretic can be very devout.

I think the sine qua non for being a Christian is theism. That would rule out some Anglicans, some US Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Unitarians, and all British Humanists.

I would have thought followership of Jesus of Nazareth is more important than theism. Liberal Quakers are more Christian than Gandhi was.

Quakers are assosciate members of Churches together. The reason is not that they are not Christian, it is because they object to any statement of belief on the nature of God, in that all are restrictions on the unknowable.

Certainly it is the SD who are the real winners tonight it seems, though Stefan Lofven is likely to replace Reinfeldt as PM

Toms said:

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

@Toms

She did try to post a thank you for the comments but that has not appeared. Caught in Moderation, or is there a technical problem?


EDIT: Ok, it's through. Thanks.

Looks like the centre-right parties plus the Swedish Democrats are going to get well over 50% of the vote.

nigel4england said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

For a higher price yes. And they will have to pay more for English...custard? What dishes have English in the name?

SD Indeed, will be interesting to see what Lofven does. The SD are anti immigration and anti EU, but economically willing to play the populist card, as UKIP have done with the 'bedroom tax'

marf_the_cartoonist said:

i've really missed PB! Glad to be back. Hope you are all well, and thank you for the kind comments. Been working on a graphic novel, now finished - and so hopefully will have more time now to do more cartoons. Been addicted to the news, as ever, though. That can never change ...

That's wonderful re. the graphic novel! Do you have a publication date?

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner.

In addition, Orange Order banners always have the name and number of the Lodge, which were missing from this banner.

tbh I think the OO should write Salmond a letter of thanks. he billed their march as Kristallnacht and even the Guardian said it was a family day out. I suspect their membership will get a lift as a result.

Source for the Kristallnacht thing please? Doesn't come up on Google.

I was actually taken aback to find that the Sunday Times piece, in the most overtly Unionist newspaper of the three, was rather more dismissive of the OO than the Graun and the Sunday Herald.

MikeK said:

Trash Apparently ‏@a_Londoner 1h
UKIP MEP under police protection because she spoke out against @UKLabour’s protection of ppl linked to child abuse.
http://bit.ly/1oLygsK

More importantly, she's the candidate for Rotherham at the next general election.

Stuart_Dickson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

No, it is not true.

Sinn Fein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left

SNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance

Hey it's a staight forward lie, but why should that upset you ?

Here's the OO organising their latest KKK lodge

http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2005/1643.html

Toms said:

You're on song there Marf. However, I'm told that deep fried Mars bars are irresistible. Must try one, gluten free. DIY that's quite feasible.

Melted Tolberone poured over vanilla ice cream is far tastier and more decadent